Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro

[irish1]

Jim---what the heck is that game they are playing? Feel up the guy with the ball? (LOL)

[jim9449]

Jim---what the heck is that game they are playing? Feel up the guy with the ball? (LOL)

Gets better in the showers:lol: :lol: :lol:

[olly_k]

Also good for sports



Real nice piccy you caught the action well, can we see a 100% crop?

[jim9449]

Real nice piccy you caught the action well, can we see a 100% crop?

as it came out of the camera 10D


http://jim9449.smugmug.com/photos/140832107-M.jpg

[pputkowski]

Here are some. I'm a newbie and these were some of the first pics I have taken with the camera.

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s82/qtrinh75/Kilauea_Lighthouse_001--web.jpg


http://downshizzle.com/gallery/albums/02.07/11DSCN1637-2%20copy2.jpg

:D

[pputkowski]

^ My friend that actually took the pic noticed yours in the thread and showed it to me, I just posted it for him.

[Jamdiver]

Series of shots that I took in Hollywell, Jamaica recently

Morning Dew

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/440731770_10b3a90831_o.jpg

Lines
Can't see the forest for the trees

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/438674138_afd63e5980_o.jpg

Rain and mud is the life of a farmer
So after wandering down the trail I decided to take a left.
I noticed that the 'path' seemed to widen and had a bit of vegetation in the middle.

Curious.

You see dear viewers this is what passes for a road way up in the Mountains here.
I realised this to my suprise after I turned the corner and encountered a farmer smartly dressed in his SUV who promptly stopped to tell me in true Jamaican fashion his tale of woe.

"Rain and mud is the life of a Farmer"

Had to agree with him as the clouds surrounded us once again and the tropical sun failed to pierce it.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/178/438244554_9e65549fcb_o.jpg

Fistful of ferns

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/164/438106302_f003a48a9b_o.jpg

The view

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/425138423_6f205a0288_o.jpg

[El Duderino]

Jamdiver, your photos are awesome. Thanks for sharing with us.

[El Duderino]

http://downshizzle.com/gallery/albums/02.07/11DSCN1637-2%20copy2.jpg

:D

I hope you don't take offense, but I think you went overboard on the saturation (you post processed, right?) I don't know, just my opinion. :)

[Raphael V]

My lens arrived yesterday. I did take a few quick photos.
But judging by the initial images, I think I have a bad copy of the lens.
Images are all soft, hunts for focus even in adequate light, and focus is not always spot on.
I did a quick battery lineup shoot and I don't think my lens has front or back focussing issues.
Zoom ring is very stiff while the focus ring feels lifeless.
Surprisingly, a couple of shots I took at 17mm f2.8 turned out to be sharper than i expected.
Build quality is comparable to the EX series.
I will run a thorough test before I determine it is the lens and not me.
I don't find any improvement in colour rendition or contrast over the kit lens.
I'll let you know about the further developments.

[john.hem]

My lens arrived yesterday. I did take a few quick photos.
But judging by the initial images, I think I have a bad copy of the lens.
Images are all soft, hunts for focus even in adequate light, and focus is not always spot on.
I did a quick battery lineup shoot and I don't think my lens has front or back focussing issues.
Zoom ring is very stiff while the focus ring feels lifeless.
Surprisingly, a couple of shots I took at 17mm f2.8 turned out to be sharper than i expected.
Build quality is comparable to the EX series.
I will run a thorough test before I determine it is the lens and not me.
I don't find any improvement in colour rendition or contrast over the kit lens.
I'll let you know about the further developments.

Can you post a couple of photos to show the problems your having.

John

[Raphael V]

I'll do it in a couple of hours John.

[Raphael V]

Here are the Battery Test shots,

[Raphael V]

This is the first time I'm uploading images, I have something to learn here.

[Raphael V]

First Image was shot having the first battery in focus.
2nd image with the 3rd battery in focus
3rd photo with the last battery in focus.
As I told earlier, i don't think there is a back or front focus problem.

[Raphael V]

Here is a random shot I took and did a lot of sharpening on it (USM 100).

[Nick_C]

How is everyone elses zoom ring on here? "Raphael V" says his zoom ring is very stiff, mine is I guess just normal, not stiff not floppy.

I do get some zoom creep though if I angle the lens right down or up.

If the zoom ring is THAT stiff then it might have been dropped in transit or something like that, which could also explain why you say all your shots are soft.

Nick :-)

[Raphael V]

This one was shot at 17mm f2.8.
I have done no PP on this and the battery shots. Just out of the camera, in RAW and straightaway converted to jpeg.

[Nick_C]

Its a little hard to tell mate without some 100% crops.

F2.8 is the worst end of the 17-70, although saying that I have managed to get some very decent low light shots which have been sharp, you should have REALLY sharp results at say 50mm F5.6, if not then you really do have a bad copy as my one is pretty good at any aperture, 2.8 being the softest but by no means bad!

Nick :-)

[Raphael V]

Hi Nick,
what do you see from the battery shots?
Any front or back focussing?

[thestraydog]

I think the only way to really test sharpness is to photograph somthing with text or similar on it, then take the same shot with another lense to compare. Shots of people or scenery is hard to use as a measure of sharpness.

[angryhampster]

I think the only way to really test sharpness is to photograph somthing with text or similar on it, then take the same shot with another lense to compare. Shots of people or scenery is hard to use as a measure of sharpness.



Not really.

I've never done battery tests, focus chart tests, or etc etc etc... I know all of my lenses are sharp.

[Nick_C]

Hi Nick,
what do you see from the battery shots?
Any front or back focussing?

Your battery shots look perfect to me, no front or back focus at all, so I dont think you have that particular problem.

Nick :-)

[Raphael V]

Low light Autofocussing with my lens is a nightmare.
Focusing ring keeps on moving hither and tither without locking focus.
Since the focus is not locked camera refuses to fire the shutter.

Actually, now i'm beginning to like my kit lens.

[Nick_C]

Low light Autofocussing with my lens is a nightmare.
Focusing ring keeps on moving hither and tither without locking focus.
Since the focus is not locked camera refuses to fire the shutter.

Actually, now i'm beginning to like my kit lens.

Its hard to tell how dark you are shooting in when you say low light, but you shouldnt have that much hassle, my one locks on very fast & with no hunting, the only time I get hunting is if I am trying to focus on something with a uniform colour, like a white door, but no AF system likes that.

Nick :-)

[john.hem]

Close-up of dogs eye. 70mm, f 4.5, 1/100 sec, ISO 400.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Animals/Sheps-Eye.jpg

Shep. 53mm, f4.5, 1/125 sec, ISO400. It's a shame about the background but it is the only place he'd sit still.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Animals/Shep.jpg

John

[olly_k]

Close-up of dogs eye. 70mm, f 4.5, 1/100 sec, ISO 400.

John

Nice pics!

[Dan_S]

john hem - great pics of your dog :)

[mij]

How is everyone elses zoom ring on here? "Raphael V" says his zoom ring is very stiff, mine is I guess just normal, not stiff not floppy.

I do get some zoom creep though if I angle the lens right down or up.

Mine is the same as yours, Nick. The barrel is obviously a little too loose with some creep but the zoom ring itself feels fine, neither loose nor tight.

Michael.

[Nick_C]

Mine is the same as yours, Nick. The barrel is obviously a little too loose with some creep but the zoom ring itself feels fine, neither loose nor tight.

Michael.

Thanks Michael, at least I know mine is the same now ;)

Nick :-)

[Nick_C]

While we are doing pet shots, I dont have any dogs but I do have a tortoise, I think they are quite rare to have as pets now, at least in this country.

17-70 @ 70mm - F/5 - ISO 400

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/202/448621600_c687be7481_o.jpg

Not the best angle but he wouldnt stay still & pose for the camera, he kept wanting to bite my shoe, they can give quite a nip! he tried my finger once mistaking it for something to eat, ouch!! it was like getting your finger caught in a door frame, we all know what thats like :-o

Nick :-)

[disboifan]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/185/449105203_2ed4e65396_b.jpg

[Raphael V]

Great photos everyone.

I wish my copy was also this sharp.

And....Happy Easter everyone.

[john.hem]

Great photos everyone.

I wish my copy was also this sharp.

And....Happy Easter everyone.

Happy Easter to you. Are you getting it replaced or re-calibrated?

John

[khrest]

First attempt at photographing high speed. A bit too successful if you ask me as the express doing 90mph suddenly looks stationary and a bit uninteresting! Only the heat haze over the engine cowlings gives proof that it was actually past me in a heartbeat!

350D - Sigma 17-70 @36mm - 1/800 - F4.0 - ISO200

http://khrest.zenfolio.com/img/p164513770-4.jpg

[Nick_C]

First attempt at photographing high speed. A bit too successful if you ask me as the express doing 90mph suddenly looks stationary and a bit uninteresting! Only the heat haze over the engine cowlings gives proof that it was actually past me in a heartbeat!

350D - Sigma 17-70 @36mm - 1/800 - F4.0 - ISO200



Who says a non USM cant focus fast enough for action shots ;)

I find the 17-70 fast enough for most subjects, now also 90mph trains!

Nick :-)

[Nick_C]

Here is the first image I took on my 17-70.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/178/449776963_1ac5b631c2_o.jpg

Im moving to the country soon so I will have plenty of interesting places to take pictures, living near London in the drab part! is depressing as a photographer, there really isnt anything here to take of any interest & its the same thing for miles, just crap! lol..

Nick :-)

[olly_k]

Some very nice images! I think I have discovered my problem - slight back focus :rolleyes: I had used the test chart a week ago but don't think I had enough light to come to any definate conclusions, so tried the battery test last night and it is quite evident!

Also, I was shooting on manual focus today in my grandparents garden, and I noticed there was a sort of viewfinder 'sparkle' that snaps in and out, that I hadn't seen before (anyone else noticed this on the XT?) I figure this suggesting good focus, but my camera didn't agree!

Should I return to Jessops? do I have to provide my kit lens? and from experience how long will I be without my camera? Anyone with first hand experience here?

I am very impressed with the castle and train shots!!! They are great!

Oh I did get a Sparow Hawk(?) (http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u270/olly-k/SparrowHawk.jpg)carrying nest material today, Manual focus and quite sharp I think! only thing missing was not being on the right side of the sun, and a bit more length in the lens :cry: Above piccie cropped (100%) but levels changed to reveal bird detail. No sharpening.

[Nick_C]

Some very nice images! I think I have discovered my problem - slight back focus :rolleyes: I had used the test chart a week ago but don't think I had enough light to come to any definate conclusions, so tried the battery test last night and it is quite evident!

Also, I was shooting on manual focus today in my grandparents garden, and I noticed there was a sort of viewfinder 'sparkle' that snaps in and out, that I hadn't seen before (anyone else noticed this on the XT?) I figure this suggesting good focus, but my camera didn't agree!

Should I return to Jessops? do I have to provide my kit lens? and from experience how long will I be without my camera? Anyone with first hand experience here?

I am very impressed with the castle and train shots!!! They are great!

Oh I did get a Sparow Hawk(?) (http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u270/olly-k/SparrowHawk.jpg)carrying nest material today, Manual focus and quite sharp I think! only thing missing was not being on the right side of the sun, and a bit more length in the lens :cry: Above piccie cropped (100%) but levels changed to reveal bird detail. No sharpening.

One thing I have found recently is that at 50mm I sometimes get back focus but it doesnt always happen, it depends on what im focussing on, then with my new 55-200 I sometimes get front focus, but again it doesnt happen all the time.

Ive ruled out the actual lenses as the cause as when I did a more controlled test on a chart, whatever focal length I chose it was dead on the mark, no front or back focus, my 17-70 passed with flying colours as did the new 55-200, it only happens occasionally when im outdoors.

Im actually wondering if this is more to do with the 350D & its AF accuracy.

If however you have a constant back focus which you get all the time, on charts/rulers or anything else then that would possibly be the lens.

Even though the 350D doesnt exactly have a shining reputation for its AF, 95% of my shots are spot on so im ok with that, but even the new 1D Mark III or whatever its called that is coming out soon has a new fine control whereby the user can adjust for back or front focus problems when outdoors on a photoshoot, so im wondering WHY put that? maybe lenses or bodies just arnt that accurate all the time.

Another thing I have found that REALLY helps to insure a good focus is say you want to take a shot at 17mm, I zoom to 70mm, focus with the * button on the camera & then zoom out again, then take the photo, it really gives the edge in sharpness, even more so with my 55-200, if I focus at 55mm & then zoom to 200 I see that its not quite sharp, I refocus, zoom out & take the shot & its even better, I know it sounds a hassle but its not that bad, this is also why im starting to blaim the camera body more than the lenses, its like at 17mm I cant really see that well to focus so how can the AF see that well either? by zooming in on the area I wanted in focus I can see it much better to focus, so can the camera! weird I know but short of trying another body its hard to narrow down what is the exact cause.

Nick :-)

[Raphael V]

Happy Easter to you. Are you getting it replaced or re-calibrated?

John

Thanks John.

Unfortunately the lens was not available at my place, so I had it imported through a friend, so it cannot be returned. Regarding reclaibration I have to check whether Sigma has the facility in India.

With Manual focussing the lens is giving somewhat acceptable results. Since I have to live with it, guess I'll use full time manual focus.

Did you see the battery shots. What do you think of them John?

[Raphael V]

[quote=Nick_C;

Another thing I have found that REALLY helps to insure a good focus is say you want to take a shot at 17mm, I zoom to 70mm, focus with the * button on the camera & then zoom out again, then take the photo, it really gives the edge in sharpness, even more so with my 55-200, if I focus at 55mm & then zoom to 200 I see that its not quite sharp, I refocus, zoom out & take the shot & its even better, I know it sounds a hassle but its not that bad, this is also why im starting to blaim the camera body more than the lenses, its like at 17mm I cant really see that well to focus so how can the AF see that well either? by zooming in on the area I wanted in focus I can see it much better to focus, so can the camera! weird I know but short of trying another body its hard to narrow down what is the exact cause.

Nick :-)[/quote]

That's how we used to focus with the manual lenses.

[john.hem]

Thanks John.

Unfortunately the lens was not available at my place, so I had it imported through a friend, so it cannot be returned. Regarding reclaibration I have to check whether Sigma has the facility in India.

With Manual focussing the lens is giving somewhat acceptable results. Since I have to live with it, guess I'll use full time manual focus.

Did you see the battery shots. What do you think of them John?


They looked fine to me. I have had problems with a couple of Sigma lenses in the past not focusing correctly. I tried two copies of a Sigma 24 – 70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro and they both focused incorrectly.

John

[Nick_C]

That's how we used to focus with the manual lenses.

& there was me thinking I had invented a new way of focussing!! :D

Nick :-)

[khrest]

Lincoln town center - Swans, not ducks :-)

http://khrest.zenfolio.com/img/p290148976-4.jpg

Lincoln Cathedral from Lincoln Castle

http://khrest.zenfolio.com/img/p118560774-4.jpg

[olly_k]

Im actually wondering if this is more to do with the 350D & its AF accuracy.

If however you have a constant back focus which you get all the time, on charts/rulers or anything else then that would possibly be the lens.

Even though the 350D doesnt exactly have a shining reputation for its AF, 95% of my shots are spot on so im ok with that, but even the new 1D Mark III or whatever its called that is coming out soon has a new fine control whereby the user can adjust for back or front focus problems when outdoors on a photoshoot, so im wondering WHY put that? maybe lenses or bodies just arnt that accurate all the time.



Hi Nick yes I agree, I think it could be a camera issue.... Now, I would have thought that consistant back or front focus would be more the camera not the lens, only because of course the camera decides when the lens servo should stop! I guess if there was slack in the servo system and the motor 'creeped' after the camera telling it to stop then it would be the lens....

It is also very interesting what you have said about the 1d, maybe they want to reduce the number of units sent back to the factory, as it is such an easy test to perform!
I am interested actually how they perform the adjustments on our camera - surely they have some setup that doesn't require the lens to be removed for each tweak to be made? I think that is the only thing stopping me from trying this myself :o (and a bloody good job too!)


Another thing I have found that REALLY helps to insure a good focus is say you want to take a shot at 17mm, I zoom to 70mm, focus with the * button on the camera & then zoom out again, then take the photo, it really gives the edge in sharpness,

Now I didn't realise these lens's were constant focus throughout zoom range? I thought you only found that in more expensive gear! I will have to try that later, Thanks!

One more thing I don't know if you have noticed the shimmer effect I mentioned above... it would be interesting if you could see it and see if it corrisponds with the auto focus confirmation on your camera!

[Revs]

Another pic for the archive :)

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/4800/nissan180belbo0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[jim9449]

Took this at a Rally yesterday

EXIF is intact

http://jim9449.smugmug.com/photos/142297386-L.jpg

[iplayazi]

A couple for the archive, this lens really performed well for me on my vacation.

Thanks Sigma

Todd
http://www.pbase.com/iplayazi/image/76775173/original.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/iplayazi/image/76776263/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/iplayazi/image/76761430/original.jpg

[nismosr]

Ohhhh S13 !!! sr20det inside i guess ?

Another pic for the archive :)

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/4800/nissan180belbo0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Nick_C]

Hi Nick yes I agree, I think it could be a camera issue.... Now, I would have thought that consistant back or front focus would be more the camera not the lens, only because of course the camera decides when the lens servo should stop! I guess if there was slack in the servo system and the motor 'creeped' after the camera telling it to stop then it would be the lens....

It is also very interesting what you have said about the 1d, maybe they want to reduce the number of units sent back to the factory, as it is such an easy test to perform!
I am interested actually how they perform the adjustments on our camera - surely they have some setup that doesn't require the lens to be removed for each tweak to be made? I think that is the only thing stopping me from trying this myself :o (and a bloody good job too!)



Now I didn't realise these lens's were constant focus throughout zoom range? I thought you only found that in more expensive gear! I will have to try that later, Thanks!

One more thing I don't know if you have noticed the shimmer effect I mentioned above... it would be interesting if you could see it and see if it corrisponds with the auto focus confirmation on your camera!

I think this is the way they adjust for back or front focussing on the 350D

http://66.249.93.104/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&langpair=fr%7Cen&u=http://www.astrosurf.org/buil/autofocus/adjust.htm&prev=/language_tools

They probably hook it up to a meter & measure the ohms or voltage on the pot rather than just twiddling it & trying a few shots.

Im not 100% sure I understand what you mean by the shimmer effect?

Nick :-)

[Nick_C]

A couple for the archive, this lens really performed well for me on my vacation.

Thanks Sigma

Todd



Todd I really love the last image of the city at night, I love the clounds covering the highest building there, very nice, I could just picture that printed out & hung, lovely exposure too.

Nick :-)

[olly_k]

A couple for the archive, this lens really performed well for me on my vacation.

Thanks Sigma

Todd



That cityscape is superb! The clarity and exposure are spot on, and the building disapearing into the clouds really make the shot :D

[olly_k]

I think this is the way they adjust for back or front focussing on the 350D

http://66.249.93.104/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&langpair=fr%7Cen&u=http://www.astrosurf.org/buil/autofocus/adjust.htm&prev=/language_tools

They probably hook it up to a meter & measure the ohms or voltage on the pot rather than just twiddling it & trying a few shots.

Im not 100% sure I understand what you mean by the shimmer effect?

Nick :-)

Hi Nick, LOL I can imagine them messing lol but I am sure they will have some kind of jig to make things easier... would be interesting to find out!


Regarding the shimmerI think it is prob not the ideal word, maybe you could say contrasty area's are enhanced in a textured way - maybe I am seeing an effect of perfect focus on the diffused surface of the focus screen? It seems to 'snap in' when the focus is spot on and snap out just as quickly. When moving the camera I guess this is where you notice it most... I suspect it is only visible on bright sunny days and against very high contrast images though.
Once you have found it in manual focus you will see it more often when the conditions are right.
Anyway, I am generally getting better results in manual focus. I was hoping to get some shots of my daughter at a funfair today but forgot the *&@/ (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/) !!# battery :evil:

[Nick_C]

I can honestly say I have never seen anything like that, im wondering (& its a wild guess) that it "might" have something to do with the diopter setting, im hopelessly shortsighted so wear glasses all the time, maybe if the diopter is set to a particular setting then you might get that effect.

Its most strange though.

Yes im actually liking manual focus more these days, sometimes AF is quicker for certain subjects but when im doing a landscape shot I prefer MF.

Do you have a spare battery? I got a pack from 7dayshop, they were quite cheap but are just as good as the one that came with the camera.

http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_3&products_id=101270

Now ive always got a spare around me someplace ;-)

Nick :-)

[Gluck]

Thats it!!!! I am getting this lens! Beautiful photos by all!

[olly_k]

Yes Nick I think I am blessed with pretty good eyesight really - what had me concerned however is that I can't get perfect focus on the autofocus squares, and my 'comfortable' diopter adjustment seems to be near the end of the scale on this camera. On my Nikon and binoculars it is almost exactly half way so not sure what is going on there!
As for the battery - I only stuck it on for a top up! I really can't see a need for a spare at the moment but will eventually get round to it!

[Nick_C]

Thats it!!!! I am getting this lens! Beautiful photos by all!

Great! im off to buy some shares in Sigma! lol.. another lens sold :D

Nick :-)

[ahh]

Hi Todd,

That's a great shot of the HK skyline! Amazing!

[jim9449]

Took this pic at the local moto-cross
10D, ISO 100, f10, 70mm
http://jim9449.smugmug.com/photos/142737972-L.jpg

[El Duderino]

Took this pic at the local moto-cross
10D, ISO 100, f10, 70mm
http://jim9449.smugmug.com/photos/142737972-L.jpg

Nice! What was the shutter speed?

[BobbyT]

Looks like 1/160 from the exif.

[jim9449]

Looks like 1/160 from the exif.

El Duderino, Bobby T is correct 1/160

[El Duderino]

Thanks. How do you extract the EXIF data? Do you have to save the image first?

[jim9449]

[QUOTE=El Duderino;3020881]Thanks. How do you extract the EXIF data? Do you have to save the image first?[/QUOTE

El Duderino, google Opanda IEXIF 2 and download it, you will be able to see the EXIF.

[Raphael V]

I think this is the way they adjust for back or front focussing on the 350D

http://66.249.93.104/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&langpair=fr%7Cen&u=http://www.astrosurf.org/buil/autofocus/adjust.htm&prev=/language_tools

They probably hook it up to a meter & measure the ohms or voltage on the pot rather than just twiddling it & trying a few shots.

Im not 100% sure I understand what you mean by the shimmer effect?

Nick :-)

I don't understand a word of it.

Anyway, I have read a similar article in English, and there was a post about this in the lens section.

But what i fail to understand is, if the focus problem is with the camera, why does some lenses focus accurately while only a few face this problem?

[Raphael V]

My lens is getting better by the day.

To start with I did not had a back or front focussing problem, but only a focussing problem.

Strangely the zoom ring feels much more loose now, and with it the focussing has improved.

Sunday night I had a event shoot, and i had a 85% keeper rate with this lens.

I keep my 430EX attached to the camera all the time, and with it the low light focussing has improved a lot.

I like the deep colours and contrast, but the flare is uncontrolled.

[BobbyT]

Thanks. How do you extract the EXIF data? Do you have to save the image first?

I have a plug in in Firefox.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3905

[Menkaure]

Well... You people have convinced me. I just sent for a Sigma 17-70! I'll post some as soon as I get it and take a few shots.
Anyone wanna buy a Cheap Canon "KIT" lens?? :lol:

Menkaure

[gef]

Makes me wonder how many people read this thread and decided to buy. Enjoy your new lens, my kit hasn't seen my camera since I got my Sigma!!

[Nick_C]

I don't understand a word of it.

Anyway, I have read a similar article in English, and there was a post about this in the lens section.

But what i fail to understand is, if the focus problem is with the camera, why does some lenses focus accurately while only a few face this problem?

I dont think its always the body to blaim, I think AF accuracy can also be down to the lens used, maybe the accuracy gets better the more you spend? but ive found if I want to shoot at 17mm I get even sharper results by zooming to 70mm, focus with the * button & then zoom out to 17 & take the shot.

Overall though when outdoors I couldnt really say ive had any images ruined by poor focus, it seems to lock on pretty well to anything, its only when im doing tests wide open that I might find a little benefit from zoom-in/focus/zoom-out/snap away, on real-life shots ive never had any problems with focus or sharpness, its VERY sharp! its just now that im turning into a right fussy bugger! :D im trying to get even sharper results all the time, by the zooming trick I can insure I get the subject in perfect focus.

Nick :-)

[BobbyT]

Makes me wonder how many people read this thread and decided to buy. Enjoy your new lens, my kit hasn't seen my camera since I got my Sigma!!

This thread put the final nail in tamron's coffin when deciding between the 2.

[Nick_C]

This thread put the final nail in tamron's coffin when deciding between the 2.

Whenever ive tried Tamron lenses there is something I dislike, ive found that Sigma generally has the better build & faster AF.

Nick :-)

[Raphael V]

Whenever ive tried Tamron lenses there is something I dislike, ive found that Sigma generally has the better build & faster AF.

Nick :-)

I too have a soft corner for Sigma.:p

My respect for Sigma grew when it joined the 'Fourthirds" open standard for digital.

And, this thread has influenced me enoromously in making my selection out of the chosen four:
1. Tamron 17-50 f2.8 XR Di II
2. Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di
3. Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 Macro
4. Sigma 24-70 f2.8.

And I have already nominated Nick for the Oscars.:D

[BobbyT]

1. Tamron 17-50 f2.8 XR Di II
2. Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di
3. Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 Macro
4. Sigma 24-70 f2.8.

That does seem to be the standard 4 a lot of people make their final choice from. The performance of the 17-70 and the 100-300 are swaying me to buy all Sigma. The main exception being if I buy a Canon 85mm.

[BobbyT]

Cheers
http://images23.fotki.com/v763/photos/9/949682/4808732/_MG_9761-vi.jpg

[Nick_C]

I too have a soft corner for Sigma.:p

My respect for Sigma grew when it joined the 'Fourthirds" open standard for digital.

And, this thread has influenced me enoromously in making my selection out of the chosen four:
1. Tamron 17-50 f2.8 XR Di II
2. Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di
3. Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 Macro
4. Sigma 24-70 f2.8.

And I have already nominated Nick for the Oscars.:D

Better get my suit on ready, hope I win!! lol..

The Tamron 17-50 is VERY tempting, I almost got one instead of the 17-70 but I do really love the macro on this thing & the build just seems better.

Nick :-)

[pepperoni]

San Francisco Bay, yesterday morning.

http://jellybeanracing.com/John/Mexico%2007/c9504.jpg

[gef]

Beautiful shot pepperoni... The Sigma can really get some nice landscape shots at 17mm!

[Nick_C]

Yes very nice indeed pepperoni, hey your named after a sausage! lol :-)

Nick ;-)

[El Duderino]

More pictures, please. :cool:

[Nick_C]

Here are some macro shots, I was just messing around with lighting & so on..

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/223/457923242_e64aa13eb4_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/457923246_f393b4d824_o.jpg

Nick :-)

[MeNiS]

^ amazing details on those kiwis.

[angryhampster]

I too have a soft corner for Sigma.:p

My respect for Sigma grew when it joined the 'Fourthirds" open standard for digital.

And, this thread has influenced me enoromously in making my selection out of the chosen four:
1. Tamron 17-50 f2.8 XR Di II
2. Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di
3. Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 Macro
4. Sigma 24-70 f2.8.

And I have already nominated Nick for the Oscars.:D

I can't say enough good things about Sigma's 24-70. It is easily the quickest-focusing lens in your "chosen four." If you can deal with not having 17-23 mm (simply take a few steps back ;) ) ...Then IMHO, there's no contest.

[Nick_C]

Here is one more shot for tonight.

Nothing stunning but really a lowlight test, I was travelling in the car on a 600mile round trip (tiring!) & this was a service station at around 5am in the morning, it was really bitter cold out so I shot this through the car window at 17mm F2.8 ISO1600, handheld of course.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/237/458010642_2c08ffaecb_o.jpg

When you have been driving all night you dont exactly think too well about composition & such things! it would have been better if id rolled down the window, but it was chilly!!! & everyone else in the car would have moaned "shut that bloody window" lol..

Nick :-)

[Nick_C]

^ amazing details on those kiwis.

Thanks! they didnt last long after that photoshoot :D hmmm tasty!

Nick :-)

[grizzy]

Just got back from Boston...went to opening day at Fenway Park! Anyway, these were all taken with my 17-70:

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p1068084525-4.jpg

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p911491847-4.jpg

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p659058336-4.jpg


http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p998317496-3.jpg

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p812529973-3.jpg

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p757333148-4.jpg

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p949152008-3.jpg

[Nick_C]

Very nice, I especially like the view out of the plane window.

Nick :-)

[Cap0ne]

Great UWA even on crop body :D

http://www.fototarget.ro/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=22563&d=1175369535

[Nick_C]

Whoa!! that is such a freaky shot :-p

Nick :-)

[ZekaG]

Nice shots. The more I look at this thread the more I want to get this lens.

[doubleo6point9]

Don't really post too often but here are a few of my 17-70 shots.


http://www.notquite007.com/pictures/sea12.jpg


http://www.notquite007.com/pictures/pier60bch2.jpg


http://www.notquite007.com/pictures/chanarabw.jpg


http://www.notquite007.com/pictures/bffwagon.jpg


http://www.notquite007.com/pictures/seattle2.jpg

[Nick_C]

I really love the old wagon in the desert, fantastic shot!

Nick :-)

[OrionD]

The wagon in the desert is an amazing picture...
i love the baby being held BW as well...

Cheers

[PhotoFranz]

I just got all new equipment last week. Here is a shot I took with the Rebel XTi with the Sigma 17-70 on the front.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/249/450063242_dbe787d068_o.jpg

[boink]

1.
http://kniob.net/photog/070413/070413-07.jpg

2.
http://kniob.net/photog/070413/070413-08.jpg

3.
http://kniob.net/photog/070413/070413-09.jpg

4. (just messing around here. Added a monochrome filter and a photo warming filter in CS2)
http://kniob.net/photog/070413/070413-10.jpg

[Raphael V]

Just got back from Boston...went to opening day at Fenway Park! Anyway, these were all taken with my 17-70:

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p1068084525-4.jpg

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p911491847-4.jpg

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p659058336-4.jpg


http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p998317496-3.jpg

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p812529973-3.jpg

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p757333148-4.jpg

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p949152008-3.jpg

Fabulous shots grizzy.

[Raphael V]

My 17-70 has started to behave itself.

It is getting better by the day. I have figured out most of its weakness, and I have found a way to live with it. With focus assist from my 430 EX the low light focussing problem is almost over.

But in strong backlight, it simply refuses to lock focus, and I resort to manual focus here.

[grizzy]

Thanks Raphael V!

[Dan_S]

Some great shots coming from this lens. I want one too :)

[El Duderino]

Does anyone shoot with a polarizer with this lens? If so, what kind?

[olly_k]

Does anyone shoot with a polarizer with this lens? If so, what kind?

I would love to try a polarizer, but at £26 they are a little bit hard to justify. I haven't even bought a UV filter for it yet!

[Nick_C]

Does anyone shoot with a polarizer with this lens? If so, what kind?

Yes I have a 72mm Polarizer which I occasionally use with this lens, 72mm's are quite expensive so thats why I got a cheap one from ebay, it might not be as good as a Hoya but put it this way, there is no flare or decrease in sharpness when I use it so im happy :D

I dont use it that much though, I find with polarizers its either "WOW" what a difference or "hmmm" nothing much at all, it all depends on the light angle, I also hate the way they reduce the light, but they are worth having all the same, the clouds really pop out when using one.

Nick :-)

[Nick_C]

I would love to try a polarizer, but at £26 they are a little bit hard to justify. I haven't even bought a UV filter for it yet!

I spent £10 for the Hoya G Series & havent had any problems, I recently got a 55mm HMC UV from ebay really cheap.

I would order something like this:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/C013-Hoya-72mm-72-HMC-Multi-Coated-UV-N-Filter_W0QQitemZ120108214935QQihZ002QQcategoryZ152 19QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Polarizers are quite expensive, I would keep an eye out for one on ebay rather than spending at a high street store, I am glad I got mine but if I didnt have it I wouldnt exactly miss it all that much, its something worth having but not the end of the world if you dont have one.

Nick :-)

[olly_k]

I spent £10 for the Hoya G Series & havent had any problems, I recently got a 55mm HMC UV from ebay really cheap.

I would order something like this:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/C013-Hoya-72mm-72-HMC-Multi-Coated-UV-N-Filter_W0QQitemZ120108214935QQihZ002QQcategoryZ152 19QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Polarizers are quite expensive, I would keep an eye out for one on ebay rather than spending at a high street store, I am glad I got mine but if I didnt have it I wouldnt exactly miss it all that much, its something worth having but not the end of the world if you dont have one.

Nick :-)

Do you keep your UV filter on all the time Nick?

[Nick_C]

Do you keep your UV filter on all the time Nick?

Yes I do, I dont buy into this whole UV degrades the image myth, ive never noticed any loss of sharpness by using one, you might get a little more flare under extreme conditions, like pointing into a sunset, but I keep the hood on all the time which stops a lot of that you can always take it off it you do suspect a problem.

Come to think of it, I have never had an image ruined by flare, neither have I had the situation when I have had to remove it (so far), im only using the Hoya G series as well, these are only coated once, I wouldnt mind getting a HMC one just to be on the safe side.

I wouldnt say go mad & get the Pro series as I might be wrong but it makes me wonder if the filters that have only a few coatings may perform better than ones that have much heavier coatings, surely all the coatings "could" reduce sharpness, maybe thats when people run into problems.

I actually did a little test yesterday when I was trying a macro shot with the 17-70, I tried one with the UV & another without, this is what I found.

I found that the images were actually a little sharper WITH the UV filter fitted, that cant be right can it? have a look at these shots, done on a tripod with focus locked on, mirror lockup, cable release etc etc..

No UV Filter (a naked lens) :oops:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/177/458989964_a8f17c58cb_o.jpg

With Hoya UV Filter

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/182/458989946_e01f1a4ed6_o.jpg

WHAT IS GOING ON?????

Its noticeably sharper WITH the UV filter fitted, I thought I must have made a mistake & got the photos muddled up, so I did a new set of photos & I know 100% that there are now no mistakes, the same results happened, so I tried some other tests & again the same thing, UV = slight sharpness gain.

This is VERY VERY strange but great as it means leaving my UV on all the time (even under controlled conditions) is actually a benefit, I even thought I may have upset the focus by unscrewing the filter, so I tried a set of images where I just hooked the UV on by just 1 thread, it was hardly holding on but enabled me to remove it without disturbing the camera setting, still the same results! WERID :confused:

I think the whole UV effecting image clarity debate is based on luck of the draw & what lens you are using, as you can see the 17-70 with my Hoya 72mm G Series UV actually gets better results which I cant explain, but the 55mm HMC UV that I got the other day for my 55-200 has not made any difference, I think there is the slightest loss of sharpness but its really such a small degree as to be not visible, maybe because its a HMC rather than the basic model, too many coatings perhaps.

Anyway im rambling now so I will leave it at that..

Nick :-)

UPDATE: I meant to say, these shots above were 100% crops with no post processing, so anyone wondering what the macro looks like on the 17-70 this is it, the actual image was of the PCB on the bottom of a harddrive, these were surface mount components which if you have a look at the PCB on a HD you can see how small they are.

[olly_k]

Nick :-)

LOL you always make me doubt my own decisions after I have made them Nick! Just put a bid on for a Pro 1. If I lose this I will buy the filter you sent in the link, but what does it mean with it being an 'n' filter?

[Nick_C]

LOL you always make me doubt my own decisions after I have made them Nick! Just put a bid on for a Pro 1. If I lose this I will buy the filter you sent in the link, but what does it mean with it being an 'n' filter?

Oh im sorry about that, remember though its only a theory of mine, its probably totally meaningless, if you do win that one then im sure it will be fine.

What do you mean by the "n" ? did I miss something? as I havent the foggiest idea what you are talking about :eek:

I had a theory about why the UV shot was slightly sharper (yep another wild theory) at those distances focus is VERY critical & half a mm can make or break the shot, so im thinking that adding the UV has made the shot sharper by a fraction because of the extra glass, the very slight convex or concave nature of the UV has brought the focus in better, just a theory :p

Nick :-)

[doubleo6point9]

I really love the old wagon in the desert, fantastic shot!

Nick :-)


Thanks Nick. That shot was actually taken on a part of the original Oregon Trail out by Scottsbluff, NE. I doubt that's an original wagon from back in those days but I never did ask so I don't know for sure. Either way, made for a great picture!

[doubleo6point9]

The wagon in the desert is an amazing picture...
i love the baby being held BW as well...

Cheers

Thanks Orion. The picture of the baby is of my niece when she was around 7 days old. I spent the entire afternoon waiting for her to open her eyes atleast once so that I could get a picture but she never did.

[olly_k]

Oh im sorry about that, remember though its only a theory of mine, its probably totally meaningless, if you do win that one then im sure it will be fine.

What do you mean by the "n" ? did I miss something? as I havent the foggiest idea what you are talking about :eek:

I had a theory about why the UV shot was slightly sharper (yep another wild theory) at those distances focus is VERY critical & half a mm can make or break the shot, so im thinking that adding the UV has made the shot sharper by a fraction because of the extra glass, the very slight convex or concave nature of the UV has brought the focus in better, just a theory :p

Nick :-)

the link you gave me is for this.. Hoya 72mm 72 HMC Multi-Coated UV (N) Filter and you were talking about the G series.
Now, as for focussing really don't know there, The only thing I do know is that semiconductors are generally quite un-responsive to UV, so maybe the filter is effecting light at different frequencies too.
Maybe it was just chance, and if you were to take 100 shots it would actually turn out to be 50/50?

[Nick_C]

the link you gave me is for this.. Hoya 72mm 72 HMC Multi-Coated UV (N) Filter and you were talking about the G series.
Now, as for focussing really don't know there, The only thing I do know is that semiconductors are generally quite un-responsive to UV, so maybe the filter is effecting light at different frequencies too.
Maybe it was just chance, and if you were to take 100 shots it would actually turn out to be 50/50?


Oh right it was on the link I gave, sorry im with you now, I have no idea what that is, its got me wondering now, ive googled it & seen others with "n" after the title, hmm strange.

This is the actual one I got, I ordered it from this website, however I now see on ebay you can get the Hoya HMC version for around that same money so...

http://www.thedigitalcamerashop.co.uk/product_details.php?id=1148

Nick :-)

[Nick_C]

Thanks Nick. That shot was actually taken on a part of the original Oregon Trail out by Scottsbluff, NE. I doubt that's an original wagon from back in those days but I never did ask so I don't know for sure. Either way, made for a great picture!

Yes to us Brits over the pond scenes like that are always welcome as we dont see things like that over here, very nice indeed.

Nick :-)

[Nick_C]

Going back to the question about using a polarizer on the 17-70, I had a search through my images as I knew I had some test shots I did when I first got my polarizer, I found a couple, just of my back garden (along with rubbish waiting to be cleared as well).

No Polarizer:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/235/459123331_d800f43a0b_o.jpg

With Polarizer:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/220/459123327_0eb1046d78_o.jpg

It tends to take off the harshness of the midday sun & brings back some colour into the foliage in the trees, also the clouds in the sky pop out a little more, its worth having I think but I wouldnt want to pay a huge amount for one, we dont get that much SUN!! lol.

They are also useful for cutting down reflections if you are shooting something indoors, they have their uses.

Nick :-)

[Nick_C]

I also found this shot, I forgot I took this one, another shot for our ever growing 17-70 collection on here ;-)

I was on my first trip househunting down in the west country, we were driving along & I was just snapping away out of the passenger window when I got this shot, it was gone in like a second or two but would have been a nice shot, shame I never had the camera turned around to portrait angle, I would have got the spire in view.

This was the original, but a few minutes later in CS2 & all the clutter has gone, much better now, im going to do more shots like this when im living there, they have some great views down there.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/223/459175012_8cfe2d6d77_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/252/459175018_763103db4f_o.jpg

Nick :-)

[grizzy]

Great comparison shot Nick.

I'm in the market for one as I'll be spending two weeks in the British Virgin Islands...just had to rub it in a little :).

[JMHPhotography]

Ok... lemme lay the ground work first. If you look in my signature, you'll see that I already have a 24-70L which I LOVE. You'll also see that I have a 17-40L. Again... LOVE. So why did I just buy the 17-70 Sigma? Simple. It was opertunity. My friend was looking for an ultra wide solution and ordered the Tamron 17-35mm from Adorama some months ago. It was on backorder the whole time... until she finally got an email stating that the order would be cancelled since they would get no more of the Tamron's in. So she ordered the 17-70 Sigma, without realizing it was a DC lens. No worky on her 35mm. Bummer. In the meantime, she gets another email from Adorama saying the Tamron that was supposed to be cancelled was being shipped. She got both. She wanted to send one back since she didn't need both. I said, ya know... I may be interested lemme look at it. So I did and I like it. So why would I be interested? Well... I'm getting the 5D and wanted to run two cameras with a third (my 20D) for my assistant to use to get table and guest snaps at weddings. I figured the 17-70mm range would be PERFECT on the 20D for this task. In the meantime, I plan to run my 24-70L on my 5D and my 17-40L on my 5D when I want ULTRA-WIDE... which is what it was built for, right? I will keep the 70-200L on my 30D for those telephotos shots. My lens swapping should be minimal... only for when I want to use specialty lenses... like the UW of the 17-40L or one of my primes for really low light situations. Anyway... back to the Sigma. I've been playing with it on the 20D and I gotta say, this is one really nice lens. For the money, it's outstanding. It's SOLID.. No wobble on the front barrel extended out. zoom feels really smooth and snug but not tight. The AF is pretty quick given that it's not USM or HSM. It's noisey, but who cares.. it's not annoying. The images are SHARP! Here's my contribution... I snapped this at her office while doing some IT work for her company.. and that is where I got to test out the lens. This will have to suffice as my "duck" shot... hahaha..
http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/5047/mg0080ab9.jpg

[Nick_C]

Ok... lemme lay the ground work first. If you look in my signature, you'll see that I already have a 24-70L which I LOVE. You'll also see that I have a 17-40L. Again... LOVE. So why did I just buy the 17-70 Sigma? Simple. It was opertunity. My friend was looking for an ultra wide solution and ordered the Tamron 17-35mm from Adorama some months ago. It was on backorder the whole time... until she finally got an email stating that the order would be cancelled since they would get no more of the Tamron's in. So she ordered the 17-70 Sigma, without realizing it was a DC lens. No worky on her 35mm. Bummer. In the meantime, she gets another email from Adorama saying the Tamron that was supposed to be cancelled was being shipped. She got both. She wanted to send one back since she didn't need both. I said, ya know... I may be interested lemme look at it. So I did and I like it. So why would I be interested? Well... I'm getting the 5D and wanted to run two cameras with a third (my 20D) for my assistant to use to get table and guest snaps at weddings. I figured the 17-70mm range would be PERFECT on the 20D for this task. In the meantime, I plan to run my 24-70L on my 5D and my 17-40L on my 5D when I want ULTRA-WIDE... which is what it was built for, right? I will keep the 70-200L on my 30D for those telephotos shots. My lens swapping should be minimal... only for when I want to use specialty lenses... like the UW of the 17-40L or one of my primes for really low light situations. Anyway... back to the Sigma. I've been playing with it on the 20D and I gotta say, this is one really nice lens. For the money, it's outstanding. It's SOLID.. No wobble on the front barrel extended out. zoom feels really smooth and snug but not tight. The AF is pretty quick given that it's not USM or HSM. It's noisey, but who cares.. it's not annoying. The images are SHARP! Here's my contribution... I snapped this at her office while doing some IT work for her company.. and that is where I got to test out the lens. This will have to suffice as my "duck" shot... hahaha..


Looks nice & sharp to me, it would be interesting to see an identical shot taken on your 17-40L & the 17-70 for comparison.

Nick :-)

[JMHPhotography]

Looks nice & sharp to me, it would be interesting to see an identical shot taken on your 17-40L & the 17-70 for comparison.

Nick :-)

To be perfectly honest... and don't get me wrong, I love my 17-40L but the 17-70 seems to be every bit as sharp as my 17-40. Where I love the L is the constant aperature. Yes, I know it's F4 but it's constant. And the fact that I'll be able to use it on the 5D and my 35mm.

I can certainly post up some comparisons tomorrow though... just for fun. Oh, the Sigma can focus at a closer distance as well... NICE!!!

[Bonjour43ma]

Just got this lens from the buy&sell forum here... so far so good, very good lens for the money that's for sure.

http://www3.telus.net/public/berno2kn/IMG_0247c.jpg

:)

[Nick_C]

To be perfectly honest... and don't get me wrong, I love my 17-40L but the 17-70 seems to be every bit as sharp as my 17-40. Where I love the L is the constant aperature. Yes, I know it's F4 but it's constant. And the fact that I'll be able to use it on the 5D and my 35mm.

I can certainly post up some comparisons tomorrow though... just for fun. Oh, the Sigma can focus at a closer distance as well... NICE!!!

Yeah go on mate, just for fun! it would interesting to see how they compare.

Nick :-)

[khrest]

Got lucky with a hand held macro shot today.

http://garybrown.zenfolio.com/img/p322957582-4.jpg

[TornadoFarm]

A few recent ones:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/DickTwister/kc2web.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/DickTwister/kc1web.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/DickTwister/fire6.jpg

More on my blog

www.stackedplates.blogspot.com

[olly_k]

Got lucky with a hand held macro shot today.

http://garybrown.zenfolio.com/img/p322957582-4.jpg

Sorta looks like a dude carrying marrows or somthing :D

[El Duderino]

A few recent ones:


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/DickTwister/fire6.jpg



I could be way off, but is that Kansas City?

[TornadoFarm]

I could be way off, but is that Kansas City?

lol yep, all of those are.......downtown. Big chemical fire a couple of months ago.......

[Raphael V]

Oh im sorry about that, remember though its only a theory of mine, its probably totally meaningless, if you do win that one then im sure it will be fine.

What do you mean by the "n" ? did I miss something? as I havent the foggiest idea what you are talking about :eek:

I had a theory about why the UV shot was slightly sharper (yep another wild theory) at those distances focus is VERY critical & half a mm can make or break the shot, so im thinking that adding the UV has made the shot sharper by a fraction because of the extra glass, the very slight convex or concave nature of the UV has brought the focus in better, just a theory :p

Nick :-)


I like your theory.;)

But I don't second it.:lol:

[Nick_C]

I like your theory.;)

But I don't second it.:lol:

Ok cleverclogs :p what do you think it was? focus was locked, study tripod, nothing moved etc..

Nick :-)

[-spam-]

Here are some of mine from when i borrowed my dads 17-70 the last time.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/186/437090592_c5a3c1e436_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/-spam-/437090592/)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/436382427_ae1cb44176_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/-spam-/437090592/)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/146/436382423_eaee8f4d1f_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/-spam-/436382423/)

[purelithium]

Some springtime shots.

Levels adjusted.

Larger (http://www.thethirdelement.org/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1232&g2_GALLERYSID=5a5b8e982d479c7446e488643043f88e)
http://www.thethirdelement.org/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1234&g2_serialNumber=2&g2_GALLERYSID=5a5b8e982d479c7446e488643043f88e


Larger (http://www.thethirdelement.org/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1229&g2_GALLERYSID=5a5b8e982d479c7446e488643043f88e)
http://www.thethirdelement.org/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1231&g2_serialNumber=2&g2_GALLERYSID=5a5b8e982d479c7446e488643043f88e


Larger (http://www.thethirdelement.org/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1226&g2_GALLERYSID=5a5b8e982d479c7446e488643043f88e)
http://www.thethirdelement.org/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1228&g2_serialNumber=2&g2_GALLERYSID=5a5b8e982d479c7446e488643043f88e


Larger (http://www.thethirdelement.org/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1222&g2_GALLERYSID=5a5b8e982d479c7446e488643043f88e)
http://www.thethirdelement.org/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1224&g2_serialNumber=2&g2_GALLERYSID=5a5b8e982d479c7446e488643043f88e

[Raphael V]

My son Hans

100% crop

ISO 1600

Sigma 17-70

[Raphael V]

Ok cleverclogs :p what do you think it was? focus was locked, study tripod, nothing moved etc..

Nick :-)


May be the filter:D

[olly_k]

Here are some of mine from when i borrowed my dads 17-70 the last time.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/186/437090592_c5a3c1e436_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/-spam-/437090592/)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/436382427_ae1cb44176_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/-spam-/437090592/)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/146/436382423_eaee8f4d1f_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/-spam-/436382423/)

Hey spam - I hope you don't mind me commenting on your piccies.... well I am going to anyway! While they are nice they are far too contrasty for my liking. 30 seconds in PSP and I got them looking more natural and pleasing to the eye and brought a lot of detail out of the shadows - I am sure others could do much better than me! I can show you the results if you like..?

[2gDSM]

This lens does seem to suffer from some barrel distortion at the 17mm end, but not more so than most of the other UWA lenses I've seen in this type of shot.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/463124101_91c53a5f4c_o.jpg

[gef]

I usually correct for barrel distortion on shots taken between 17-24mm with this lens using ptlens, anything greater than that I don't bother. Nor do I correct for pincushion at the long end because I don't tend to notice it.

I corrected the above image for 17mm using the Sigma 17-70 profile:
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u88/gef_2007/potn/463124101_91c53a5f4c_o_pt.jpg

[2gDSM]

Are you using DxO?

[olly_k]

This lens does seem to suffer from some barrel distortion at the 17mm end, but not more so than most of the other UWA lenses I've seen in this type of shot.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/463124101_91c53a5f4c_o.jpg

I like that piccy!

[olly_k]

I usually correct for barrel distortion on shots taken between 17-24mm with this lens using ptlens, anything greater than that I don't bother. Nor do I correct for pincushion at the long end because I don't tend to notice it.

I corrected the above image for 17mm using the Sigma 17-70 profile.

http://lh4.google.com/image/geflatt/RiUgPWqZnOI/AAAAAAAADUs/RPs0XjBR1ic/463124101_91c53a5f4c_o_pt.jpg

I would like to see the corrected shot using ptlens, as I have considered this myself!
You appear to have a bad link!

[ivalcordo]

taken at daytona beach

[gef]

I corrected the link. Whoops sorry about that... I used PTlens for the correction, I believe at one point PTlens and DxO were using the same profiles, but I don't think this is the case anymore.

[-spam-]

I can show you the results if you like..?

That would be great :)

[DerekPb]

i just ordered mine today will be here friday i can not wait!!! WOOO_HOOO

[Nick_C]

i just ordered mine today will be here friday i can not wait!!! WOOO_HOOO

Welcome to the club :p im sure you will love it, we all do!! lol.

Nick :-)

[olly_k]

ok heres another piccy - very spur of the moment and I got this a bit wonky. I think there is a little barrel distortion visible too. Resized large image with a TINY bit of unsharp ( ~ 1.25 / 35% because I lost sharpness in downsize) apart from this it is untouched and pure 100%. Nothing at all done to crop. Shot in JPG too.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u270/olly-k/1770example.jpg

AE 1/320 @f13 ISO 200 (would have been 100 but forgot to check!) 17mm handheld.


http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u270/olly-k/1770example100.jpg

I really wish we could somehow devise a benchmark test to see if there really are differences between lens's or how much of it is down to the user / camera!

Olly.

[olly_k]

That would be great :)

Check my scrapbook spam... much more could be done, but it is an example. I might have lost a bit too much contrast tbh but as I am new to a real camera and PP'ing myself tell me what you think and be honest!!!

[Nick_C]

Check my scrapbook spam... much more could be done, but it is an example. I might have lost a bit too much contrast tbh but as I am new to a real camera and PP'ing myself tell me what you think and be honest!!!

Some very nice images there m8.

Nick :-)

[-spam-]

Check my scrapbook spam... much more could be done, but it is an example. I might have lost a bit too much contrast tbh but as I am new to a real camera and PP'ing myself tell me what you think and be honest!!!

Not bad at all. I think i prefer the original version of the sky scraper though. But the casino building shot came up quite nice. :)

[chet79]

I really wish we could somehow devise a benchmark test to see if there really are differences between lens's or how much of it is down to the user / camera!

Olly.
That'd be great. Maybe if people were to take a shot of the same thing? Like house bricks, standing a set distance away?

[Jayson Prentice]

So does anybody want to get rid of theirs to let someone else enjoy it? I should be joining this club shortly, as soon as I find somebody willing to sell or a great price online...

[DerekPb]

So does anybody want to get rid of theirs to let someone else enjoy it? I should be joining this club shortly, as soon as I find somebody willing to sell or a great price online...

www.sigma4less.com (http://www.sigma4less.com)

they are not a scam i belive i read soo many reviews and tlked to people about it and everything is A++ they even called me to confirm the order.

MINE WILL BE HERE FRIDAY!!!

[angryhampster]

www.sigma4less.com (http://www.sigma4less.com)

they are not a scam i belive i read soo many reviews and tlked to people about it and everything is A++ they even called me to confirm the order.

MINE WILL BE HERE FRIDAY!!!



Sig4less is a great seller. I bought my 150 macro from them.