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

[Jayson Prentice]

Yes I know about sigma4less, I ordered my 70-300 APO from them and was quite pleased. I'm seeing about some lightly used ones right now, otherwise I'll probably be buying from them once again. Curious, but when did you order yours and what shipping did you use?? I'll probably need mine by next weekend, so I'm wondering if I'm going to have to pay some extra for the shipping to get it here in time.

[dtngo]

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3406/melb01md7.jpg

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/3987/melb08zx6.jpg

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/5466/melb09ih6.jpg

[olly_k]

Some very nice images there m8.

Nick :-)

Thanks Nick! It's not really a photo album as such I use to host piccies for another forum or two but any critisism's are welcome :cool:

[olly_k]

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. :)

Yes it does lose too much contrast although I was using the automatic contrast tool in PSP 7 which has a total of 9 different settings and no in between!

[ahh]

Egghead,

Those are very nice pics. Have you compensated for distortion in PP?

[chet79]

egghead - those look like Melbourne, but I see you're from Sydney. Were you here on a holiday? Nice pics btw.

[TMR Design]

Here are a few from a trip I took to Connecticut and Rhode Island in the Winter. I forgot about these but I always love shooting with the 17-70mm.

[TMR Design]

And one more.

[dtngo]

Egghead,

Those are very nice pics. Have you compensated for distortion in PP?
Nope, only slight enhancements to colour.

egghead - those look like Melbourne, but I see you're from Sydney. Were you here on a holiday? Nice pics btw.
Yep I was there over the Easter break. Love the tram system there :)

[Raphael V]

And one more.


Very nice Images TMR.

Haven't seen you for a while in this thread.

Welcome back.

[TMR Design]

Hi Raphael,

Thanks. I've been busy building my home studio and I typically don't get out a lot to shoot in the colder months. Now that the weather is turning I'll be out a lot more again.

I really enjoy shooting with the lens. It produces great color and sharp images.

[Raphael V]

Hi Raphael,

Thanks. I've been busy building my home studio and I typically don't get out a lot to shoot in the colder months. Now that the weather is turning I'll be out a lot more again.

I really enjoy shooting with the lens. It produces great color and sharp images.

Nice to hear that.

Show us a photo of your home studio. I myself am planning one. I may get some ideas from your work.

And It makes sense for the birds of the same feather (Sigma 17-70) to flock together.

[jim9449]

Out for a walk and spotted this taddy
http://jim9449.smugmug.com/photos/144875624-L.jpg

[TMR Design]

Hello Raphael,

I plan on posting some pictures of my small home studio once I get curtains and some other finishing cosmetics in place. I expect that to all happen in the next month.

The studio is on the small side but makes great use of the space and so far it's working very nicely.

[snedigity]

Would anyone recommend this as a portrait lens?

[TMR Design]

Hello snedigity,

I've been playing with this lens in the studio and experimenting doing portraits with it. For the space I have and the types of shots I like to do I find I usually work between 50mm and 70mm. I like the results so far. The only things I can compare it to are the 50mm f/1.8 that I recently sold and the 70-200 f/4 L (@70mm). At 50mm I find it to produce a sharper image than the 50mm f/1.8. At 70mm it's sharp with nice color and saturation but not as nice as the 70-200mm f/4 L. I find the bokeh to be really nice but not great and since I don't do low light shooting (indoors or out) I don't find f/4.5 (@70mm) to be an issue. I also don't shoot in the studio with anything larger than f/6.3. Having said all that, I am still going to get the 50mm f/1.4 as my primary portrait lens with the 85mm f/1.8 that I currently own, as the complement.

[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:


Nice one Gef I was just noticed you have done this. It has definately sorted the post out quite effectively, but have you seen the arched structure in the background? Interesting!

[DeluxeMan]

Hi guys,
I saw this thread yesterday and I just buy one today! 430$can

oh yeah, realy great so far!

thx for sharing your information

[TMR Design]

Here's one from this afternoon at the marina.

[Raphael V]

Would anyone recommend this as a portrait lens?

I have done some portrait and studio work with this lens.

you'll have nice bokeh.

Certainly recommended.

[pixelmad]

Thanks Raphael V for the link :)

Just got the lens and here are a few shots;

http://www.mychi.us/Forum_Posts/Daisy.jpg

http://www.mychi.us/Forum_Posts/Dandelion1.jpg

http://www.mychi.us/Forum_Posts/Dandelion2.jpg

oh BTW I'm a complete Amateur :)

[Raphael V]

Thanks Raphael V for the link :)

Just got the lens and here are a few shots;

http://www.mychi.us/Forum_Posts/Daisy.jpg

http://www.mychi.us/Forum_Posts/Dandelion1.jpg

http://www.mychi.us/Forum_Posts/Dandelion2.jpg

oh BTW I'm a complete Amateur :)

Oh sure... every one's invited.

I have seen your images. You have an eye for great capture. And remember Rome was not built in a day.

So, happy clicking. But.. remember to show us... your photos, regularly.

[StaticThought]

here's some of mine, had the lens approx. 2 weeks and haven't taken it off yet :)

http://www.static-thought.com/siteimage/smallcrop.jpg
100% Crop
http://www.static-thought.com/siteimage/100crop.jpg

http://www.static-thought.com/siteimage/smallcrop2.jpg
100% Crop
http://www.static-thought.com/siteimage/100crop2.jpg

Outstanding lens.

[jeepenator]

I must say that this thread convinced me to buy the 17-70. Just got it yesterday and have only taken a couple pics. I'll post as soon as I get the chance to pp them.

[olly_k]

here's some of mine, had the lens approx. 2 weeks and haven't taken it off yet :)

100% Crop
http://www.static-thought.com/siteimage/100crop2.jpg

Outstanding lens.

was that a hand held shot? Great detail if it was!

[olly_k]

Thanks Raphael V for the link :)

Just got the lens and here are a few shots;

oh BTW I'm a complete Amateur :)

For a newb they are stunning pics mate absolutely brilliant. Like Raphael said looks like you have a good eye! If I had to criticise them they are a tiny bit soft but the great composition takes your eye away from that!

Olly.

[T Kubik]

Here's a nice one from death valley last week, straight fromt he camera no sharpening.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g307/supertom9903/Sigma.jpg

100% Crop

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g307/supertom9903/Sigmacrop.jpg

[Nick_C]

Here's a nice one from death valley last week, straight fromt he camera no sharpening.



100% Crop



Wow, absolutely sod all for miles & miles! :D

Nick :-)

[grizzy]

Here are three of my son...The "good", the "mad", and the ummmm, well, you'll see :cool: :

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p988366380-3.jpg

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p4511534-3.jpg


http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/img/p680599027-3.jpg

[Nick_C]

haha that last one is totally insane, funny little thing.. :-)

Nick ;-)

[StaticThought]

was that a hand held shot? Great detail if it was!


Thanks Mate, Yes handheld. The tripod I have does'nt point downwards :( .

[joshandlauri]

2 from Today

[Yel00tlr]

I ordered one of thede lenses after seeing all the great comments from this thread.... came in yesterday and it works like a charm...... here is just a couple quick shot's ..... :lol:

[TMR Design]

I ordered one of thede lenses after seeing all the great comments from this thread.... came in yesterday and it works like a charm...... here is just a couple quick shot's ..... :lol:

Very nice and sharp as heck! That's what I love about this lens. Quite a bang for the buck.

[Q Ball]

Here are some shots from the zoo. Can someone tell me if my pictures are too dark or too bright? I was looking at them on my cousins monitor and they seemed a bit dark, but on my monitor they look bright and nice.

Edit: I re-upped the duck picture.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/7875/ducksme1.jpg

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/6886/hyenali1.jpg

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/9981/lizardid7.jpg

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/7305/orangfe8.jpg

[Nick_C]

Here are some shots from the zoo. Can someone tell me if my pictures are too dark or too bright? I was looking at them on my cousins monitor and they seemed a bit dark, but on my monitor they look bright and nice.

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/1811/duckci8.jpg







This duck image looks just a tiny bit too bright on my monitor, its hard to get it right as everyones setup is different.

Nick :-)

[Q Ball]

This duck image looks just a tiny bit too bright on my monitor, its hard to get it right as everyones setup is different.

Nick :-)

Cool! Thanks for the quick reply. Now I know not to brighten my images too much.

[olly_k]

This duck image looks just a tiny bit too bright on my monitor, its hard to get it right as everyones setup is different.

Nick :-)

Hey Nick, I find the duck about right and the others a little dark in places... I think I really need to look at calibrating my monitor!

[DeluxeMan]

http://www.deluxeman.com/PhotoPorteFolio/People/Marie-Andre/images/_MG_8756_BW.jpg

http://www.deluxeman.com/PhotoPorteFolio/People/Marie-Andre/images/_MG_8441_BW.jpg

http://www.deluxeman.com/PhotoPorteFolio/People/Marie-Andre/images/_MG_9540.jpg

[jptsr1]

Here are some shots from the zoo. Can someone tell me if my pictures are too dark or too bright? I was looking at them on my cousins monitor and they seemed a bit dark, but on my monitor they look bright and nice.

Edit: I re-upped the duck picture.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/7875/ducksme1.jpg

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/6886/hyenali1.jpg

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/9981/lizardid7.jpg

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/7305/orangfe8.jpg



They all look fine to me. I've got three monitors here at work so its not likely they are all off. the one with the hyena could be a tad lighter i guess but it still looks good.

[JaGWiRE]

Deluxe, beautiful model.
1ST photo supose to be smoke?

[Eagle]

More wildlife
1st - 17mm, ISO1600, f/2.8, 1/250, flash
2nd - 70mm, ISO400, f/4.5, 1/250, flash

[Jayson Prentice]

I will have some photos to add to this thread tomorrow night! I should have my copy by 4 PM tomorrow... :D

Oh the excitement and anxiety...

[T Kubik]

Here's a good one to show off the sharpness. This was done on tripod w/mirror lock-up.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g307/supertom9903/StonesignNight.jpg

100%

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g307/supertom9903/StonesignNightcrop.jpg

[Jayson Prentice]

Just got my lens about an hour ago, already tested it out in my room here with various things to test its' focusing and sharpness. A few of the shots are below, there are a couple more on my gallery page: Sigma 17-70 Test Shots (http://www.stormcenterusa.com/iowachaser/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2913&g2_highlightId=2919)


http://www.stormcenterusa.com/iowachaser/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2921&g2_serialNumber=6

http://www.stormcenterusa.com/iowachaser/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2923&g2_serialNumber=1


http://www.stormcenterusa.com/iowachaser/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2935&g2_serialNumber=6

[TMR Design]

Hi Jayson,

Looks like you got yourself a nice sharp copy. I was lucky too. My copy is very sharp and I've gotten some great stuff with it on my 30D.The images were tack sharp.

[DerekPb]

I LOVE THE LENS!!!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/471570274_d36b7721f8.jpg?v=0

[grinchy]

here are a few that I took the other day of my kids:

http://i.pbase.com/o6/79/734079/1/77768276.C8MRaPn5._MG_4592.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/grinchy247/image/77768276
http://i.pbase.com/o6/79/734079/1/77768277.t3d0IwbJ._MG_4608.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/grinchy247/image/77768277
http://i.pbase.com/o6/79/734079/1/77768279.iSgthjoI._MG_4613.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/grinchy247/image/77768279


****No Sharpening Done At All****

[DerekI]

I ordered one of thede lenses after seeing all the great comments from this thread.... came in yesterday and it works like a charm...... here is just a couple quick shot's ..... :lol:
your copy seems very sharp ,I guess the QC of the lens now is better than 4 montghs a go when I first tried it.

[kennys350d]

im sorry all my canon brothers and sisters. im placing two orders from sigma. 10-20 and this 17-70. now im working overtime! haha!

[Dan_S]

Just got my 17-70 this morning. It seems very sharp. I'll go get some pics :)

[TMR Design]

im sorry all my canon brothers and sisters. im placing two orders from sigma. 10-20 and this 17-70. now im working overtime! haha!

Hi Kenny,

I have the Sigma 17-70mm and love it. I got mine in October and got a tack sharp copy. It's a great lens and I am thrilled with it.
I'm also going to be getting the Sigma 10-20mm. Both lenses are superb.

Nothing wrong with buying and owning non-Canon gear.

[gef]

Yup the Sigma 10-20mm is most likely next for me too...

[SingingSabre]

I always forget to take my ISO down the next day...hence why the EXIF will say 800.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y208/SingingSabre/POTN%20stuff/DPP_0005.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y208/SingingSabre/POTN%20stuff/DPP_0001.jpg

[Menkaure]

Finally got MY Sigma 17-70 and did some quick pics. These were handheld macro's so they might not be up to this forum's standards. LOVE the lens though...:D

Menkaure

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s83/Menkaure_pics/newlens-6.jpg
http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s83/Menkaure_pics/newlens-9.jpg
http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s83/Menkaure_pics/newlens-2.jpg

[rakesh]

Here are two shots recently taken with 17-70. Straight from Camera after conversion and resizing. No PP done.

http://www.mg-india.com/gallery/392.jpg

http://www.mg-india.com/gallery/0437.jpg

[john.hem]

A couple from today.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/War-Memorial-Port-Sunlight.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/War-Memorial-close-up.jpg

John

[Nick_C]

I have been very impressed with Sigma lenses in general, nice build & capable of producing great results, I recently got a Sigma 55-200 lens & just came back from a trip out with it, you can all see the results here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=291362&page=15

Combined with my 17-70 I think I now have a perfect setup without having to spend a small fortune.

Nick :-)

[tommyhorn]

Some pics from me - 30d with my 17-70 Sigy :D

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/Cap0ne2006/IMG_3407.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/Cap0ne2006/IMG_4655.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/Cap0ne2006/IMG_4650.jpg
WHat is that creature! I want one

[SnowManZ]

WHat is that creature! I want one

Thats is the dubious carnivorous great horned squirrel.

[DerekI]

I have been very impressed with Sigma lenses in general, nice build & capable of producing great results, I recently got a Sigma 55-200 lens & just came back from a trip out with it, you can all see the results here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=291362&page=15

Combined with my 17-70 I think I now have a perfect setup without having to spend a small fortune.

Nick :-)

Thanks for the link , it is nice and I honestly say I agree with your opinion on the comb (17-70 and 55-200) ," without having to spend a samll fortune" , yeah that's important.

People often forget about this and say something like ,"the EF-S17-55IS is a bit sharper than the Sigma ," So how much more expensive is it and how much does it weigh more than the Sigma or Tamron?

People tend to forget moderate size and weight of a lens are very important to some people.

The 17-70 is a nice lens no doubt about it. if I dont have my EF-S17-85IS , I will keep it, but I think they are too similar , so I may keep the Sigma 18-50EX macro , not sure though.

[Nick_C]

Thanks for the link , it is nice and I honestly say I agree with your opinion on the comb (17-70 and 55-200) ," without having to spend a samll fortune" , yeah that's important.

People often forget about this and say something like ,"the EF-S17-55IS is a bit sharper than the Sigma ," So how much more expensive is it and how much does it weigh more than the Sigma or Tamron?

People tend to forget moderate size and weight of a lens are very important to some people.

The 17-70 is a nice lens no doubt about it. if I dont have my EF-S17-85IS , I will keep it, but I think they are too similar , so I may keep the Sigma 18-50EX macro , not sure though.

Thats exactly my thoughts, I know I could gain a slight bit better sharpness by emptying my entire bank account & getting a load of very large & expensive L lenses, but I know I wouldnt get as much use out of them as when I am outdoors I like to be very discreet with all my camera gear, the last thing I want is to look like a paparazzi photographer when im outside with my gear :p

Nick :-)

[TMR Design]

I think it's important to remember that in these forums we have a very diverse group of poeple ranging from paid professionals and serious hobbbyists with significant bank accounts to high school and college students with little to no experience and no budget or bank account. Then we have every possible combination and variation with different needs and wants.

Many times the novice is influenced by all the professionals and forum-driven buying and feel compelled to buy expensive gear or gear they simply do not need. I'm not saying it's not better or that they wouldn't appreciate the difference but sometimes we have to take a step back and try to be objective...and yes, sometimes we need to stop reading all the posts and forums with endless amounts of cash being spent on gear.

Keep in mind that there are many people out there that have a Digital Rebel with the kit lens and they are ecstatic about it. They don't even know why they would need another or different lens and the concept of buying an L lens with the same focal length range for $1000+ makes no sense. Maybe they have a $17 Canon UV filter and don't see any problems with that either but they are repeatedly told to buy a B+W or Heliopan filter for $100+.

It's all perspective but there is this overwhelming contagion of "must buy gear" that exists and for some it is not at all good.

I say that if a lens is getting good reviews and owners of that lens are loving it and producing beautiful images then that should do it. I also believe that in completely blind tests there are many people that would never ever see or know a difference if you showed them 2 images from different lenses where one is considered comsumer grade and the other is an L or high end piece of glass. Professionals with a trained eye might see it. Pixel peeping might reveal it but for the average person there won't be glaring differences and to their eye (the operative 2 words) the image is great.

[Geoff_Shawcross]

Well said Robert.

When I bought this lens, it was to replace my kit lens. Some of the reasons were that this lens covered the same focal length area as the kit lens, plus some more, to bring me up to were my telephoto lens starts. Also this lens had very good reviews (from this thread and elsewhere), and it was an affordable lens (just over $400 Canadian). And on top of all that, I've found it to be a very good lens. I've got some very crisp photos with it, and have yet to be disapointed with it.

For anyone looking to upgrade from their kit lens (when they are ready), this is a great lens to consider as a replacement. :)

[Raphael V]

I think it's important to remember that in these forums we have a very diverse group of poeple ranging from paid professionals and serious hobbbyists with significant bank accounts to high school and college students with little to no experience and no budget or bank account. Then we have every possible combination and variation with different needs and wants.

Many times the novice is influenced by all the professionals and forum-driven buying and feel compelled to buy expensive gear or gear they simply do not need. I'm not saying it's not better or that they wouldn't appreciate the difference but sometimes we have to take a step back and try to be objective...and yes, sometimes we need to stop reading all the posts and forums with endless amounts of cash being spent on gear.

Keep in mind that there are many people out there that have a Digital Rebel with the kit lens and they are ecstatic about it. They don't even know why they would need another or different lens and the concept of buying an L lens with the same focal length range for $1000+ makes no sense. Maybe they have a $17 Canon UV filter and don't see any problems with that either but they are repeatedly told to buy a B+W or Heliopan filter for $100+.

It's all perspective but there is this overwhelming contagion of "must buy gear" that exists and for some it is not at all good.

I say that if a lens is getting good reviews and owners of that lens are loving it and producing beautiful images then that should do it. I also believe that in completely blind tests there are many people that would never ever see or know a difference if you showed them 2 images from different lenses where one is considered comsumer grade and the other is an L or high end piece of glass. Professionals with a trained eye might see it. Pixel peeping might reveal it but for the average person there won't be glaring differences and to their eye (the operative 2 words) the image is great.

Right said Robert. I fully agree with you.

And moreover, it is the photographer who makes the picture great, good equipment is just an aid.

[SingingSabre]

Taken at an outdoor children's theatre I volunteer at. I'm willing to be that this place is older than anyone on these forums.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y208/SingingSabre/VotM/VOTM0021.jpg

EDIT: This photo is level. The gargoyle's stand is not.

[cdp181]

think this will be my next purchase. looks great.

[TMR Design]

I just did a couple of quick tests to see where the maximum aperture changes are on this lens and here is what I got. Since there are no detents these are only rough numbers.

Aperture on this lens ranges from f/2.8 to f/4.5.

@17mm, maximum aperture= f/2.8
@20mm, maximum aperture= f/3.2
@25mm, maximum aperture= f/3.5
@35mm, maximum aperture= f/4.0
@55mm, maximum aperture= f/4.5
@70mm, maximum aperture= f/4.5

[Trique Daddi]

With a little practice I have learned to appreciate having this lens. It is a great value. The macro capability has been useful. I had to realize to stay back just a little and zoom in. Eventually, I want to get the Sigma 150 macro but that is down the road.

I used the 17-70mm to shoot a friends rehersal dinner outdoors in the late afternoon and used a diffuser on my flash and was very pleased with the group shots.

Happy Shooting!

Trique Daddi

[DerekI]

Thats exactly my thoughts, I know I could gain a slight bit better sharpness by emptying my entire bank account & getting a load of very large & expensive L lenses, but I know I wouldnt get as much use out of them as when I am outdoors I like to be very discreet with all my camera gear, the last thing I want is to look like a paparazzi photographer when im outside with my gear :p

Nick :-)



In some part of SE asia (like Cambodia , Laos , Inonesia and Burma), it is difficult to shoot with heavy Ls or a huge 5D body, they assume you are rich and may get jealous and some times they attack on peole with SLRs ...


In Myanmmar ,I went to a Jail like stuff for a week and paid USd1000 to bail out myself .

I dont want be conspicuous there.

BKK , Sigapore and the phillipines are all safe but not all over , if you step into a poor community(ghetto areas), it is dangerous .

So I try to be discreet and quiet while I am in ghetto area of BKK and Laos.

After reading a mag from Denmark or Sweeden(my sweedish friend translated it for me),I think when you get a good copy this 17-70 thing can be as sharp as many Ls , the sweedish mag testing I saw showed me so many crops from corner of each pic from all models (they used 12lenses ),they say ,"actually the 17-70 is sharper then 17-40L or 17-50 Tamron ," I dont know it is true or not but it is cheaper , smaller and more useful lens for sure.

Only one gripe the mag had about the lens was the zoom creep of the lens , but I think my second one does not creep itself , the first one did .

The 18-50EX macro is the sharpest lens in their test and a teeny bit sharper than the 17-70 though, with the 18-50(actually like 19-46 they said), you need to swap more often than with the 17-70 and the 18-50 range is not so fun.

I think I return the 18-50 macro since my main interests in the lens are: 1 the close-up feature ,2 the constant f2.8 , and I found the 17-70 has even better macro like feature than that of the 18-50 and I do not need the constant f 2.8 as I prefer primes in real low light.

Also, 18mm on a 1.6x crop body is not wide enough, this seems insignificant but it is, 30mm and 27 mm are very different .

As for the Tamron , it is a good lens , but not a strikingly great or anything, maybe I just dont like the warm tone , and I think the Tamron at 50mm is quite soft but it is very sharp at 17mm and 35mm.


Thanks for you guys, I appreciate interesting coments and real-life test of lenses( that can not be seen in those review sites) in this thread .
Wihout that , I would have spent a grand more for a heavier and bukier lens with less useful focal range , now I am not so embarrassed when people ask me what lens you 've got , I used to be shy and hiding the name like Sigma, Tmaorn :o

Take it easy.

PS . I am not 100 percent sure which to keep and return , in other words , both are good lenes and very useful in different ways.

[DerekI]

I think it's important to remember that in these forums we have a very diverse group of poeple ranging from paid professionals and serious hobbbyists with significant bank accounts to high school and college students with little to no experience and no budget or bank account. Then we have every possible combination and variation with different needs and wants.

Many times the novice is influenced by all the professionals and forum-driven buying and feel compelled to buy expensive gear or gear they simply do not need. I'm not saying it's not better or that they wouldn't appreciate the difference but sometimes we have to take a step back and try to be objective...and yes, sometimes we need to stop reading all the posts and forums with endless amounts of cash being spent on gear.

Keep in mind that there are many people out there that have a Digital Rebel with the kit lens and they are ecstatic about it. They don't even know why they would need another or different lens and the concept of buying an L lens with the same focal length range for $1000+ makes no sense. Maybe they have a $17 Canon UV filter and don't see any problems with that either but they are repeatedly told to buy a B+W or Heliopan filter for $100+.

It's all perspective but there is this overwhelming contagion of "must buy gear" that exists and for some it is not at all good.

I say that if a lens is getting good reviews and owners of that lens are loving it and producing beautiful images then that should do it. I also believe that in completely blind tests there are many people that would never ever see or know a difference if you showed them 2 images from different lenses where one is considered comsumer grade and the other is an L or high end piece of glass. Professionals with a trained eye might see it. Pixel peeping might reveal it but for the average person there won't be glaring differences and to their eye (the operative 2 words) the image is great.

Wow , very clearly stated all I woul want to say , thanks and it is a great post.

[kennys350d]

I made up my mind. It took a WEEK to decide which lens I was going to pick up. Finally made up my mind, and will be placing the order this weekend! Thanks to everyone helped, also post samples in this thread! Ill be posting some later on, again thanks everyone!

[jim9449]

Hi was playing about with manual exposure and focus when I took this shot

http://jim9449.smugmug.com/photos/150801254-L.jpg

File Name CRW_7825.CRW
Camera Model Canon EOS 10D
Shooting Date/Time 08/05/2007 13:12:30
Shooting Mode Manual Exposure
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 0.3
Av( Aperture Value ) 8.0
Metering Mode Center-Weighted Average Metering
ISO Speed 100
Lens 17.0 - 70.0 mm
Focal Length 70.0 mm
Image Size 3072x2048
Image Quality RAW
Flash Off
White Balance Mode Custom
AF Mode Manual focusing
Color Space Adobe RGB

[e r y k]

i tried on a friends today, and to be completely honest, i didnt see that much of a difference when compared to the kit lens? the only difference this lens provides is the 2.8 aperture at 17mm.

[Nick_C]

i tried on a friends today, and to be completely honest, i didnt see that much of a difference when compared to the kit lens? the only difference this lens provides is the 2.8 aperture at 17mm.

I dont want to come across as rude but were you being fussy? what I mean is if you take a general shot & look at it on the monitor at a zoom level so it "fit to the screen", ANY lens will produce stunning results, but you dont notice the difference until you take decent shots & look at the edges for example, the 17-70 is sharper.

If you were being critical then it could have been a poor copy, when I changed over from a kit lens I found a massive increase in sharpness, it was like "OH YEAH BABY" lol, & that was with the kit lens stopped down as well.

I am amazed at how review sites compare it to the kit lens, my own tests found it to be a world apart, it was very much sharper & from shots ive seen of lenses like the 17-40L the Sigma is sharper, infact quite a few people have reported the same thing on here.

Nick :-)

[pepperoni]

String alignment on a race car.

http://jellybeanracing.com/John/Sandbox/Sandbox%205-7-07/1387.jpg

[TMR Design]

RAZOR sharp pepperoni,

I think that there are, unfortunately, many bad copies of a lot of the Sigma's floating around out there. I would not draw comparison between the kits lens and the Sigma 17-70mm. They are 2 very different animals.

Close comparison of a good copy of the Sigma against the kit lens will reveal some obvious differences, onoe of which is sharpness and edge and corner sharpness, and the other is color and contrast. Just picking them up also lets you feel the better build and more solid feel of the Sigma, you do have f/2.8 on the short end and an extra 15mm on the long end. For some that is not a consideration. For me it was a consideration.

[Peter Ho]

Great lens with fantastic pics especially the outdoor ones with the mountain and agriculture patches.
I can't help but notice that the outdoor photos show a lot of high contrast. The contrast is very great on the flower. Other than that it performs fantastically in not so harsh lighting condition.

[pepperoni]

RAZOR sharp pepperoni,



Thanks "Robert". ;)
The focus with this thing is dead nuts on.

[Nick_C]

In some part of SE asia (like Cambodia , Laos , Inonesia and Burma), it is difficult to shoot with heavy Ls or a huge 5D body, they assume you are rich and may get jealous and some times they attack on peole with SLRs ...


In Myanmmar ,I went to a Jail like stuff for a week and paid USd1000 to bail out myself .

I dont want be conspicuous there.

BKK , Sigapore and the phillipines are all safe but not all over , if you step into a poor community(ghetto areas), it is dangerous .

So I try to be discreet and quiet while I am in ghetto area of BKK and Laos.

After reading a mag from Denmark or Sweeden(my sweedish friend translated it for me),I think when you get a good copy this 17-70 thing can be as sharp as many Ls , the sweedish mag testing I saw showed me so many crops from corner of each pic from all models (they used 12lenses ),they say ,"actually the 17-70 is sharper then 17-40L or 17-50 Tamron ," I dont know it is true or not but it is cheaper , smaller and more useful lens for sure.

Only one gripe the mag had about the lens was the zoom creep of the lens , but I think my second one does not creep itself , the first one did .

The 18-50EX macro is the sharpest lens in their test and a teeny bit sharper than the 17-70 though, with the 18-50(actually like 19-46 they said), you need to swap more often than with the 17-70 and the 18-50 range is not so fun.

I think I return the 18-50 macro since my main interests in the lens are: 1 the close-up feature ,2 the constant f2.8 , and I found the 17-70 has even better macro like feature than that of the 18-50 and I do not need the constant f 2.8 as I prefer primes in real low light.

Also, 18mm on a 1.6x crop body is not wide enough, this seems insignificant but it is, 30mm and 27 mm are very different .

As for the Tamron , it is a good lens , but not a strikingly great or anything, maybe I just dont like the warm tone , and I think the Tamron at 50mm is quite soft but it is very sharp at 17mm and 35mm.


Thanks for you guys, I appreciate interesting coments and real-life test of lenses( that can not be seen in those review sites) in this thread .
Wihout that , I would have spent a grand more for a heavier and bukier lens with less useful focal range , now I am not so embarrassed when people ask me what lens you 've got , I used to be shy and hiding the name like Sigma, Tmaorn :o

Take it easy.

PS . I am not 100 percent sure which to keep and return , in other words , both are good lenes and very useful in different ways.

I see on your siggy that your going to replace the 18-200 with the OS version? I hope you let us all know when you get this lens, I for one would be VERY interested in seeing what it can do.

Nick :-)

[Peter Ho]

Safe zones in SEA - you have to include Malaysia which is developed and safe. I travel all around with my conspicuous lenses.

[Nick_C]

Here is one I took ages ago:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/490177923_61280bd61c_o.jpg

Nick :-)

[Moppie]

Heres another 17-70 shot:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/Moppie/poutolighthouse2.jpg


Its a fantastic bit of glass.

[DerekI]

String alignment on a race car.

http://jellybeanracing.com/John/Sandbox/Sandbox%205-7-07/1387.jpg

Very sharp , suprising . I am thinking about replacing my 17-50 Tamron wih this 17-70 or the Sigma 10-20EX, both look so sharp with better clor than that of the Tamron .

Those cool images here makes me regret my decision to return it. I rented it and liked it better than my Tmaron but it is not constant f2.8 and I returned it , since I was looking for a supplimental lens to my Canon 17-85IS...but I found out that I never use f2.8 . So it is useless no matter how sharp it is and I like the close-up feature of the sigma better than the f2.8.

This image is really shockingly sharp , and this is a 300 US lens , it is unbelievable....

[DerekI]

Here is one I took ages ago:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/490177923_61280bd61c_o.jpg

Nick :-)


It is insanely sharp , maybe sharper than my 60mm macro , this maybe a killer lens , with this macro capability and the great range combination , and cheaper than 400Us is amazing.

I temporarily returned the lens since my local dealor does not have any other sigmas to display but I may get it back to replace the 17-50 Tamron since I nver use the F2.8 of the Tamron because it's not as sharp wide open as my EF-S60mm.

thanks for you post ,an amazing shot .

[pepperoni]

This image is really shockingly sharp , and this is a 300 US lens , it is unbelievable....


Thank you. Pretty good focus test I'd say. :D

[DerekI]

I see on your siggy that your going to replace the 18-200 with the OS version? I hope you let us all know when you get this lens, I for one would be VERY interested in seeing what it can do.

Nick :-)

Still waiting , it is not easy to get here , the Sigma OS seems so tough to get here in thailand .

I think it will be available in July .

[Nick_C]

It is insanely sharp , maybe sharper than my 60mm macro , this maybe a killer lens , with this macro capability and the great range combination , and cheaper than 400Us is amazing.

I temporarily returned the lens since my local dealor does not have any other sigmas to display but I may get it back to replace the 17-50 Tamron since I nver use the F2.8 of the Tamron because it's not as sharp wide open as my EF-S60mm.

thanks for you post ,an amazing shot .

Yes the macro capabilities of the 17-70 are very good, especially under controlled conditions as DOF is very shallow at close distances at 70mm.

I think some people assume that the macro is just something that Sigma have put on as an extra, sort of like a gimmick, it can no way compete with a true macro lens & this is true in some sense as it cant achieve true 1:1 macro, but at 1:2 its extremely good.

Here are some more shots that you might find interesting, these were all taken under controlled conditions in my light chamber, tripod, mirror lockup, cable release, flash, etc etc..

These were all spices & seeds I had to do for a spice website.

Full Frame:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/194/490510371_a7913d0799_o.jpg

100% Crop (Centre):
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/226/490488440_08d7e4050c_o.jpg

Now as we all know a "true" macro lens has floating focus elements & things like that which helps to control sharpness & CA across the entire image, the 17-70 doesnt have any of these things, but lets have a look at an edge crop.

100% Crop (Bottom Edge):
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/218/490488590_387ad586fe_o.jpg

It loses sharpness a little on the extreme borders but it isnt too bad all things considered, after all this isnt a true macro lens, more like a "have a go" macro :p

[Nick_C]

Here are a few more from this collection:

Full Frame:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/220/490510159_2594bf67a4_o.jpg

100% Crop:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/225/490510253_868aa570ea_o.jpg

Full Frame:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/192/490488936_8b102d3a63_o.jpg

100% Crop:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/210/490488030_e6458e9ec9_o.jpg

Full Frame:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/213/490510775_1564b94fd1_o.jpg

100% Crop:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/205/490510827_d86bc358c1_o.jpg

Overall I find the macro side of the 17-70 to be VERY useful, whether it be doing product images for websites or just taking shots of stuff to put on ebay, its great not being limited by a long MFD.


The main things that put me off of buying the Tamron 17-50 was the shorter focal length & mainly the lack of macro, I think the Tamron manages 1:4 doesnt it? if the Sigma 17-70 had a constant F2.8 then it would be perfect but we cant have everything, OS would also be nice too!


Nick ;)

[pepperoni]

Good stuff Nick.

:cool:

[corosario]

Quite happy with my copy of the lens!
f/8, 1/250, ISO 400

http://sportsduo.smugmug.com/photos/150943569-L.jpg

[DerekI]

Safe zones in SEA - you have to include Malaysia which is developed and safe. I travel all around with my conspicuous lenses.

Yeah right, I love it there , Penang is a great city and KL is cool place , love the local foods especially "Pan Mee".

I go there very often and walk around in a Botanical garden in Penang and go up to Penang hill with my Chinese friends.

I also love Cury Mee, Wantan mee , Hokein mee and many others.

Also, the Malasyian immigration is very kind and generous .

[versedmb]

If you don't need the constant f/2.8 this is the one to get.









http://farm1.static.flickr.com/188/460784857_70619faa3d_o.jpg





http://farm1.static.flickr.com/182/460784847_d3697d8ea4.jpg





http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/435789911_9193ad9ddc.jpg





http://farm1.static.flickr.com/154/408897931_2dc9bfc270_o.jpg



http://farm1.static.flickr.com/212/460784853_d6264062a1.jpg





http://farm1.static.flickr.com/161/394834520_553b6d09c9_o.jpg





My advice....get it and enjoy.

Michael

[Moppie]

Is this sharp enough?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/Moppie/gkar2.jpg

[DerekI]

thanks Nick , your shots are great and those ar emore than great enough for my needs.

the Tmaron's magnification factor is 0.22, so it is nothing really a macro.

Also, despite of all reviews posting positive MTF scores of the lens, in real life shots , I found the images from the lens dull (trying to say good things about it but ?).

The corners are sharp and edge to edge performance is great but the field curvature is so noticeable and the center resolution is not so good.

If you compare 2 100percent center crops from those lenses(the 17-50 and 17-70), the Sigma is sharper and for my needs , the center sharpness is important but not the border or corners since I dont shoot landscapes.

This lens can get as close as 27cm to anything I shoot and it is about the same as the kit lens, with shorter tele end of 50mm compared to 55 mm of the kit .

I found the EF-S17-85 and the Tamron have the same magnification ratio number of 0.22 although the Tamron can get closer to my flowers (27cm vs 35cm).

But the longer tele end of the EF-S17-85IS is much more useful and the quieter AF of it is more useful when shooting a bee or like that, and the Ef-S17-85IS is not softer than the Tamron at the center especially range of 35-85.

The EF-S17-85IS is a sharp lens from 24to 85 , and some test shows you the IS lens is sharper than the Tamron after 35mm, the Tamron is sharper at 17mm though.

So I do not find any reason to keep the Tamron , too short and its ergonomics is bad with the opposite zoom direction to my Canon and Sigmas.

I love the EF-S60 macro , I think everybody has an XT or XTI shoulf try this one , this lens is insanely sharp , with great color tonality and contrast .

The EF-S60 focuses fast as a macro , but not as fast as the EF-S17-85IS or 55IS .

the lens does not extend itself when focusing and looks so cute.

but I like this lens as a museum lens or church lens since it is so quiet and inconspicuous.

Do you tink the EF-S17-85IS too similar to the Sigma 17-70 ?

Or is it not strange or stupid of me to buy it in addition to my 17-85Is?

The Sigma 's big attraction is that the range with the close-up feature , with quieter AF than that of the Tamron.

[gef]

I don't think I could keep both the Canon 17-85 and the Sigma 17-70. Seems to much of the same for me. Not to mention your 18-200! I'd go for some fast primes or UWA instead.

[Nick_C]

Yes I agree, the 17-85 & 17-70 are basically doubling up, the IS would be the only reason I would want to keep the 17-85, but apart from that no I wouldnt keep it.

Nick :-)

[xtipower]

top of the rock, nyc
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j115/2530/nyc.jpg

[TMR Design]

Great shot xtipower! That's my city and I love those views.

[Nick_C]

Is that the curve of the earth I see on that image? or was it shot at a slant? as it looks like the earth is REALLY rounded :-p

Nice shot!

Nick :-)

[Nick_C]

Ok prepare yourself for this stunning image that im about to add to this thread, wait for it, its an image of DIRT!! lol..

Ok seriously I just wanted to show anyone thinking of buying this lens what the sharpness is like on this lens when you get it on a tripod with focus spot on target.

This is a 100% crop from the bottom edge of a larger image of my back garden, why DIRT? well because it has a lot of detail there & also why the hell not, I bet im the first to post dirt on here ;-)

Sigma 17-70 @ 70mm F8.0 1/160th.

Image converted from RAW, NO SHARPENING!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/193/491596387_a8defdc54f_o.jpg

Now with a little sharpening things start to get seriously sharp very quickly.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/218/491580812_e6df9ad406_o.jpg

Hardly an image worth posting, but I thought "what the heck", remember these are edge crops as well, centre is even sharper!

Nick :-)

[kennys350d]

just got one today. very impress!

[caiguar]

Guys I just ordered this lens today, should be getting it by monday maybe. Thanks to this thread I was able to make my choice. Hopefully I will get a good copy and soon I will be able to contribute to this thread.

I will now have my 17-70 sigma along with my 70-200 sigma 2.8.

pretty covered along the range I will be using, now onto the primes ;)

[Revs]

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/6656/as1zc3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

F/3.2
17mm
ISO 200
1/10 sec

[Mr B Snappy]

I had the front of the lens an inch and a half way... I was half expecting a scorch mark on the front element. Cropped but not sharpened. This lens is just soooo much better than the kit!

[khrest]

A fine, fine lens, but vignetting can be an issue on my 350D (although it doesn't show well in this jpg, but it's very visible in the RAW). Was surprised to see it, but it doesn't reduce my appreciation for the lens overall :-)

http://garybrown.zenfolio.com/img/p425038884-4.jpg

[Geoff_Shawcross]

Sorry Khrest, but I could not see your photo. The photo box just says contents protected by owner. We would very much like to be able to see it. :)

[TMR Design]

I absolutely love using wide angle lenses for tall landscape shots.

[Nick_C]

A fine, fine lens, but vignetting can be an issue on my 350D (although it doesn't show well in this jpg, but it's very visible in the RAW). Was surprised to see it, but it doesn't reduce my appreciation for the lens overall :-)



I cant see any image as well, as for vignetting the 17-70 only shows this at 17mm F2.8, you shouldnt have any big problems with vignetting, its controlled pretty well.

Nick :-)

[PhotoFranz]

I am very pleased with the bokeh I get on macro shots with this lens. I have seen photos where the blurs in the background have sharp edges. The 17-70 seems to give soft, non-distracting blurr.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/213/492768063_3f5cfa624b_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/201/492768051_b325a3fc3b_o.jpg

[khrest]

A fine, fine lens, but vignetting can be an issue on my 350D (although it doesn't show well in this jpg, but it's very visible in the RAW). Was surprised to see it, but it doesn't reduce my appreciation for the lens overall :-)

http://garybrown.zenfolio.com/img/p425038884-4.jpg


Whups, you should be able to see it now!

[TMR Design]

One from today.

[Nick_C]

Whups, you should be able to see it now!

Yep thats fixed it, I see the vignetting but that amount isnt anything to be concerned about, I have seen a LOT more on a 5D camera, that little amount can easily be removed when processing the raw image, ACR has a good section for removing vignette.

Nick :-)

[olly_k]

Whups, you should be able to see it now!

I like that shot - that old tree is reaching up and waiting for it's last lightning strike!

[olly_k]

I thought I would compliment TMR's piccy :D

Not as pretty though!

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

100% crop of above (click) (http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u270/olly-k/NiceRose100crop.jpg)

Another hoverfly, 100% crop

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

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

Note however they are generally manual focus, don't trust my 350D with macro!!!

[TMR Design]

This little fellow is about 1 week old.

[TMR Design]

A beautiful day in the park.

[asun]

My first post and contribution here:

@17mm f/2.8 1/500
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=490581240&size=lhttp://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=490581240&size=lhttp://farm1.static.flickr.com/190/490581240_e6b3c30413_b.jpg

@70mm f/4.5 1/60

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/193/481982875_45e5ff954c_b.jpghttp://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=481982875&size=l

[khrest]

I like that shot - that old tree is reaching up and waiting for it's last lightning strike!

Thanks for that, you've given me an idea for a nice shot. I'll try and take it again on a day with a more angry sky above instead of just pure blue and then let loose with the PP !

[landoawd]

Two quickies from a local car show this weekend:

[DeluxeMan]

Deluxe, beautiful model.
1ST photo supose to be smoke?

yes, it is

[caiguar]

woohooo I get mine tomorrow along with some other little things from sigmaforless, I will try to contribute to this thread as soon as I get a chance.

[TMR Design]

Congratulations caiguar,

You're going to love this lens. Lots of bang for the buck and a fairly good macro on top of that.

[caiguar]

I've been hearing a lot of "its too slow" comments but, in all fairness I don't really need it to be extremely fast to focus since im going to be using it mostly for macro, ebaying andlandscapes, for my sports I have my 70-200 and hopefully the 85 later on for basketball

for now, this lens looked like the obvious choice and complement to my 70-200 to complete the ranges i'm going to use, from now on my lens purchases will be primes, I just need to do a lot of shooting to know which ones Im going to need

[olly_k]

I've been hearing a lot of "its too slow" comments but, in all fairness I don't really need it to be extremely fast to focus since im going to be using it mostly for macro, ebaying andlandscapes, for my sports I have my 70-200 and hopefully the 85 later on for basketball

for now, this lens looked like the obvious choice and complement to my 70-200 to complete the ranges i'm going to use, from now on my lens purchases will be primes, I just need to do a lot of shooting to know which ones Im going to need

Yes my 1770 is definitely slower to focus than my mark II kit lens. Not much slower but it could be significant for certain shots. I almost exclusively use manual focus now and when this allows you to zoom out after focus really sharp pics can be achieved.

[Nick_C]

I actually find the 17-70 quite fast for everything I have ever done with it, surely this is a good enough test of AF speed?

(passenger in a car going 70mph down a motorway)

See something coming up on the roadside, roll down the window, wait, wait, here it comes, coming into the viewfinder.... 3...2...1.. NOW, GO GO GO!!! half press, BEEP, take the shot! all in the space of a second or so, even my 55-200 which has a slower AF motor than the 17-70 gave me 314 keepers out of 320 taken on my last trip, every shot was taken out of a moving car.

I have never had to wait for the 17-70 to focus, the only time I ever notice the speed is going from the MFD to infinity & back again, but how often does that happen, the 17-70 actually has a very short focus ring travel so its quicker than most non USM lenses.

Im 98% confident that I would be able to use it for sports photography, providing nice conditions of course.

Nick :-)

[Nick_C]

I havent taken anything for a while, I did do this one today though.

Nothing stunning though :-(

This was a moth sitting on my wall, this was taken handheld with my Sigma flash bounced from a nearby white door, MF, ISO-400, 70mm, F8.0, 1/200th.

100% crop:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/225/501172355_8bee255403_o.jpg

Nick :-)

[xpsentity]

Been meaning to chime in on this thread for awhile. For anyone considering the lens; it's the sharpest lens I've ever owned. It beats the pants off my 100-400L (sadly), and I've never had a problem with it. Colors are great, build is good, no distortion at 17, etc etc..

You won't be dissapointed.

[EVOL]

Just got this lens and I am sooooooooo happy with it. I spent months trying different wide angles (including the 17-40mmL) and this is now my favorite lens I own. I think its sharper than my L's. Here are just a few shots that I took when it came in the mail.

EVOL

[EVOL]

One More

[Nick_C]

Finally somebody willing to stand up & say "its sharper than an L" you really should post your comments over in the Sigma vs Canon thread here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=318694&page=9

Ive been trying to get over how good this lens is but it seems some have been blinded by that red ring! lol ;-)

I love mine too, here are some shots I took out in the garden today, it was coming over for rain so I just had time to get these.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/231/502178636_597c52dfb7_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/222/502215161_34c9cecdd3_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/502178740_dc51f1d9cd_o.jpg

All shots were handheld with manual focus.

Nick :-)

[SingingSabre]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y208/SingingSabre/POTN%20stuff/Agua_Caliente_069.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y208/SingingSabre/POTN%20stuff/Agua_Caliente_134.jpg

[fulldeck]

This thread has convinced me that my lens purchase this morning was a very good choice. Thanks to all.

[caiguar]

I just got mine yesterday, and all I can say is: WOW! this lens might be the sharpest one i've had till now.

I will have some pics ready for you guys as soon as I finish painting the den. To anyone that is looking to replace their kit lens, this is the one. To anyone that is looking for a great walkaround lens, this is the one; You won't regret it.

One of my concerns was the talk about slow focunsing(read up a couple of posts) Now that I have the lens, let me tell everyone worrying about that...There is no such thing as slow focusing on it. the lens focuses great and fast, I know really know why people say its slow.

edit: got a couple of quick images...

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/caiguar0/XTI/green1800x600.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/caiguar0/XTI/book1800x600.jpg

[john.hem]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Liver--Statue.jpg

John

[papucla10]

I know it is only 2.8 @ 17mm I wonder at what focal length it becomes 3.5 and 4.5 thank you

[El Duderino]

I know it is only 2.8 @ 17mm I wonder at what focal length it becomes 3.5 and 4.5 thank you

17-20mm 2.8
21-24mm 3.2
25-34mm 3.5
35-54mm 4.0
55-70mm 4.5

[TMR Design]

I know it is only 2.8 @ 17mm I wonder at what focal length it becomes 3.5 and 4.5 thank you

Hi papucla10,

Take a look here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3153101&postcount=818

[papucla10]

Thank you very much you two, very helpful info

[kennys350d]

My contribute.

[grizzy]

I know it might be a pain but I have some shots from my trip to the British Virgin Islands that I'm REAL pleased with...all with the 17-70.

So many to chose from so here is my site:

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/p302060132/

[TMR Design]

Hi grizzy,

Those are some very nice images. Thanks for sharing.

[El Duderino]

I know it might be a pain but I have some shots from my trip to the British Virgin Islands that I'm REAL pleased with...all with the 17-70.

So many to chose from so here is my site:

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/p302060132/

Very, very nice.

Did you use any filters?

Any post processing?

[olly_k]

I know it might be a pain but I have some shots from my trip to the British Virgin Islands that I'm REAL pleased with...all with the 17-70.

So many to chose from so here is my site:

http://cwwayne.zenfolio.com/p302060132/

yes some lovely pictures! That place looks stunning!

[thekid17]

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j211/harrow17/Picture053.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j211/harrow17/jakescannonpictures007.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j211/harrow17/sketche.jpg

[grizzy]

Thanks guys!

I used a HMC Hoya pol. As for pp...I actually took saturation out of a lot of shots...the colors are amazing down there and some of the shots looked almost fake. The other pp'ing (elements 3) was some levels adjustments.

[RedMatrixXRS]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/224/484634886_5cac226f8c_b.jpg

[Yel00tlr]

One from the other day....

[madhatter04]

I'm planning a trip to the Sierra Nevadas in a couple weeks and was thinking about purchasing this lens. I have the Canon Kit lens, which is.... umm... kitty... and the Tamron 28-75mm. I find the Tamron to be quite, well, disappointing in some areas. I HAD a bad copy, but had it replaced. In fact, I got better images out of the kit lense than the Tamron. I really could use a wider lens for all the incredible landscapes I'll be viewing. I think the Sigma would compliment my aresenal much better because it's 17-70mm, and will leave off where my Canon 70-200 f/4.0 picks up. Thoughts? :confused:

[Geoff_Shawcross]

When I bought this lens a few months back, I bought it to replace my kit lens. Thus far, I am extremely happy with its preformance. I would definately recomend this lens to anyone planning on upgrading from the kit lens, but doesn't have the budget for one of the "L" lenses.

I paid a little over $400.00 Canadian for my lens, and I think I got a very good lens for that price.