Sigma 17-70 vs. Sigma 24-70 EX

[NAisBEST]

Well, im stuck in another conundrum :rolleyes: I was pretty set on purchasing the Sigma 24-70 EX when another interesting alternative popped its head out, the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 . While the constant 2.8 seems more proper for me to own, some say its a bit soft at 70mm wide open. Now, would the same apply to the 17-70?

The reason I ask is because if the 17-70 is soft wide open at 70mm f/4, would I be better off using the 24-70 at 70mm at f/4 ? This would avoid using wide open apertures unless needed, but the 2.8 would be there if need be. Does anyone have any experience with these two lenses?

Another question...Im going to B&H on friday to purchase one of these and a Sigma 10-20...do they Honor their PSAUG code in store?

[farrukh]

Since you're getting 10-20 also, Get 24-70 2.8. Its an EX lens. and constant aperture is nice.

There are some complaints here about fauly 24-70 2.8L aswell as Sigma. Not every copy is soft at 70mm wide open.

Since You're getting it from a local store you can always exchange it or send it for calibration if you get a bad copy. Sigma service is good.

[NAisBEST]

Yeah, I guess it would make more sense to grab the 10-20 and 24-70 combo, and then in a couple of months round it off with a Canon 70-200.

One good thing is I called B&H, and they do match the PSAUG code in store :)

Farrukh...I see you have both lenses, how do you like them?

[Mr. Clean]

I've had or have all the lenses you mention. The 17-70 was only a bit soft wide open at the 17mm end of things. My 24-70 EX is perfect and is my workhorse on my 30D although it didn't like my XT very much. It's almost not wide enough though. The 10-20 and 24-70 is a great combo although I don't use the 10-20 a whole lot (however it's sharp across it's entire FL). The 17-70 is a great jack of all trades, the quasi macro the large FL, it's really a great lens. I got rid of it in favor of the 24-70 because of the constant 2.8 and potentially better IQ. If I could go back and do it all over, I doubt I'd trade the 17-70 for the 24-70 however they're both terrific lenses. As far as I can recall, the sharpness between both was really close. Only at a pixel peeping level could you really tell a difference.
Long story short, with the lenses you're trying to pick from, you can't lose.

[NAisBEST]

Awesome to know Mr.Clean!

I rented the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX Macro. I was VERY pleased with IQ, and im hoping that the 24-70 EX Macro has similar IQ.

[Mr. Clean]

Awesome to know Mr.Clean!

I rented the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX Macro. I was VERY pleased with IQ, and im hoping that the 24-70 EX Macro has similar IQ.

No prob! I've got a couple sample pics threads out there with the aforementioned lenses too. Holler if you need anything else. I would say that my 24-70 is sharp at 2.8. I've got zero issues with this lens.

By chance did you try any macro shots with that Sigma? I'm looking at upgrading my 70-300 APO to the 70-200 macro. Thoughts?

[farrukh]

Yeah, I guess it would make more sense to grab the 10-22 and 24-70 combo, and then in a couple of months round it off with a Canon 70-200.

One good thing is I called B&H, and they do match the PSAUG code in store :)

Farrukh...I see you have both lenses, how do you like them?

I like Sigma lenses. My 4th Sigma lens (150 mm 2.8 macro) is on its way :-) May be im lucky that i got all good copies.

Sigma 24-70 served as a workhorse but now its Sigma 10-20.
You can checkout my gallery for Sigma 10-20 samples.

[Mr. Clean]

farrukh, what made you choose the 150 macro? Do you feel the need to upgrade your 70-300, or do you find yourself primarily shooting on the wide end of things?

[NAisBEST]

Awsome info guys...thanks for all your replies.

Mr.Clean, id love to see some samples from your 24-70 (even though I know theres a samples thread), it would make my decision that much easier.

I dont know if you'd consider these 'Macro' per se, but these are from the 70-200...

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b341/onefivealive/Img_4363WEB.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b341/onefivealive/Img_4354WEB.jpg Both unedited save for resize

[Mr. Clean]

Thanks NA! I'm leaning that direction - for the 70-200. Great pics! I'll dig up some shots when I get home for ya. For now, check these:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=165819&highlight=sigma+24-70

*edit*
Keep in mind these were on my XT. I'll try to get some pics up tonight.

[farrukh]

farrukh, what made you choose the 150 macro? Do you feel the need to upgrade your 70-300, or do you find yourself primarily shooting on the wide end of things?

I needed a macro lens. After some research choosen Sigma 150 macro. It gives about perfect working distance for my needs. also a stunning portrait and candid lens. Beating sharpness of 135L. Lovely bokeh, has HSM and inner focusing. only thing needed is 1 more luck for a good copy :-)

Regarding upgrading Sigma 70-300m, I was thinking upgrading to Sigma 70-200 2.8 but a true macro lens was important first.
But the plan is still there in the future.

[shaneotool]

I chose the 17-70 for a couple of reasons -
- It was cheaper
- If I got the 24-70 sig or 28-75 tam, I would eventually need to buy a wide angle. The 17mm is wide enough that I can do without. Keep is mind I am very much a beginner and wanted to keep the number of lenses and costs low.

[Mr. Clean]

I needed a macro lens. After some research choosen Sigma 150 macro. It gives about perfect working distance for my needs. also a stunning portrait and candid lens. Beating sharpness of 135L. Lovely bokeh, has HSM and inner focusing. only thing needed is 1 more luck for a good copy :-)

Regarding upgrading Sigma 70-300m, I was thinking upgrading to Sigma 70-200 2.8 but a true macro lens was important first.
But the plan is still there in the future.
I hear you...Both are in the plans, but which one first is the question I'm asking myself. I need something longer and sharper than 85, so both are an option!

Shaneotool, the 24mm on the wide end is definitely a trade off. Wide enough for some, not wide enough for others!

[Tee Why]

I'd say if you are getting an ultrawide anyway, a 24-70 maybe a better option as the 17-24mm range will be covered and also b/c the 24-70 is faster.

the 17-70 would make an excellent one lens solution but if you are going to collect lenses, I'd stick to more specialized zooms like the 10-20 and 24-70.

[farrukh]

I hear you...Both are in the plans, but which one first is the question I'm asking myself. I need something longer and sharper than 85, so both are an option!

Shaneotool, the 24mm on the wide end is definitely a trade off. Wide enough for some, not wide enough for others!

Its better to have Macro in the gear unless you need 70-200 2.8 for professional shootings.

[Mr. Clean]

Perhaps...But the 150 macro seems sort of specialized due to it's fixed focal length. The newer Sigma 70-200 Macro (even though it's not a true 1:1) seems like it would be a better "all around" lens...
ugh
We'll see, I order the 70-200 last night. I suppose it's personal preference. I just feel the need for something longer/faster/sharper then a macro lens. But then again, the 150 is all of that. But, in a fixed focal length...

Sorry for the hijack...:D