LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 - User Review -

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 18 Jul 2007 (Wednesday) 14:26   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
Cadwell
Cream of the Crop
Cadwell's Avatar
Joined Jan 2004
7,333 posts
Hampshire, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

Mmm... or how about buying the 24-105mm if you don't want the edge softeness or the CA? Perhaps the weather sealing would be nice or the much faster and quieter autofocus? Maybe full time manual focus? :lol:

I've actually just bought a Sigma 17-70mm to put on my old 10D and use it as a camera to keep in the car. It isn't a bad lens. I was quite impressed by the build given the price. Certainly a Canon lens at this price point would be much flimsier. Does it have the same finish as a Sigma EX? Superficially it looks similar but it doen't bear comparison to that on my two genuine Sigma EX lenses (120-300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4.5). The optics are OK... pretty good really for the money but L busting when examined closely? No. Mind you I didn't expect them to be. All in all I am quite happy with the Sigma;it will do what I want and is ideal for the application I have in mind.

The bad news? It took me three copies to get one that didn't have serious back focus issues. Thankfully I have a very understanding supplier (that might be down to the amount of money I've spent with them over the years ;) ) but even so, having to test and repackage 2 lenses before I got one that worked right was a pain. I also noticed that all three copies of the lens show reluctance to AF if you start off with them really out of focus when pointing at a low contrast subject. Give them a little helping nudge by manualy focusing them somewhere near and they are fine but without full time manual focus override this becomes a little fiddly.

You gets what you pay for and if you can find a good copy, this lens is a bit of a bargain.

Post #31, Jul 19, 2007 05:27:55


Glenn
My Pictures: Motorsportexternal link/Canoe Poloexternal link/Other Stuffexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
JMHPhotography
Goldmember
JMHPhotography's Avatar
Joined May 2005
4,783 posts
New Hampshire
[MORE/SHARE]

Nick_C wrote in post #3568978external link
But that would be completely unfair, the Canon has IS, the Sigma doesnt, but on the Sigmas side it has F2.8!

We all know the benefits of IS, & that is one of the key selling points of the 24-105, but this wasnt supposed to be a Sigma vs Canon debate, purely just to demostrate the fine optics of the 17-70, nothing more.

Nick :-)

I think it is fair. If you're going to post a test between two lenses, you should test them both under the same conditions, and vary the conditions for both equally. Last time I checked, they didn't do school plays, or dance recitals, or school award ceremonies outdoors under partly cloudy skies. Some noob sees this thread, and rushes out to by the Sigma 17-70 thinking it's as good or better will be very disspointed when they see thier pictures from it under those conditions.

NOTE: I actually OWN and LIKE my Sigma 17-70mm but I also knew what I was buying and how I'd be using it befrore doing so.

Post #32, Jul 19, 2007 08:44:50


~John

(aka forkball)
Have a peek into my Gearbag. and My flickrexternal link
editing of my photos by permission only. Thanks

LOG IN TO REPLY
JMHPhotography
Goldmember
JMHPhotography's Avatar
Joined May 2005
4,783 posts
New Hampshire
[MORE/SHARE]

canon_fire wrote in post #3569199external link
hmmm ... so to those who have had both at the same time and do serious shooting .. I have to ask, Would my time and all be worth it upping to the 24-105 L over the sig 17-70??

I don't have the 24-105L but I have the 24-70L and the Sigma 17-70 which I think is a more realistic comparison since the ranges are much closer and the 24-70L doesn't have the unfair advantage of the IS, and to be perfectly honest... when I'm doing a paid wedding, or paid job. I will 10 times out of 10 reach for the 24-70L. Image quality aside... I get faster and more responsive AF, silent AF, F/2.8 throughout the range...(the 17-70 is only f/2.8 at the 17-20ish setting, btw), and on top of this... the 24-70L just plain makes better images.

So why do I own the 17-70?? When I go out and just want to grab some happy snaps... Carrying my bag isn't the most convenient thing in the world. My 20D and 17-70 make a fantastic setup for quick snaps of everyday life.

20D with Sigma 17-70... f/3.5 at 33mm and 1/160 and ISO 800 with no flash

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Post #33, Jul 19, 2007 08:54:09


~John

(aka forkball)
Have a peek into my Gearbag. and My flickrexternal link
editing of my photos by permission only. Thanks

LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick_C
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Nick_C's Avatar
Joined Jul 2006
4,042 posts
Tin Mine Country (Cornwall UK)
[MORE/SHARE]

Cadwell wrote in post #3572138external link
Mmm... or how about buying the 24-105mm if you don't want the edge softeness or the CA? Perhaps the weather sealing would be nice or the much faster and quieter autofocus? Maybe full time manual focus? :lol:

I've actually just bought a Sigma 17-70mm to put on my old 10D and use it as a camera to keep in the car. It isn't a bad lens. I was quite impressed by the build given the price. Certainly a Canon lens at this price point would be much flimsier. Does it have the same finish as a Sigma EX? Superficially it looks similar but it doen't bear comparison to that on my two genuine Sigma EX lenses (120-300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4.5). The optics are OK... pretty good really for the money but L busting when examined closely? No. Mind you I didn't expect them to be. All in all I am quite happy with the Sigma;it will do what I want and is ideal for the application I have in mind.

The bad news? It took me three copies to get one that didn't have serious back focus issues. Thankfully I have a very understanding supplier (that might be down to the amount of money I've spent with them over the years ;) ) but even so, having to test and repackage 2 lenses before I got one that worked right was a pain. I also noticed that all three copies of the lens show reluctance to AF if you start off with them really out of focus when pointing at a low contrast subject. Give them a little helping nudge by manualy focusing them somewhere near and they are fine but without full time manual focus override this becomes a little fiddly.

You gets what you pay for and if you can find a good copy, this lens is a bit of a bargain.

Well I have found that the 24-105L has edge softness just the same as the 17-70, buying the Canon wont get rid of that issue, its probably much better when mounted on a 1.6x body but its not a very nice focal range then.

As for the other features like full time focussing & IS, well all I was comparing was IQ, features aside yes the Canon is more packed with goodies, but the price is MUCH more so I would expect more, however I still believe the 17-70 certainly CAN match an L for optics, the L may have the edge but its not as much of a difference as some L fanatics make out!

Nick :-)

Post #34, Jul 19, 2007 11:41:54




LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick_C
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Nick_C's Avatar
Joined Jul 2006
4,042 posts
Tin Mine Country (Cornwall UK)
[MORE/SHARE]

forkball wrote in post #3572856external link
I don't have the 24-105L but I have the 24-70L and the Sigma 17-70 which I think is a more realistic comparison since the ranges are much closer and the 24-70L doesn't have the unfair advantage of the IS, and to be perfectly honest... when I'm doing a paid wedding, or paid job. I will 10 times out of 10 reach for the 24-70L. Image quality aside... I get faster and more responsive AF, silent AF, F/2.8 throughout the range...(the 17-70 is only f/2.8 at the 17-20ish setting, btw), and on top of this... the 24-70L just plain makes better images.

So why do I own the 17-70?? When I go out and just want to grab some happy snaps... Carrying my bag isn't the most convenient thing in the world. My 20D and 17-70 make a fantastic setup for quick snaps of everyday life.

20D with Sigma 17-70... f/3.5 at 33mm and 1/160 and ISO 800 with no flash

I reason why I compared against the 24-105 is mainly because its what I have, but also because the 17-70 is really a 27-112mm lens, so its near enough to the 24-105.

As far as the 24-105 having un unfair advantage in the form of IS, all the tests were done with IS turned off so that it didnt have any gain over the 17-70.

Of course the L lenses will always have the edge, but the difference isnt always as much as you would expect it to be.

Nick :-)

Post #35, Jul 19, 2007 11:45:38




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Cadwell
Cream of the Crop
Cadwell's Avatar
Joined Jan 2004
7,333 posts
Hampshire, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

Nick_C wrote in post #3573798external link
the L may have the edge but its not as much of a difference as some L fanatics make out!

:lol: I am hardly an L fanatic, in fact I'm quite famous around this forum for not being one! :lol:

Post #36, Jul 19, 2007 12:17:03


Glenn
My Pictures: Motorsportexternal link/Canoe Poloexternal link/Other Stuffexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick_C
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Nick_C's Avatar
Joined Jul 2006
4,042 posts
Tin Mine Country (Cornwall UK)
[MORE/SHARE]

Cadwell wrote in post #3574008external link
:lol: I am hardly an L fanatic, in fact I'm quite famous around this forum for not being one! :lol:

Sorry no I wasnt directing that at you, I was referring to some others I have seen on here.

Nick :-)

Post #37, Jul 19, 2007 13:26:31




LOG IN TO REPLY
Bosman
Senior Member
Joined Apr 2005
832 posts
Pittsburgh
[MORE/SHARE]

What are the max apertures by focal length?

Post #38, Jul 19, 2007 14:01:25 as a reply to post 3571559


Joe

Rebel XT with grip
Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)
Canon 18-55 3.5-5.6
Canon 50 1.8
420EX
Domke
F-3X
Domke F-5XB

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bosman
Senior Member
Joined Apr 2005
832 posts
Pittsburgh
[MORE/SHARE]

Found an awesome deal on this lens

http://www.bestpriceca​meras.com/prodetails.a​spx?prodid=481956external link

Post #39, Jul 19, 2007 14:14:58 as a reply to Cadwell's post 8 hours earlier.


Joe

Rebel XT with grip
Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)
Canon 18-55 3.5-5.6
Canon 50 1.8
420EX
Domke
F-3X
Domke F-5XB

LOG IN TO REPLY
canon_fire
Senior Member
canon_fire's Avatar
Joined Dec 2006
854 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

hmmm .... I better buy 3

Post #40, Jul 19, 2007 14:49:52




LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick_C
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Nick_C's Avatar
Joined Jul 2006
4,042 posts
Tin Mine Country (Cornwall UK)
[MORE/SHARE]

Bosman wrote in post #3574657external link
What are the max apertures by focal length?

I have seen this on the forum someplace, I will see if I can find it for you unless somebody else has the figures.

Nick :-)

Post #41, Jul 19, 2007 14:53:16




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
LightRules's Avatar
Joined Jun 2005
9,908 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Bosman wrote in post #3574657external link
What are the max apertures by focal length?

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

[taken from my 1785 and 1770 review http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/17701785external link]

Post #42, Jul 19, 2007 14:53:48




LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
LightRules's Avatar
Joined Jun 2005
9,908 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

canon_fire wrote in post #3574963external link
hmmm .... I better buy 3

Hey, at least you get free shipping :lol:

In all seriousness, stay away from www.bestpricescameras.conexternal link

Post #43, Jul 19, 2007 14:55:42




LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick_C
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Nick_C's Avatar
Joined Jul 2006
4,042 posts
Tin Mine Country (Cornwall UK)
[MORE/SHARE]

LightRules wrote in post #3574994external link
17-20mm 2.8
21-24mm 3.2
25-34mm 3.5
35-54mm 4.0
55-70mm 4.5

[taken from my 1785 and 1770 review http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/17701785external link]

I thought I saw that somewhere ;)

Nick :-)

Post #44, Jul 19, 2007 17:19:00




LOG IN TO REPLY
Bosman
Senior Member
Joined Apr 2005
832 posts
Pittsburgh
[MORE/SHARE]

Thanks!

And also thanks to Nick for another great review!

Sometimes I think the Sigma 17-70 would make a better walk around than my Tamron28-75, but I do love the f2.8. But your review has me pondering this again.

Cheers

Joe

Post #45, Jul 19, 2007 18:56:30 as a reply to Nick_C's post 1 hour earlier.


Joe

Rebel XT with grip
Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)
Canon 18-55 3.5-5.6
Canon 50 1.8
420EX
Domke
F-3X
Domke F-5XB

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
6,063 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 - User Review -
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00125 for 5 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
1086 guests, 815 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is louvig

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.