Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 - opinions please?

I've been looking at the Sigma 17-70 vs the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Does f2.8 across the board make up for the lack of 20mm range?? I've heard great things about both lenses so it's gonna be a toss up. So far I'm leaning towards the 17-50...

i am in the same boat as you, except i am leaning towards the sigma

ive heard some barreling distortion problem...

how fast is focus in low light

Check out photozone.de for a review on the SIgma 17-70.

Barrel Distortion isnt a problem if you talking about the 17-70, also the focus is pretty fast on the 17-70 because the focus ring only has to travel a short distance, so unless your always wanting to focus from your finger in front of the lens suddenly over to infinity focus is otherwise very quick.

The Tamron is also very tempting, I would have seriously considered it, but the 17-70 has that longer reach & of course does macro.

Nick

dailykimchi wrote in post #2087648
I've been looking at the Sigma 17-70 vs the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Does f2.8 across the board make up for the lack of 20mm range?? I've heard great things about both lenses so it's gonna be a toss up. So far I'm leaning towards the 17-50...

When I was looking to upgrade my kit lens, I was torn between the Sigma 17-70 and the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. I ended up buying the 17-70 because of the additional 20 mm. So far, the additional 20 mm has been used alot, so I think I made the right decision. You have to look at what you tend to shoot. The constant f/2.8 is nice, but no matter how fast the lens is, you will always be 20 mm short if you need the 70 mm.

I love my 17-70. The Tamron looks like a very nice lens, though.

Tim

It seems that most have barrel distortion at the wide end, some are worse than others though. Canon's 17-85 is suppose to be one of the worst. According to photozone the Sigma 17-70 distortion 2.58%, Tamron 17-50 is 2.51% and the Canon 17-85 is 4.02% all at 17mm. This can be corrected in software mind you, I use ptlens, which seems to work well. I find the lens focuses fast as well, even in low light.

I came down to the Sigma 17-70 and that Tamron 17-50, but the range and the macro was more important to me than that f/2.8 on the tamron. But I also mainly shot outdoors when light tends to be more available... Plus I do plan to get some fast primes to handle low light, and you can get some really fast primes!! I have no regrets in getting the Sigma, I love this lens.

Interesting comments...it's driving me nuts. I love shooting outdoors but I also want the constant f2.8 for indoor lowlight photography. I think I will start with the Tamron 17-50 as a kit lens replacement and then save up for a longer reaching zoom.

Should I consider the 50mm f1.8 along with the Tamron 17-50?

The problem with most prime lenses is that they are quite often very soft at their widest aperture, take the 50mm F1.8 for example, going by the tests on slrgear.com it is appauling at F1.8 unless you use the very centre only, it doesnt get decent until F2.8, ive also seen the same thing with other expensive prime lenses, they advertise them as say F1.4 but if you look at the test figures for F1.4 its extremely soft at anywhere other than dead centre, they sharpen up when stopped down but it kinda makes the widest aperture not very usuable for anything where you want edge to edge sharpness, if you have to stop down to F2.8 then its pointless, you can get F2.8 with a zoom, not to mention that nowdays the difference between a prime & a zoom in optical sharpness is getting so close.

Nick

I've heard lenses in general can be soft at their widest aperture, zooms included... Mind you I've also heard it depends on the lens, some are better than others. I dunno if I would get the 50mm 1.8 with the Tamron based on speed, unless you have other reason to want the prime. That said, the 50mm f/1.8 is cheap and nice to have anyways.... You could consider a 85mm prime to give you additional reach over the 17-50 if you needed it?? Oh and has Tokina released their 16-50 f/2.8 yet?

Nick_C wrote in post #2088082
Check out photozone.de for a review on the SIgma 17-70.

Barrel Distortion isnt a problem if you talking about the 17-70, also the focus is pretty fast on the 17-70 because the focus ring only has to travel a short distance, so unless your always wanting to focus from your finger in front of the lens suddenly over to infinity focus is otherwise very quick.

The Tamron is also very tempting, I would have seriously considered it, but the 17-70 has that longer reach & of course does macro.

Nick

every review ive read under google has mentioned significant barrel distortion on the 17-70...

more importantly which performs better in night situations

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 -Who's got the best price?

In reading this thread, this looks like the lens I need to replace my Canon 28-80.

This lens is a good replacement for the Canon EFS 17-85 USM which has the worst B.D. out of all WA zooms in it's class n range. Also in Canada this lens comes with a 5-year manufacturer's warranty from Sigma.

irhxcbcziuzxs wrote in post #2089138
every review ive read under google has mentioned significant barrel distortion on the 17-70...

more importantly which performs better in night situations

I wouldnt say "Significant" they are exaggerating a lot, I mainly shoot at 17mm & havent noticed any problems like that, the only time you would really notice any distortion is if you shoot a brick wall up close, but who does that.

In real world shots its fine, I certainly wouldnt let that put you off.

Nick

I've read nearly all your views on the sigma 17-70 lens and i can't wait to get one.......very soon.

But someone has mentioned that the sigma lens doesn't work too well with the ETTL- flash options when zooming, is it ETTL compatable?? I've only had my 350 for a couple of weeks, but i also want to make sure i'm doing right with the purchase of an indipendant lens...??

Thats not true, my Sigma works perfectly with ETTL II & I have no problems with internal flash or my external Sigma flashgun.

Nick