quality of sigma 17-70

I was wondering how good the quality of the sigma 17-70 is because im saving for one.

I'd give it an 8 or 9 out of 10, which for the money is top class glass. Well recommended. Nothing better at the moment for the money. Also worth looking at the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 which is a top buy but lacks the range and makes up for it in speed. Any further questions ... ask

From what I have picked up from various forums & comments is that generally the AF is noticably faster on Sigma lenses over Tamron lenses.

I have the 17-70 & find it to be a very good walkaround lens, its also very good at doing closeup work, ive had some great results with my lens.

As it happens I was just reading another post on here earlier, a guy got rid of his Canon 17-40L lens to get the Sigma 17-70 & noticed no drop in quality, so you can see how good this lens is.

There is nothing better for the price, its pin sharp, has good colour & contrast, a decent focal range & doesnt break the bank!

Nick

my favorite lens in my kit and it was my cheapest.
9/10 ...no question

I have this lens and have been very happy with it. I must say, however, that this is my first lens on my first slr (30D) , so I have nothing to compare it to. I have found it to be very sharp and VERY close focusing. I have taken pictures of a bee where you can see the facets of the eye and the individual pollen grains on the legs. It focuses closer in manual than in AF. It is louder than Canon usm lenses and does not focus as fast, but from my experience, image quality is very good.

Nick_C wrote in post #2412021
From what I have picked up from various forums & comments is that generally the AF is noticably faster on Sigma lenses over Tamron lenses.

While that might be true in general, I do have to say that the Tamron 17-50 autofocuses awfully fast. It's quite a quick focuser.

The Focus isn't super quick, its not ring USM lens, thats for sure.
But, If you pre-focus first, it will track focus over a short distance fast enough to catch running people, cars etc. Just don't expect it to track them very far.
But the optical quality is fantastic, especially if you think about what it cost and compare it with lenses that cost twice as much.
Its also a nice compact size, and very light, making it a really nice walk around lens.

I wish the Tamron 17-50 2.8 was easily available here though, it would have been nice to compare the two.

Nick_C wrote in post #2412021
a guy got rid of his Canon 17-40L lens to get the Sigma 17-70 & noticed no drop in quality

I wonder why everyone praises the 17-40L then.

and also give the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 a look too.
I compared both and took the constant f2.8 over the few millimeter of range.

Coco-Puffs wrote in post #2412844
I wonder why everyone praises the 17-40L then.

Price, range, build quality, constant apature, size and weight, Its a Canon

Coco-Puffs wrote in post #2412844
I wonder why everyone praises the 17-40L then.

I don't.

I have both the 17-40 and 17-55 EF-S. The 7-55 is the superior lens.

Nick_C wrote in post #2412021
As it happens I was just reading another post on here earlier, a guy got rid of his Canon 17-40L lens to get the Sigma 17-70 & noticed no drop in quality, so you can see how good this lens is.

I'm pretty sure that guy was me. The only difference I could tell was the Canon was built like a tank, but since I don't plan on abusing my lenses, the good build quality of the Sigma is just fine for me.

IQ is identical, the Sigma is faster at the wide end (f/2.8 vs f/4), the AF is very similar/equally accurate, the Sigma is longer by 30mm which makes it more useable, the Sigma is nearly $300 cheaper, the Canon is built "stronger" and weighs a few ounces more, and the Canon has a red ring.

I've said it once and will continue saying it...

Sigma 17-70 > Canon 17-40 L

I think people just like having an L lens, and thats why they continue to buy it. Thats all I can figure. I doubt I'm making many friends by repeating this opinion, but its how I feel from first-hand experience using both.

- Scott

PS- If you haven't already, refer to the Sigma 17-70 sample thread, I, as well as many others, have posted lots of images in there.

Stime187 wrote in post #2413809
IQ is identical, the Sigma is faster at the wide end (f/2.8 vs f/4), the AF is very similar/equally accurate,

i dont preache the red L either but the IQ of them are the same??
and USM has to be faster than the Sigma.

Coco-Puffs wrote in post #2413849
i dont preache the red L either but the IQ of them are the same??
and USM has to be faster than the Sigma.

Fine, USM may be slightly faster... is that worth $300 more, slower speed, and less versatility (tigher zoom)? Please.

I stand by my IQ statement, there is very little difference if any. If I gave you 10 random shots, 5 shot with the 17-70 and 5 with the 17-40, you would not be able to tell them apart.

- Scott

Stime187 wrote in post #2413869
Fine, USM may be slightly faster... is that worth $300 more, slower speed, and less versatility (tigher zoom)? Please.

I stand by my IQ statement, there is very little difference if any. If I gave you 10 random shots, 5 shot with the 17-70 and 5 with the 17-40, you would not be able to tell them apart.

- Scott

i would probably own a L lens someday if I see myself using that range a lot b/c I dont want to deal with the focus issues and whatnot of a third party lens (even though i've never had trouble...,knock on wood) but its more of a want than need. The only L lens I want is the 70-200 IS. my relatives' LOVE their red rings, but with all honesty, when I see their pictures taken with an L lens printed compared to mine taken with my Sigma lens, i cant tell the difference:p. They always tell me that I'm not seeing the "warmth" and what not...I dunno, probably b/c im still a noob.

but anywho, no, 300bucks is not worth USM in my opinion either. I almost got the 17-70, but I wanted the constant f2.8. plus it has a pretty gold ring

Stime187 wrote in post #2413869
Fine, USM may be slightly faster... is that worth $300 more, slower speed, and less versatility (tigher zoom)? Please.

I stand by my IQ statement, there is very little difference if any. If I gave you 10 random shots, 5 shot with the 17-70 and 5 with the 17-40, you would not be able to tell them apart.

- Scott

And, of course, the obvious--my 17-70 won't work on my 5D while my 17-40L will. I'm happy with both.