SIGMA 24-70 VS. SIGMA 17-70

SIGMA 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG VS. SIGMA 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC

Finally, I've narrowed it down!! They both cost roughly $400. My main use is an all-purpose lens until I buy a super wide and a big tele.

All I currently own is in my sig!

EDIT: OH, PLEASE STATE WHY

Whilst I do own the 24-70, I'd go for the 17-70 if I had to do it again. More range and from what I've heard, just as sharp. All you're missing out on is the EX build quality.

EpHeSuS wrote in post #2533278
Whilst I do own the 24-70, I'd go for the 17-70 if I had to do it again. More range and from what I've heard, just as sharp. All you're missing out on is the EX build quality.

But thats alot to miss out on. I like build quality! Isnt it also something to do w/optical quality too??

Matt57 wrote in post #2533299
But thats alot to miss out on. I like build quality! Isnt it also something to do w/optical quality too??

To be honest, the pictures I've seen from the 17-70 don't look any worse than the 24-70. From what I've heard though, the build quality on the 17-70 is very good for a non-EX grade lens. You should ask someone who owns one though for a more detailed opinion

I'm interested on how this goes, as I too am look at new lenses.

You'd be losing some speed at 70 mm f2.8 / f4.5

There is also the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di in this price group

I've never tried the 17-70 but I really like my 24-70.

I had the 24-70mm EX and it's a very good lens but I prefer the 17-70mm because the range is better for walkaround on a crop body and the IQ just as decent and possibly a tad better (tho' I would need to test both together to be certain - any difference is likely to be irrelevant to most). Build isn't an issue as both are fit for purpose too.

Simple decision for me.

17-70 CONS: not constant 2.8, only for crop bodies
24-70 PROS: EX build, constant 2.8, full frame compatible, better optics IMHO

However
17-70 PROS: wider, cheaper, closer focusing (20cm)
24-70 CONS: 82mm filter diameter, further focusing (40cm)

im interested in this as well as im ordering my stuf today and only thing i carnt decide on is between these to lenses baring in mind im getting the sigma 10-20 as well so i think i might be better of going for the 24-70

I vote for the 17-70. Plus, it's only $350 at B&H. EX is mostly about build-quality, not optics.

I had the 17-70 and traded it in for the 24-70. That being said though if I could go back and do it again I'd keep the 17-70. It's just a great focal length and sharp. The quasi-macro is cool too! The build quality is still great. I went for my 24-70 because of constant 2.8 aperture and supposed better optics. But really the 17-70 is just as sharp and 2.8 to 4 doesn't matter a whole heck of a lot with this lens.

Good info

Very close poll this is turning out to be.

My vote is for 24-70 because of following reason.

1- Its a full frame lens so its a safe future.
2- Constant aperture. not just for low light but also for more DOF control
3- EX build and optics.

If you don't mind its weight and filter size (82mm) then its best choice. Later you can add a wide-angle lens to your gear.

My vote is for the 24-70mm. I found out while on vacation, that your camera a lens can get bumped around, and I realized how comforting it was that my lens has good build quality and can take a bump. The constant 2.8 aperture is also a big plus