SIGMA 24-70 VS. SIGMA 17-70

I voted for the 17-70mm, well constructed, excellent image quality and it is fairly wide at 17mm.
Focuses quite quickly also, I think this is the perfect walkaround lens.
I love it on my Rebel Xti.

Check out the Sigma 17-70mm archive thread for further proof of this.

Doesnt get any closer than this!

My 17-70mm rarely comes off the camera these days. Perfect walk around and excellent IQ. If I'm taking shots indoors I use my 50mm f1.8

Sigma 17-70. Not constant 2.8, but you have it on the wide end if needed. Very good range on crop body and good optics. The build is decent too.

Plus, the ability to do roughly 1:2 'macro' is useful.

You need to consider some things. First, what areas of the 18-55 do you use?

The 17-70 is a better choice if you like working on the wider end of the lens. It was developed with your camera body in mind(the 1.6 crop)

The 24-70 is a better choice if you value the f/2.8, since it has a constant f/2.8 aperture across all the focal lengths. The lens was made for full frame cameras, so on a cropped camera, you do not get the wider angled lens due to its field of view on the 1.6 crop camera.

farrukh wrote in post #2538861
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.

I did the same.

The DOF is a big deal to me. And if your going to be shooting inside with low light or night shots at all the 17-70 is NOT your guy.

Photolistic wrote in post #2544559
I did the same.

The DOF is a big deal to me. And if your going to be shooting inside with low light or night shots at all the 17-70 is NOT your guy.

Thats what I thought. Someone from this board is offering to sell me theirs for $275. Said its in great shape too. I am interesting in night shots and have a semi-fast lens.

Matt57 wrote in post #2544731
I am interesting in night shots

Then you want ALL your zooms to be 2.8 trust me.

With your 2.8 lens you can always goto f4

But with a F4 lens you Can't got to 2.8

The spread is not as good but the quality is there. Besides night shots you can also use them for fast paced sports to where the 17-70 would not cut it on the long end. Your shots would be blurry if you had the right exposure.


Also the 24-70 is a constant 2.8.

With the 17-70 its 2.8 when your at 17mm and f4 when your at 70mm. That means you will have to constantly be changing your shutter speed or aperture when you zoom. When you zoom with the constant 2.8 all the settings for the right exposure will stay the same.

If you're doing night shots, you really want a tripod - in which case the extra range of the 17-70 is more appealing.

I mean, if you are saying you need the f2.8 for night shots - you're implying you're handholding. If you are on the threshold for handholding at f2.8 - where the f4.5 would not cut it - then you could do with a faster shutter speed anyway. Plus, for night shots, you'll probably want to stop down for more DOF. As you'll probably be stopping down and should be using a tripod, then the 17-70 seems a much better choice.

You can never get 17mm from the 24-70, and while you can never get f2.8 on the 17-70 either, you do not seem to want the f2.8 for DOF - in which case you can always use a tripod if you can't get the shutter speed - especially for nightshots.

red hot sheep wrote in post #2544874
If you're doing night shots, you really want a tripod - in which case the extra range of the 17-70 is more appealing.

I mean, if you are saying you need the f2.8 for night shots - you're implying you're handholding. If you are on the threshold for handholding at f2.8 - where the f4.5 would not cut it - then you could do with a faster shutter speed anyway. Plus, for night shots, you'll probably want to stop down for more DOF. As you'll probably be stopping down and should be using a tripod, then the 17-70 seems a much better choice.

You can never get 17mm from the 24-70, and while you can never get f2.8 on the 17-70 either, you do not seem to want the f2.8 for DOF - in which case you can always use a tripod if you can't get the shutter speed - especially for nightshots.

You do have a good point. I shoot a lot of places down town Portland that will not allow a tripod (like pioneer square). And it sucks to say this but more and more parks are having a no tripod rule. It really depends on what your shooting and if your going to carry a tripod with you all the time. For me using my 17-55 2.8 IS I dont need one most of the time. A monopod does help sometimes though and They are allowed everywhere as far as I know. Much easier to take around too.

I would still get the 2.8 but that is just my opinion. You can always get a wider lens later if you want to go wider for landscapes and such.

BUT if you want the best of both worlds save up and get the 17-55 2.8 IS. One of my favorite lenses of all times!

I own the 17-70 & as many have said, it really should have been classed as a 17-70EX as the build quality is top notch, put it this way, I certainly wouldnt base my main desision based solely on whether its EX or not.

If constant aperture is important then forget about the 17-70, but for me the 17-70 just has so much going for it,

Great build quality (it should have had an EX badge on it)
Fantastic optics (certainly able to keep up with some Canon L lenses)
Decent focal range
Super close focussing (in MF it can focus far closer than advertised)
Very fast focussing, able to track fast moving objects no problem
Lightweight & not too large to carry around on your camera.
VERY good value for money!

The only bad points I can find are....

F2.8 a little soft at the edges, F4.5 & up are fine though (this is true of most lenses)
Has some zoom creep if you hold it vertical at anything less than 70mm

So more positives than negatives.

As for the 24-70, if that fits on a FF camera then fine, but on a cropped body 24mm isnt wide enough unless you are happy with that.

Without any doubt the 17-70 really is a bargain lens, it offers optics to rival an L lens while not breaking the bank, the macro focussing is a godsend!!

Before anyone quotes me on the "rival L" statement, well how would I know as I dont have any L lenses right? well im purely going on what ive read on this forum, ive seen quite a few people get the 17-70 & say its just as good & in some cases better than their 17-40L lens, they could all be telling porkies but there you go...

Nick

F/2.8 lenses have a narrower depth of field, but in addition the "High Precision Cross Type Auto focus Sensor" goes into triple accuracy with these lenses. Your XTi got that cross type AF sensor so a 2.8 lens will give better AF accuracy on it.

Maybe this is what you need to do....


Set your kit lens to 24mm and take some pictures.

Then you can see if you need to go to 17mm right now or if it can wait till your next lens purchase.


After all in my mind the only thing you should be concerned with is...


Do you need your lens to go to 17mm for wider pictures.
or
Do you need your lens to go to 2.8 for low light and action shots.


Either way you will be happy. Both great lenses.

I should clarify.

I do both dimly lit areas as well as full-on tripod city-scape night photography. In addition to all that, I have a XTi which underexposes a bit (corrected with +EC, yes i know) so I'd like to get all the light I can.

Keep the info and comments coming. I love reading peoples advice. Also, check out a thread called "Meet Matt" in general chat.

BTW, Photolistic, tell me about this "no-tripod" rule. Thats sounds absolutely ridiculous. I mean...why??

It is really stupid..... Its for liability though.

In NY you cant use a tripod at rockefeller center or the subway.

There is many places around the world that has adopted this rule. Its really unfortunate but most of the time a mono pod is OK.


But thats where a 2.8 or faster lens with IS comes in