SIGMA 24-70 VS. SIGMA 17-70

I choose the 17-70 simply because I won't be able to afford an UWA for some time, and the 24-70 is just not quite wide enough on the crop body.

If you plan on getting an UWA in the near future, then IMO the 24-70 is the better choice, you can't beat that constant 2.8

24-70 for the simple fact that you've got f/2.8 across the entire zoom length. This is a feature you won't regret having!

Budget for a true wide angle later on and use the 24-70 as a mid range.

17-70

Becareful don't try to point up above 45 degree angle or else the front section of the lens falls back into the body LOL. I returned mine for a Tamron 17-50 because mine was a bad copy I believe, too much money there to hang around and put up with it, so I returned it.

One thing that I forgot to mention is eventually if you start making money at photography (or just get really serious about it) and you start buying more lenses you will most likely eventually replace the 17-70 for either a faster lens or a lens that has a straight across aperture like ajbalazic explained in the post above.


So really buying the 24-70 you will SAVE yourself money in the long run.

Awesome. Yeah I plan on getting a 10-20 or 12-22 or something after this lens. Maybe next month. Any suggestions for that? Less than $500 preferably.

Photolistic wrote in post #2545874
So really buying the 24-70 you will SAVE yourself money in the long run.

If that were the case, you may opt for something different than the Sigma.
The Sigma 10-20 is apparently a good lens, and cheaper than the Canon UWA. I don't know about America, but I suppose you could pick it up for less than your budget.

farrukh wrote in post #2538861
1- Its a full frame lens so its a safe future.
.

What exactly is a full frame lens?

I own the sigma 24-70 2.8 and I find the AF to be very noisy and slow, especially in lowish light conditions when trying to take portraits. Does anyone else have the same problem with the lens?

I also have the 17-40 4L and I'm very happy with the AF speed on this lens.

If the AF on the 17-70 was fast i'd go for that lens.

I think the 17-70 is the more versatile lens due to the greater range. I(t is still pretty fast, being f/2.8-f/4 at the tele end.

the 24-70 is a big heavy old lens, and has an 82mm thread which means you need to buy a dedicated set of filters for it, that won't fit anything else you might buy.

I second that, the 17-70 has very fast AF, but my copy wasn't accurate.

My copy of the 24-70 I find fast to focus, not overly loud (doesn't bother me, but I've never owned a USM lens so...) and rarely hunts. I shoot indoors a lot, but I also typically have the ability to turn on lights if I want. I can't say what this would be like in a dark club etc.

But to answer your question AdamJL. A "Full Frame Lens" is one designed such that it's image circle is large enough to cover a standard 35mm film frame or a "Full Frame" sensor which is roughly the same size as standard 35mm film. The 300D, 350D, 400D, 10D, 20D and I think 30D all are "crop" cameras with APS-C sized sensors which are smaller than 35mm film. Lens manufacturers are making lenses that fit these cameras but if you put the lens on are "Full Frame" camera, you would not cover the entire sensor and the corners would be dark if not black. Canon's own EF-S lens line does this, but they have the added problem of only fitting a few cameras, the 10D does not work with EF-S lenses even though it has the smaller sesnor because the EF-S lenses have a special mount that the rear lens protrudes further into the camera and the mirror would hit it as it moves.

Do some searching and there are better more technical details of "Digital Only" lenses and EF-S lenses here. But that's why the 17-70 is "Digital Only", it does not cover a full 35mm size sensor or film, it is designed specifically to cover APS-C sized sensors.

Moppie wrote in post #2545838
I choose the 17-70 simply because I won't be able to afford an UWA for some time, and the 24-70 is just not quite wide enough on the crop body.

If you plan on getting an UWA in the near future, then IMO the 24-70 is the better choice, you can't beat that constant 2.8

thats what i have just done i orderd my first slr and the sigma 24-70 and 10-20 , carnt wait for it to come within the next few days

Why not buy the sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DG macro?

As the proud owner of two W.A, SIgma lenses, I can tell you all; There is no difference in build quality between the 17-70 DC Macro and other EX lenses, Strange, but true.
The 17-70 is actually optically better than some of it's more expensive, EX models! The constant 2.8 aperture is more of a mith than a so called "big" plus. The very reason why I got rid of my 18-50 2.8 EX, as I almost never used it wide open! I shoot a lot of landscapes and close-ups, so the 17-70's wideness and close range focusing ability was a must! The 24-70 all though a nice n sharp lens, can't even come close to the 17-70 in versatility!

steved110 wrote in post #2546373
I think the 17-70 is the more versatile lens due to the greater range. I(t is still pretty fast, being f/2.8-f/4 at the tele end.

the 24-70 is a big heavy old lens, and has an 82mm thread which means you need to buy a dedicated set of filters for it, that won't fit anything else you might buy.

The guy selling me the 24/70 is going to include a UV filter with the $275 price.