Sigma DIligma - 17-70, 24-70 ...

I may be able to buy one lens, and I am torn between two Sigma models:

- Sigma 17-70 2.8 : This seems to be the lens to go with, it has wide angle reach (for a crop at least), 2.8 is not bad (Though it does not stay through all the way to 70), and it is narrower and smaller than its brother the 24-70. I shot a few frames yesterday at the local store, and it performed to my liking.
Price Tag - $370
OR

- Sigma 24-70 2.8: Well this one is a bigger, wider lens. Stays 2.8 throughout the entire focal range, and it is a bit more expensive. Reading the forums and doing some research, I found a comment by someone that I thought was interesting "..with the 24-70 you will usually wish more you could go a bit wider angle, than to wish you could have a wider aperture". And i see that point. Even indoors, 2.8 is fast enough but often too shallow DOF for news photos. (Dunno, maybe I've forgotten my own craft already).
Price Tag - $499

Money is definitely an issue. 17-70 does make sense for some points of view, but I do not want shoppers remorse in 10 days, because for some reason I missed on a great lens for only $130.

Who owns these? What was your experience with them?

i have owned both. I started with a 24-70 from my film days and replaced it with a 17-70
I decide to replace it because:
- 24mm wasn't wide enough on a 1.6 crop
- I found the 24-70 to be just too big and bulky for a walkaround/travel lens. 82mm filter!

I was satisfied with the IQ of either of them. Focus speed and accuracy was comparable - neither have USM. Sometimes I do miss the f/2.8 though.

If you don't absolutely need the 70mm reach, then you should also consider the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Also, there's a new more compact version of the 24-70mm version being released soon. With USM!!

The 24-70 is my favorite. 24 is wide enough for me on a crop, and up to 70 means you have all manner of portrait ranges covered. Its a normal to portrait lens with a bit of a wide setting.

2.8 is very thin at 70mm, but 2.8 is also very deep at 24mm You always can stop this down, you can't open up the 17-70 any more. Distortion is very low on this lens which is one of the reasons I really like it, also vignetting is a non-issue.

Photozone.de reviewed it and said
"The Sigma AF 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG macro showed an impressive performance throughout all characteristics. It is a very sharp lens at all mainstream aperture settings. Distortions, CAs as well as vignetting are moderate and usually nothing to worry about. The build quality is very fine and the AF is pretty fast despite the enormous glass elements and a conventional AF micro-motor. The biggest problem of the Sigma is not performance but its scope. When used on APS-C DSLRs the zoom range (38-112mm) doesn't really qualify it as a standard zoom in the true sense although it surely has some appeal for press and basic portrait photography. It will be interesting to see how this lens will perform within the full format test scope."

Then they gave it highly rated. I thought that bit about press was funny, sound like they could be talking about you! Its a sign

I have tonnes of shots with it from the last 4 months and 6,000 Km its done with me (including 2 model shoots and 1 non-model shoot)

Sigma 24-70 is about $300, not $500.

angryhampster wrote in post #6858702
Sigma 24-70 is about $300, not $500.

Maybe he means the HSM version.

I can only say i am happy with the 17-70,
24-70 is not wide enough for me on crop.
And you still have the 25-70 reach with the 17-70 on a full frame
(have not tried myself, yet).

I own the 24-70 2.8 and love it. It is amazing for portraits. I am still suprised by some of the images it produces. I would say it's stongest suit is portaits. As an everyday walk around lens it is not wide enough and a little to bulky. But for the money, and the images it produces I have no regrets. Very much worth the money.

I'd say that they're different lenses for different purposes. I own the Sigma 17-70 and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, for example.

I use the 28-75 (or would use the 24-70/2.8 if I had it) as a portrait lens, where the wider aperture is useful, and 28mm is wide enough (for me). The 17-70 gets used for landscapes and as a general walkaround lens, mostly outdoors.

The 17-70 is not a wide aperture lens at the long end, and is a bit soft when it is wide open, and that makes it not so good for portraits. On the other hand, the 24-70 would not be wide enough for landscapes/walkaround use. if I could only have one, however, it would be the 17-70 hands down.

Thanks for the very good points and shared experiences so far.
I wholeheartedly agree that each lens does have a 'niche' for which it is best, I never liked the "Lens A vs B which should I get?" threads.

In this case, I have some family formal photos tomorrow, I will be using a 70-200 2.8 I have on loan from a very generous soul from POTN, so for portraits (70-100mm at 2.8) I am not really worried.

But for a group shot, where there will be anywhere from 10-20 family members, I keep thinking that I need something wide. 17-70 seems good enough, though I am not sure how it would perform in low light. I don't need it to be a miracle, but just good enough.

Right now, I have an 18-55 (another mini Festivus Miracle), and I will use it if nothing else comes along. I love the lens. I am afraid that since this is for a job, that I may want something with a bit more sharpness and definition. I can only afford one lens, and a Sigma 10-20 will not be on the horizon for a while. So the 17mm would be tempting if all of you owners out there thought it was superior in quality to the kit lens (18-55), and if it was good enough as a walkaround lens.

Thanks though for all the great insights so far.

Any thoughts?...

There's always the crazy cheap Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 available from Cameta Camera from their ebay shop for a little over $200 new US model or through Cameta's Amazon shop for a bit more. Sharp lens (after the Sigma tuneup). I held onto my old 17-70 but don't seem to use it much anymore at all.

JackProton wrote in post #6862039
There's always the crazy cheap Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 available from Cameta Camera from their ebay shop for a little over $200 new US model or through Cameta's Amazon shop for a bit more. Sharp lens (after the Sigma tuneup). I held onto my old 17-70 but don't seem to use it much anymore at all.

Yeah- I was about to suggest that.

Can anyone tell me roughly what are the max aperture sizes (min) throughout the focal length?.. Something like:

17- 2.8
24- 2.8
35- 3.5
50- 3.5
70- 4.0

I just made those up. What's the actua llens like? I am about to go out and purchase one of these, so that I can have ready for tomorrow morning (would like some practice shots today). I do like the 24-70 a tad better (well, the 24-105L if we talk about wants), but since I will not be buying another lens for a while, the 17-70 would provide me the extra wide reach, specially on the crop camera.

PhotoJourno wrote in post #6864993
Can anyone tell me roughly what are the max aperture sizes (min) throughout the focal length?.. Something like:

17- 2.8
24- 2.8
35- 3.5
50- 3.5
70- 4.0

I just made those up. What's the actua llens like? I am about to go out and purchase one of these, so that I can have ready for tomorrow morning (would like some practice shots today). I do like the 24-70 a tad better (well, the 24-105L if we talk about wants), but since I will not be buying another lens for a while, the 17-70 would provide me the extra wide reach, specially on the crop camera.

Aperture sizes:

17 2.8
19 3.2
24 3.5
35 4.0
55 4.5
70 4.5

The lens is nice, my version have zoom creep, but you can lock it at 17mm,
otherwise well build, nice hood, you can of course hear the focus motor,
but its not loud, not like my 35 f2
The macro capability is ok, well it focuses all the way to the lens element
I find it sharper than the 18-55.

Well, call me nuts, but I ended up with the following lens:

Sigma 18-50 2.8.

Why? Because if I want 70mm 2.8, I can use 70-200 2.8 lens. And 18mm, well I am not sure I would use wide open, but it does give me enough wide angle on the crop lens.

Figured out it was a good compromise between both lenses.

What do you all think ??

Sounds good to me. The SIgma 18-50 f2.8 MACRO is supposed to be the better version.

baxtefer wrote in post #6858569
i have owned both. I started with a 24-70 from my film days and replaced it with a 17-70
I decide to replace it because:
- 24mm wasn't wide enough on a 1.6 crop
- I found the 24-70 to be just too big and bulky for a walkaround/travel lens. 82mm filter!

I was satisfied with the IQ of either of them. Focus speed and accuracy was comparable - neither have USM. Sometimes I do miss the f/2.8 though.

If you don't absolutely need the 70mm reach, then you should also consider the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Also, there's a new more compact version of the 24-70mm version being released soon. With USM!!

I totally agree with this, in my experience the 24-70 was not much better/sharper than the 17-70 (execpt for the lack of constant aperture..) I should not worry too much about that! Decide wether you want 17-24mm or 2.8..