- This topic is empty.
Sigma 17-70
-
Hi all, I’m considering getting this lens to use as an all rounder type lens although mostly as for landscape stuff so will be using it around the shorter end of the focal lenght. But I’ll use the 70 end for the odd macro and portrait type stuff.
I used to have a Siggy 18-50 f2.8, until it dived into the sea along with my A700, but I always found the 50mm end a little restrictive for some family snaps and close up work so that’s why I wouldn’t get another 18-50.
Anyway, what are peoples thoughts on the Siggy 17-70 f2.8 – 4.
Brian_C wrote:
Hi all, I’m considering getting this lens to use as an all rounder type lens although mostly as for landscape stuff so will be using it around the shorter end of the focal lenght. But I’ll use the 70 end for the odd macro and portrait type stuff.
I used to have a Siggy 18-50 f2.8, until it dived into the sea along with my A700, but I always found the 50mm end a little restrictive for some family snaps and close up work so that’s why I wouldn’t get another 18-50.
Anyway, what are peoples thoughts on the Siggy 17-70 f2.8 – 4.
good all round lens… it is rarely on my camera at the moment but that is because of the stuff I am shooting but I have to say it is a good versitile lens.
Hi Brian, I got one recently. I read good things about it. It is marketed as a “better than a kit lens”.
I got it because it should have been a little better than my 18-200 at 18 and 70 but it isnt. It is not as sharp as the sigma 10-20 and not sharper than the 18-200.The 2 images below are at 17mm, basically straight out of the camera.
no.1 f11 1/90
i like the sunburst even for f11
no.2 f13 0.3 sec
this ia a square crop from the top of a portrait image
try and tell me you could straighten that horizon. I think it falls off way too much on the right.
I like the “almost” macro closeness you get. Its not propper macro and doesnt come anywhere near the sharpness of a real macro lens. I think it is 1:2.
Mine might be a bad one. I dont know. Luckily I bought this locally so I am going to bring it back with some sample images. It wont replace the 18-200 which has the advantage of vr. Also it is already at f4 at 22or23mm.I’m going to contradict some of what has been written above and I suspect that emphasises the fact that with all lenses you can get good ones and bad ones.
I’ve had a Sigma 17-70 for over a year now and am REALLY pleased with it’s performance, it’s my main lens. I find it exceptionally sharp at all focal lengths, like most lenses it’s best if stopped down a bit from wide open. I generally end up shooting a lot around f8 and if you look at the test results on http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/349/cat/31 you’ll see it tends to perform well at that. As stated before it is not a true macro and operates at 2:1 not 1:1, however it can focus extremely close, at 70mm it can focus on something about 2mm from the UV filter.
I don’t know what brand of 18-200 is being mentioned but I have the Nikon 18-200 VR and it’s a very soft lens. I have heard that there are two different plants making that lens and that ones from the Thailand plant are not as good.
Aedan
Good all in one. Reasonable quality, fair macro, 17 to 70mm zoom. Huge filters though. Yellowish tint on some photos. Just slightly better than kit lenses.
I’d go for new tamron 17-50/2.8 VC instead.
18-200? No thanks! I went for dslr not for bridge camera.I had the Sigma 17-70 for about a year. It is a great all round range and a nice sharp lens, but for me it let me down with indoor shots. I effectively swapped it for a Tamron 28-75 f2.8. This gave me similar reach as the Sigma 17-70 but allowed me to use it indoors in low light. I also had to add a UWA lens as I used the 17 end of the Sigma for landscapes.
I do not regret the choice for a minute. It could be just my experience, but I find the Tamron better in every way. IMO it is a better buy than the Sigma if you can afford to lose the 17-28 range. I use the Tamron all the time, particularly for portrait work with the kids etc.
KWBarbs wrote:
I had the Sigma 17-70 for about a year. It is a great all round range and a nice sharp lens, but for me it let me down with indoor shots. I effectively swapped it for a Tamron 28-75 f2.8. This gave me similar reach as the Sigma 17-70 but allowed me to use it indoors in low light. I also had to add a UWA lens as I used the 17 end of the Sigma for landscapes.
I do not regret the choice for a minute. It could be just my experience, but I find the Tamron better in every way. IMO it is a better buy than the Sigma if you can afford to lose the 17-28 range. I use the Tamron all the time, particularly for portrait work with the kids etc.
That was a very good choice. I switch from universal zoom to sigma 10-20 plus nikkor 50/1.8D. Sometimes I miss a good prime lens of 24 – 35mm though.
I have also sigma 105/2.8 for macro, but I don’t use it much. I got new one very cheap in Belfast. I like it for narrow portraits.
As a matter of fact I don’t miss zoom at all.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
