sigma 17-70 f2.8~4 DC MACRO OS HSM

J

johndc26

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9
Edit My Images
No
hi guys, anyone who have direct experience about how the above lens perform.
Was planning to buy this in the future or the tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-vc.

Tnx,
Jdc
 
I have one John and I love it. Very solid quality build, good stabilisation, balances nicely on my 7D, quick and accurate AF and it's sharp. The only downside was that I had to microadjust a little due to a bit of front focussing but that's no real problem. It's bigger and heavier than you expect so go and try one out.

Btw, I havn't done any macro with it since I've got a Canon 60mm for that.
 
I don't own any of them, but from what I've read, you may also want to check out the Sigma 17-50mm, although it's a little more expensive.
 
WilliamC said:
I have one John and I love it. Very solid quality build, good stabilisation, balances nicely on my 7D, quick and accurate AF and it's sharp. The only downside was that I had to microadjust a little due to a bit of front focussing but that's no real problem. It's bigger and heavier than you expect so go and try one out.

Btw, I havn't done any macro with it since I've got a Canon 60mm for that.
Click to expand...

Tnx William for ur ideas.
How hard it is to use in low light?
As mention on the review, f2.8 only at 17mm.
Btw, im using d90, this will be my 1st time to buy 3rd party lens so i like to make best decision.
I believe u know how expensive nikkor lens right.
 
I got one a year ago to replace my 18-55 kit lens and, whilst it is ony f2.8 up to about 24mm, I wanted to go for the extra length over the Tamron 17-50, which was my other consideration.

My photos are noticeably sharper than my kit lens, and I am happy to recommend it.
 
Hi there, I have had one of these lenses for just over a year now and love it. Had heard about soft focus issues on this lens but decided to get one anyway and haven't regretted it one bit as the one I have is pin sharp. Go for it!
 
I used to have one of these, pin sharp, well built, I thoroughly enjoyed it as a walk around lens.

I used mine with a 450d a couple of years ago before I had to sell my canon gear and it was leap and bounds ahead of the kit lens.
 
Thanks to all ur sharing, will continue to do my research for this one.
Hope my budget can fit in, im planning to sell some under utilize camera stuff to fund this one.
 
gnirtS said:
Im seriously looking at getting one of these (that or tamron 17-50VC) but all the reports of soft focus/front focus worry me especially as my 450D doesnt have a microadjust.
I want the lens but not sure how much of a gamble it is buying one then finding out its soft.
Click to expand...

As per review the tammy non vc is much better.
Anyway, camera shake at this focal length manageable.
 
gnirtS said:
Its a useful reference but this lens isnt listed :)
Click to expand...

Yep, only the sigma 17-50 was listed.
Advantage of sigma is the addition 20mm and macro capability.
 
gnirtS said:
However its 20mm shorter which might make a difference to me. Hence wanting a 17-70 *if* they dont have focus problems!
Click to expand...

I agree with u gnirts
Another factor to consider is the f-stop.
2.8 all through of tammy has advantage in low light and sigma 2.8 is limited from 17-24mm.
This makes u choice which will be more important for ur shooting preference.
 
Sigma is still only f/3.5 at 50mm so not actually a massive change (and f/4 at 70mm gives a similar narrow DOF to f/2.8 at 50mm) so that doesnt bother me.

Ive also heard the tamron hunts in low light despite its fast design. Im more interested with how common these "front focus" issues are with the sigma - if its widespread its a show stopper for me. If its isolated issues then its probably worth the risk.
 
I have an early sample and I've been very pleased with it on a variety of Nikon DSLRs. I mainly use it for table-top photography as 1:2.7 is enough and the zoom range gives good flexibility. Here's an example:

flattened.jpg


My only niggle is the pincushion distortion a mid-focal lengths but this should be easy to correct in pp.

5221288552_bb6aeceed9_b.jpg


Anyone notice a theme running through these? :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top