Sigma 17-70 opinions/thoughts/reviews (ordered+recieved)

Matt L

Matt L

Suspended / Banned
Messages
852
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
Currently considering buying it as an upgrade from the kit lens and to bridge the gap between the 70-300.

will still keep the kit lens as i have a few filters for it now so dont want to waste all them, but is it definatly a worthwhile upgrade? as it will be just under £300 which is quite a chunk of money (not compared to most other lens' lol.)

Thanks
Matt
 
I am also very interested in this lens but I'd say it's more around £250 is it not? It seems to be a great range and quite sharp. The Tamron 17-50mm seems to be more appealing though as I really don't like the look of the variable aperture down the focal range and generally the Tamron is slightly sharper too. However, the price is important to me so I may be getting the 17-70.
 
I used to have a Sigma 17-70mm and I loved it. I sold it a while ago for £150 and I'm coming to regret it. It was nice and sharp and despite the descreasing aperture at the longer zoom range it was decent in low light.

If you are on a budget then I'd recommend picking up one of these lenses second hand. You won't regret it.
 
slick: yeh the lens is £250 but id be getting a cp filter at the same time. which is about 30-40 depending which one i go for. I have read the tamaron is ever so slightly better but its a bit out of my price range for what i need.

iv spent most of the day looking through flikr at pictures taken with the lens and they all look really sharp.
 
I was debating it, but I didn't like the fact that it was only f/2.8 at the wide end. I went for the Tamron, as I needed the f/2.8 throughout the range. I got the Tamron on here second hand for £200 (and a CPL for £20), which would be nicely within your price range!

Chris
 
I hate the Sigma 17-70...it's quite sharp and IQ is alright, but in my opinion is the only thing going for it.

Poor build quality (I got one from work and it broke within 2 weeks, now gone for repair).

The fact that it's not a constant aperture sucks as well.

Lens hood often falls of, not secure enough.

Zoom and focus rings arn't smooth enough.

DX crop so on an FX body you have to shoot in DX mode (on Nikon).

I spose you get what you pay for though, it's cheap.

Wish I had enough money for the 17-35 f/2.8 Nikon...
 
8utters said:
I hate the Sigma 17-70...it's quite sharp and IQ is alright, but in my opinion is the only thing going for it.

Poor build quality (I got one from work and it broke within 2 weeks, now gone for repair).

The fact that it's not a constant aperture sucks as well.

Lens hood often falls of, not secure enough.

Zoom and focus rings arn't smooth enough.

DX crop so on an FX body you have to shoot in DX mode (on Nikon).

I spose you get what you pay for though, it's cheap.

Wish I had enough money for the 17-35 f/2.8 Nikon...
Click to expand...

Sounds as though you got a bad one mate.

Mine is built much better than the Canon kit lens, built like a tank (but heavier than the kit lens)
Lens hood clicks nicely into place. Zoom and focus rings, lovely and smooth.
 
I've been having the same problem and also spent all morning looking at images on the internet.

Anyway I've ordered mine and it should be here tomorrow, so will let you know what I think.

Just hope a get a good copy.
 
8utters said:
I hate the Sigma 17-70...it's quite sharp and IQ is alright, but in my opinion is the only thing going for it.

Poor build quality (I got one from work and it broke within 2 weeks, now gone for repair).

The fact that it's not a constant aperture sucks as well.

Lens hood often falls of, not secure enough.

Zoom and focus rings arn't smooth enough.

DX crop so on an FX body you have to shoot in DX mode (on Nikon).

I spose you get what you pay for though, it's cheap.

Wish I had enough money for the 17-35 f/2.8 Nikon...
Click to expand...
this sound Nothing like mine and the OP has a Canon any how
It a good lens much better then the kit lens by far
 
agree sounds like a bad one,

just upgraded from mine.
the only down sides to this lens was the variable aperture on the lens, it served me well and its a great walkabout for crop factor, Wide enough for landscape, long enough for a bit of everything really, the close focusing help in many occasions.

you wont regret it over the kit lens that much i will tell you.
 
no mistake, you have made a good investment.
mines been as sturdy as a rock and i had it for 2 years with no problem.
 
It's a very good choice, I owned one for 2 yrs until recently - swapped it for the Pentax equivalent with HSM, it's very sharp and I found the build to be excellent - 90% of the shots on my website were taken with it

simon
 
I've had mine for over a year now and bought it for around £175 brand new. I have nothing but praise for this lens. The build quality is good and it is very sharp. Fantastic portrait lens and general travel lens. I also own the Nikon 16-85mm VR lens and find very little difference between the two apart from the fact that the Sigma is faster but the Nikon has VR .Overall very pleased and highly recommended.
 
Gets good reviews. Shame they don't do a constant f2.8 version though - they would fly out the door if the price was right...
 
Wasn't a bad one, we have 2 at work and i've used them both.

Maybe i'm just used to pro-grade Canon L series / Nikon gold ring stuff...
 
I've had one for a couple of years first on a 350D and now a 40D and have found it an excellent and reliable lens for the price. Not as good as a prime but well worth the money. It's the lens that allows me to take an SLR on holiday as well as the compact, wouldn't be without it.
 
TommyGun said:
I've had mine for over a year now and bought it for around £175 brand new. I have nothing but praise for this lens. The build quality is good and it is very sharp. Fantastic portrait lens and general travel lens. I also own the Nikon 16-85mm VR lens and find very little difference between the two apart from the fact that the Sigma is faster but the Nikon has VR .Overall very pleased and highly recommended.
Click to expand...

Music to my ears. I own a Tamron 17-50 f2,8 but find the zoom just a tad limited, especially for a walkabout for holidays etc . Considered the Nikkor 16-85 but ended up with a cheap Sigma 17-70. Fantastic sharp lens on my Fufi s5 pro and much lighter than the Tamron. Perfect for my up and coming trip to Alabama .Will be selling the Tamron soon .
 
Its here :D or i assume it is :lol: its wrapped in the most bubble wrap i have ever seen :lol: wait till dinner to open it up and check it over :). just need my camera back now lol.

so far the shopping experience from warehouse express has bin amazing.

edit: just had a quick look at it and looks pretty solid, zoom seems pretty smooth etc. alot bigger and a bit heavier than i was expecting :lol: but then again i wasnt sure what i was expecting.
 
Matt L said:
Its here :D or i assume it is :lol: its wrapped in the most bubble wrap i have ever seen :lol: wait till dinner to open it up and check it over :). just need my camera back now lol.

so far the shopping experience from warehouse express has bin amazing.

edit: just had a quick look at it and looks pretty solid, zoom seems pretty smooth etc. alot bigger and a bit heavier than i was expecting :lol: but then again i wasnt sure what i was expecting.
Click to expand...

nice one matt....ditto here,ordered my 18-50 F/2.8 yesterday around 4.00pm,and it arrived this morning also covered in the most bubble wrap i've ever seen.my wife was convinced i'd ordered half of WHE :lol:

will deffo have the pleasure of ordering from them again :thumbs:
 
Brilliant lens. Only sold mine to help pay for a 17-55.
 
Ok so the thread is a bit old, but a few months on I was interested in what people think of the 17-70 now they must have seen some use!!! I also bought one to replace my kit lens about 3 months ago and am pretty happy with it.

The focal range is very good and is actually the only reason I chose it over the Tamron 17-50, we all know the f/2.8 isn't through the range so cant really moan about that- a minor pain is if trying to take a quick snap in low light you need a proper flash- the small built in jobbie cant really reach over the massive 72mm front end of the Sigma!!! (and as my flash is not ETTL it wont fire any pre-flashes to help AF which sometimes renders trying to take a pic useless)

So I have found the only real thing that seems to really let it down is how much in hunts unless the light is perfect! Is that due to my 400D (want to upgrade to a 40/50D next year) or is it a common feature of the Sigma 17-70? I also like the look of the new version which has IS and a USM- so should focus even quicker and the IS will be handy- if it copes in low light better on a xxD!!!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top