View Full Version : Sigma 17-70 as "general purpose lens"? - update. oops :)
doesnotcompute
13-09-2006, 09:42
Having only the 18-55 kit lens and 55-200 Zoom that came with my 350d, it's clear to me that these lenses aren't anywhere close to being top notch.
Other commitments (new bedroom, curtains, holiday, etc) mean I can't justify spending a huge whack on glass, but, I would like one, decentish lens for now.
Looking through the forums, seeing Taq's test shots and the photzone write up, I'm thinking of the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 macro.
It seems to cover the "everyday" bases - "ooh, there's a great building", "ahh, pretty landscape", "hey! that's a weird bug, let's get a close up" etc.
I realise that it won't be good at long distances and won't win me any macro competitions.
It's 200 on ebay from Hong Kong, 235 from OSD, and I can get it for about 230 (€330) in the Netherlands, for a Netherlands model (thinking warranty).
Does anyone want to give me a thumbs up :thumbs: , down :cuckoo: , or alternative suggestion :dork: for similar price range?
Thanks :)
don't forget to get a quote from kerso ;)
doesnotcompute
13-09-2006, 10:29
don't forget to get a quote from kerso ;)
I suspect the delivery to Netherlands would wipe out any savings there.
I used mine most of the time on holiday apart from the otter place we went as it's a great lens for most situations. As you point out it's not a specialist lens though for anything in particular.
There's some more shots I took with mine here:
http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=432469&highlight=peak+district
Taq
doesnotcompute
13-09-2006, 13:51
Taq - it was your peak district ones that sort of confirmed to me that it was a reasonable all rounder - are they straight out of camera?
thanks
Well I shoot in RAW but they weren't tweaked much. One thing to note is though with some of them I used a graduated filter to prevent the sky from bleaching too much.
Taq
Providing you get a good version, the Sigma 17-70mm is great walk-about lens since it has a useful range and isn't too bulky. It replaced my original lens of choice (which was the Tamron 28-75 f2.8) mostly because it wasn't wide enough. It also does macro quite well - this are a few photos I had to hand which were recently taken with the Sigma.
http://www.pbase.com/rwniel/image/66796997/large
http://www.pbase.com/rwniel/image/66797886/large
http://www.pbase.com/rwniel/image/66798703/large
http://www.pbase.com/rwniel/image/66799031/large
Finally, a non-macro shot:
http://www.pbase.com/rwniel/image/66799211/large
Robert
I was debating this lens, the Sigma 50mm and the Tamron 17-50mm. In the end I got the Tamron 17-50mm. If you don't need the extra 30mm, the Tamron is worth looking at too.
There's a review of some fast standard zoom's in October's Photography Monthly. The 17-70 Sigma isn't reviewed but the Canon 24-70L, Sigma 18-50, Sigma 24-70, Sigma 28-70, Tamron 28-75 & Tamron 17-50 are all reviewed if thats any use!
doesnotcompute
13-09-2006, 21:18
Hi Sam - I can't get hold of a copy over here - care so list their order of preference (and if the L isn't top, I'd be amazed). Also - anyone know how unbiased these reviews are? I know kit reviews in motorbike mags are usually not as unbiased as the average consumer would like!
Sprout Crumble
14-09-2006, 04:10
Said this once and I'll say it again; A letter L and a red ring does not make the lens the best in its class nor a great lens in itself. The 24-70/2.8 has its fair share of detractors, a reputation for wide sample variation and to top it all, the 17-55/2.8 IS is almost universally considered superior.
I'd also be amazed if 1% of people can spot any real differences between the Tamron 17-50 and the 24-70L.
Lose the preconceptions mate, or you'll just end up pouring unnecessary money into an L addiction. Some are worth it, some aren't.
24-70L 90/100 Pros: well built, even resolution, contrast. Cons:Noticeable barrel distortion at 24mm.
Sigma 18-50 84/100 pros: Small& Light, fast and accurate AF. Cons: CA wide open.
Sigma 24-70 84/100 Pros: picture and build quality, easy manual focus. Cons: Noisy AF, slightly soft wide open.
Sigma 28-79 84/100 Pros: picture quality, size & weight, price. Cons: Noisy AF, slightly soft wide open.
Tamron 28-75 89/100 Pros: Quick & accurate operation, impressive at 75mm. Cons: Noisy AF, not wide enough for cropped DSLRs
Tamron 17-50 87/100 Pros: Control of CA, consistency, build. Cons: wide end distortion, no case or pouch supplied.
I have the Tamron 28-75 as my walkabout lens and love it but obviously it does lack at the wide end.
doesnotcompute
14-09-2006, 05:55
Lose the preconceptions mate, or you'll just end up pouring unnecessary money into an L addiction. Some are worth it, some aren't.
Not my preconceptions mate - just those that I see around. Hence my question about biasedness.
I couldn't afford "L" series glass, no, sorry, I /wouldn't/ afford L series glass, my pictures and the time I can spend don't justify it.
One thing to note about this lens is that it's not great at getting a consistent focus lock on large blocks of the same colour. I guess though that's similar for a lot of lenses and the way autofocus works. In 99.9% of cases that's not a problem (unless you like taking pictures of painted walls) as there's usually some contrasting bits about but it does make taking pics of chestnut horses a bit of a random exercise sometimes.
doesnotcompute
09-10-2006, 07:43
Well it seems I just clicked on the "buy this shiny toy" button for the Sigma 17-70. Oops. :)
Well it seems I just clicked on the "buy this shiny toy" buttonI hate when that happens :)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.