Is the sigma 17-70mm worth getting?

[musebox]

I have the non OS version of the Sigma 17-70mm lens. I like the edge sharpness compared to the Canon 17-85mm which is really quite bad. Haven't tried the Tamron but I saw a review that rated it similar to the Canon, so I suggest you test first before deciding.

You're of great help! Now i have the second problem. To get the OS or the version without...
Like what you said, i came across plenty of reviews saying the old 17-70 without OS is sharp. So my question is, have you tried and compared the one with OS and the one without? If you have, then is the sharpness issue a problem in the new 17-70 with OS?

 

[musebox]

idk if my lens has a bug or smth but i can bring my camera to within less than 10cm of the subject and still be able to focus! anw i hv the 17-70 non-OS too. i bought mine 2nd hand but if i were to buy first hand i would have paid the extra $200 for OS partly cos i hv been using IS lenses for a while and so am not comfortable with shooting with no stabiliser. but now got used to it alr... i had the same qns u had only mine was vs 17-85 (which i found out sucked more than 18-55 IS). image quality is what u see in these pics. would recommend u make ur own decision on whats best for u. for me i dont need constant 2.8 cos i got prime lens so the extra focal range is good. tbh would have prefered the 17-85 if image quality was better or 15-85 if price was cheaper though..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50524731@N06/4781118317/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/50524731@N06/4781109951/in/photostream/

Thanks dude! You have the non-OS version right? So are there any major adjustments or imagine stability issues as compared to the canon lenses with IS? Cause i've read some comments that says at 17-70 range, there isn't really a need for OS..

 

[killerslayer92]

Thanks dude! You have the non-OS version right? So are there any major adjustments or imagine stability issues as compared to the canon lenses with IS? Cause i've read some comments that says at 17-70 range, there isn't really a need for OS..

lol i had the same problems and asked the same qns.. but bcos the 2nd hand 17-70 is so much cheaper than a brand new OS ver, i decided to juz go for the older ver. reviews say the new one is better bcos of extra lens element made of some special material (cant rmbr go research) personally i hvnt tried so no comment. u will find that when using the 17-70, the wider aperture will not give u the same low light performance as IS equipped lens so it will take time to get used to but eventually u shld be able to recreate same image on both lenses.

 

[dingdongz]

Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 Macro would be a good choice!

 

[litlefiter]

Hi, I was considering the 17-70 too. But, i read the reviews online which said that the sigma lens (with OS) is only sharp when stopped down by 1-2 stops, so i decided to go with the 15-85 instead, maybe you want to consider that or the non-os version of the 17-70. =D

What I like about the 17-70 is the macro function but the sharpness is quite a let down

 

[killerslayer92]

Hi, I was considering the 17-70 too. But, i read the reviews online which said that the sigma lens (with OS) is only sharp when stopped down by 1-2 stops, so i decided to go with the 15-85 instead, maybe you want to consider that or the non-os version of the 17-70. =D

What I like about the 17-70 is the macro function but the sharpness is quite a let down

haha u hv the money to go for 15-85 mah.. $900 2nd hand, $1k+ new. ppl who dun hv the cash but want a lens with similar focal length and performance hv to go for 17-70

 

[musebox]

Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 Macro would be a good choice!

agree dude... now i'm considering the 18-50 and the 17-70... MTF charts looks like the 17-70 has got the upper hand... but lab test and reality is always different...

would you go for the 17-70 with extra 20mm focal length or the 18-50, which has a neat constant f2.8 as well as closer min. focusing distance of 20cm?

 

[musebox]

Hi, I was considering the 17-70 too. But, i read the reviews online which said that the sigma lens (with OS) is only sharp when stopped down by 1-2 stops, so i decided to go with the 15-85 instead, maybe you want to consider that or the non-os version of the 17-70. =D

What I like about the 17-70 is the macro function but the sharpness is quite a let down

have you tested the sharpness of the of the 17-70 at wide open yourself? Cause i've actually came across reviews with sample shots at 17mm which has pretty decent sharpness. Not as good as the canon's lenses at similar focal range of course, but definitely better than the kit lens! haha.

 

[musebox]

haha u hv the money to go for 15-85 mah.. $900 2nd hand, $1k+ new. ppl who dun hv the cash but want a lens with similar focal length and performance hv to go for 17-70

hey thanks for your reply man. Yup. I've considered the 15-85 already, but i figured that the sigma's 17-70mm has features like bigger aperture, close focusing distance and HSM and most importantly, friendly on my pocket. haha.

However, i'm thinking about the sigma's 18-50mm f2.8 now.. what do you think buddy? Mind giving me your opinion?

 

[jaegersing]

have you tested the sharpness of the of the 17-70 at wide open yourself? Cause i've actually came across reviews with sample shots at 17mm which has pretty decent sharpness. Not as good as the canon's lenses at similar focal range of course, but definitely better than the kit lens! haha.

I compared the Canon 17 - 85mm with the non OS Sigma 17 - 70mm. Maybe my Canon was sub-standard or something, but it was much much worse than the Sigma for edge sharpness. In shots of large groups of people taken with the 17 - 85, lens, the guys at the left and right edges of the group looked like their faces were made of melted wax. The Sigma was much sharper.

I suggest you go round some camera shops and ask to try out the lenses you are interested in. You will probably get conflicting opinions on the internet, but in the end it is what you think that matters. And if you buy the actual lens that you test, you will have confidence that the performance will be the same. If you only buy based on website lens review, the sample that you buy may not be as good.

 

[killerslayer92]

hey thanks for your reply man. Yup. I've considered the 15-85 already, but i figured that the sigma's 17-70mm has features like bigger aperture, close focusing distance and HSM and most importantly, friendly on my pocket. haha.

However, i'm thinking about the sigma's 18-50mm f2.8 now.. what do you think buddy? Mind giving me your opinion?

i hv nvr used that lens b4 so no opinion but it really depends on what u need. if u need the extra focal length then get the sigma

 

[litlefiter]

hey thanks for your reply man. Yup. I've considered the 15-85 already, but i figured that the sigma's 17-70mm has features like bigger aperture, close focusing distance and HSM and most importantly, friendly on my pocket. haha.

However, i'm thinking about the sigma's 18-50mm f2.8 now.. what do you think buddy? Mind giving me your opinion?

I havent tried it yet but you could also consider the Tammy 17-50 (non-vc). IQ is excellent, price also very excellent!

 

[musebox]

I compared the Canon 17 - 85mm with the non OS Sigma 17 - 70mm. Maybe my Canon was sub-standard or something, but it was much much worse than the Sigma for edge sharpness. In shots of large groups of people taken with the 17 - 85, lens, the guys at the left and right edges of the group looked like their faces were made of melted wax. The Sigma was much sharper.

I suggest you go round some camera shops and ask to try out the lenses you are interested in. You will probably get conflicting opinions on the internet, but in the end it is what you think that matters. And if you buy the actual lens that you test, you will have confidence that the performance will be the same. If you only buy based on website lens review, the sample that you buy may not be as good.

Great stuff! It feels good to know that from someone with experience with the 17-70mm. I feel more secure and confident in my decision to get a sigma now. haha. THanks man!

 

[musebox]

i hv nvr used that lens b4 so no opinion but it really depends on what u need. if u need the extra focal length then get the sigma

Ya... the only thing about the 18-50 that bothers me is the shorter focal length... damn man... can't have best of both worlds when one lacks the $$

 

[musebox]

I havent tried it yet but you could also consider the Tammy 17-50 (non-vc). IQ is excellent, price also very excellent!

yup... but figured that 17-70, i need the OS, but for the tamron, large aperture and focal length of up to only 50, without VC is fine..

 

[ovaltinemilo]

Ya... the only thing about the 18-50 that bothers me is the shorter focal length... damn man... can't have best of both worlds when one lacks the $$

I think 18-50 focal length is still fine...its constant aperture would be much desired than the extra focal length as I don't really find myself using the far end of the 17-70mm often.

 

[tuwinkk]

wht is ur preference?
u want extra 20mm or faster lens?
if u want to get faster lens, 17-50 or 18-50 f2.8 might be more suitable for u..
if u need the extra focal length...17-70 is better..
there is plus min on both lenses..

*just my 2 cents opinion*