Question on Sigma 17-70

[blurboiboi]

anyone using the above lens?? any feedback??.. currently using 28-75 tamron.... but it is'nt wide enough... wanted to get 17-35 initially to complement my 28-75... but 17-70 seems good...
so should i go for 1 lens option (17-70) or 2 lens option (28-75 n 17-35)??

 

[zcf]

some reviews here
Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro
Tamron AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF

The Sigma looks good and cheap, but it won't be able to use on film body or Full frame DSLR (in the future). Also need to consider the colour output of the lens.

The f/2.8 of 28-75mm also very helpful in low light condition shots.

So if you are looking for
quality = 2 lens and more expensive
convenient = 1 lens and cheaper

 

[digi]

I have used the sigma 17-70 for over a month now. And I can say I was pleasantly surprised with it. Build quality so so, plasticky, but optics excellent. It really is. It is light and small. Speed ok, the 28-75mm tad faster.
At 17mm it has some distortions, I feel slightly worst than the 17-35mm, but acceptable still. Best thing is the range. Its not 2.8 throughout (and not priced like one). This should be the "kit lens", not the KM 18-70DT IMO.

 

[TME]

How's the barrel distortion control? I have a full frame 17-35 and it was quite bad on a film SLR and only slightly better on a APS-C DSLR despite the smaller image circle.

 

[GENO]

wait wait...till oct or nov...get that COWWWWWWW zecccccsss....16-80mm:heart:

 

[tokrot]

I never trust sigma on wide to standard zoom lens (except the 12-24). Last time did some research and checked the reviews, Sigma had very bad rating on wide to standard zoom lens. Dunno about the latest ones but I still prefer to get Sigma for longer zoom lens because it's proven. I still prefer Tamron/Km lens for wide shots unless someone can convince me otherwise. That's why i still own a KM 28-75 and a KM 17-35mm (optically same for Tamron equivalent)