Is the sigma 17-70mm worth getting?


musebox

New Member
May 28, 2010
29
0
0
#1
Hi guys, I'm currently using a Canon 500D and i'm looking to upgrade my 18-55 kit lens. I do walk-abouts most of the time and i was thinking of getting the Sigma 17-70 with OS as my next lens.
However, i've had quite a few friends telling me to get the Tamron 17-50mm instead. Thing is, the 17-70 appeals to me because of its additional zoom range, improved aperture and doubles as a Macro lens. I thought since i'm doing walk-abouts, these features are pretty good for me. But is the Tamron 17-50 really that good?
I went around and found the 17-70 with OS at $795. The Tamron of course is such more affordable at $580..
So i'm kind of in between right now. Can you guys give me some pointers? THanks!:)

Anyway, i found some pretty neat images on flicker taken with the sigma 17-70mm. Maybe you guys can tell me whether this lens is worth getting?
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sigma 17-70&w=all&s=int#page=7
 

Last edited:

dodongdodong

Deregistered
Sep 28, 2008
218
0
0
#3
Hi guys, I'm currently using a Canon 500D and i'm looking to upgrade my 18-55 kit lens. I do walk-abouts most of the time and i was thinking of getting the Sigma 17-70 with OS as my next lens.
However, i've had quite a few friends telling me to get the Tamron 17-50mm instead. Thing is, the 17-70 appeals to me because of its additional zoom range, improved aperture and doubles as a Macro lens. I thought since i'm doing walk-abouts, these features are pretty good for me. But is the Tamron 17-50 really that good?
I went around and found the 17-70 with OS at $795. The Tamron of course is such more affordable at $580..
So i'm kind of in between right now. Can you guys give me some pointers? THanks!:)

Anyway, i found some pretty neat images on flicker taken with the sigma 17-70mm. Maybe you guys can tell me whether this lens is worth getting?
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sigma 17-70&w=all&s=int#page=7
mind sharing where can you get the tamron at $580?
 

Oct 19, 2009
1,669
0
0
#4
Hi guys, I'm currently using a Canon 500D and i'm looking to upgrade my 18-55 kit lens. I do walk-abouts most of the time and i was thinking of getting the Sigma 17-70 with OS as my next lens.
However, i've had quite a few friends telling me to get the Tamron 17-50mm instead. Thing is, the 17-70 appeals to me because of its additional zoom range, improved aperture and doubles as a Macro lens. I thought since i'm doing walk-abouts, these features are pretty good for me. But is the Tamron 17-50 really that good?
I went around and found the 17-70 with OS at $795. The Tamron of course is such more affordable at $580..
So i'm kind of in between right now. Can you guys give me some pointers? THanks!:)

Anyway, i found some pretty neat images on flicker taken with the sigma 17-70mm. Maybe you guys can tell me whether this lens is worth getting?
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sigma 17-70&w=all&s=int#page=7
Price
Luckily you didn't buy, I was quoted $595 for the Sigma 17-70mm.

Lens
First of all, you have to ask yourself, why you wanna change your lens. There are many who upgraded theirs after they know what they are going to shoot.
You have a 18-55, so I guess the Tamron 17-50 is quite similar to your 18-55 in terms of focal, but aperture is constant at f/2.8.

Sigma 17-70 is definite better than your 18-55 in terms of focal. But aperture is around the same. Just that the aperture at 17 is around f/2.8, but no constant.

I almost get the Sigma 17-70, but hesitated as if i were to get, then my 18-135 will be left alone. And also I need the range. In addition, the images I took isn't that bad after all, as it comes with IS.

Thus in the end, I decided to stick to my 18-135 for walkabout. And maybe I'm going to get a UWA like Tokina 11-16 for landscape. And a 55-250, and that's the end.

Unless you are very itchy and always get poisoned by other users during outings, then you would start to buy L lens or even upgrade your body.
 

ovaltinemilo

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,819
0
0
Sin jia Po lah
#5
I think you might also consider the built of the Tamron and Sigma.
 

Last edited:

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,491
26
48
Pasir Ris
#6
What kind of improved aperture are you talking about? Still it's not a constant aperture lens as the Tamron 17-50 and the Macro capabilities should not be taken too serious. It's a close focus option, not macro.
 

Oct 19, 2009
1,669
0
0
#7
I would get a Canon 100mm macro if I am serious in Macro photography like insects/ plants.

Tamron focusing is quite noisy in my opinion. Using it in events like wedding is quite troublesome.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#8
it depends on you.

some people will never touch third party lens, are you one of them?

what is your tolerance for sharpness? must it be sharp wide open? so many factors - only you know what you want, only you can decide what you want.
 

acevedre

New Member
Mar 23, 2010
49
0
0
#9
17-70 OS is onl $715 @ SLR-Rev... :) Great Lens!:D Built is very good. IQ is also very good! :)
 

musebox

New Member
May 28, 2010
29
0
0
#10
Hey thanks! The one you got quote for 595 is it with OS?
 

musebox

New Member
May 28, 2010
29
0
0
#12
Price
Luckily you didn't buy, I was quoted $595 for the Sigma 17-70mm.

Lens
First of all, you have to ask yourself, why you wanna change your lens. There are many who upgraded theirs after they know what they are going to shoot.
You have a 18-55, so I guess the Tamron 17-50 is quite similar to your 18-55 in terms of focal, but aperture is constant at f/2.8.

Sigma 17-70 is definite better than your 18-55 in terms of focal. But aperture is around the same. Just that the aperture at 17 is around f/2.8, but no constant.

I almost get the Sigma 17-70, but hesitated as if i were to get, then my 18-135 will be left alone. And also I need the range. In addition, the images I took isn't that bad after all, as it comes with IS.



Thus in the end, I decided to stick to my 18-135 for walkabout. And maybe I'm going to get a UWA like Tokina 11-16 for landscape. And a 55-250, and that's the end.

Unless you are very itchy and always get poisoned by other users during outings, then you would start to buy L lens or even upgrade your body.
Thanks for you reply! The one you found at $595 is it with OS? I don't mind grey sets. May i know where?
 

musebox

New Member
May 28, 2010
29
0
0
#13
What kind of improved aperture are you talking about? Still it's not a constant aperture lens as the Tamron 17-50 and the Macro capabilities should not be taken too serious. It's a close focus option, not macro.
Thank you so much for your reply! I know that the 17-70 isn't a full Macro, it's only half macro. But because it sort of does several things in one lens that attracted me to it. I don't need a serious macro. But from what i saw at flicker, the macro shots are perfectly fine for me. And i meant improved aperture as in bigger aperture than my kit lens. Cause F4 at 70mm, i know the bokeh it gives will be quite decent.
 

tecnica

Senior Member
Dec 26, 2004
3,660
10
0
#14
i also have the same qn... tamron 17-50 or sigma 17-70..

the sigma F2.8 is constant until which focal length ah?
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,491
26
48
Pasir Ris
#15
i also have the same qn... tamron 17-50 or sigma 17-70..
the sigma F2.8 is constant until which focal length ah?
Less than 40mm based on the tests by Photozone on the non-OS version: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/312-sigma-af-17-70mm-f28-45-dc-macro-test-report--review?start=1
If you need f/2.8 at 50mm then either you get the Tamron or the Sigma 17-50, not sure whether the latter one is available in SG. Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 seems to be available (in Canon price guide).
 

Jan 28, 2010
646
0
0
Ha Noi, Vietnam, Vietnam
#16
Just FYI, the semi-macro capabilities of the 17-70 is adequate for subjects like flowers, from my own experience, you only need true macro for things smaller than 1cm, like bugs
 

jaegersing

Deregistered
Jan 4, 2007
1,481
0
0
#17
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.
 

May 22, 2010
313
0
0
#18
Just FYI, the semi-macro capabilities of the 17-70 is adequate for subjects like flowers, from my own experience, you only need true macro for things smaller than 1cm, like bugs
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! :confused: 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/
 

Last edited:

musebox

New Member
May 28, 2010
29
0
0
#19
Just FYI, the semi-macro capabilities of the 17-70 is adequate for subjects like flowers, from my own experience, you only need true macro for things smaller than 1cm, like bugs
Precisely! That what i meant when i said i don't need a true macro lens cause it's close focusing feature is fine for me... Are you using the 17-70? Can you tell me more about the sharpness and vignetting at 17mm? Is there any serious problem for you?
 

Top Bottom