Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM | C review: Digital Photography Review

Studio Tests

The Sigma 17-70mm performs generally pretty well in studio tests. It's weakest at wideangle, with somewhat soft edges and corners that never fully sharpen up on stopping down. But aside from that it's an admirably consistent performer, with good cross-frame sharpness and reasonably low levels of chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting.

Sharpness	Sharpness results are generally pretty good. The lens is weakest at 17mm, where the edges and corners are rather soft, and don't sharpen up at any aperture. But at longer focal lengths it's very well-behaved, with decent sharpness wide open, and excellent results at its optimum apertures around F5.6-F8.
Chromatic Aberration	Chromatic aberration is kept reasonably low. It's worst at wideangle, where there's pretty strong green/magenta fringing towards the edge and corner of the frame. It decreases on zooming in, and is very low around 35-50mm, before red/cyan fringing becomes visible at 70mm.
Vignetting	Vignetting is overall rather low, given the lens's maximum aperture and compact size. It's strongest at wideangle, with 1 stop light falloff in the corners wide open, dropping down to 0.6 stop at F4. But in practical use this counts as nothing to worry about.
Distortion	Distortion is kept pretty well under control. There's clear barrel distortion at wideangle, but it's no worse than a typical 18-55mm, and much better than most lenses with extended zoom ranges. This disappears at 24mm, before turning to moderate pincushion distortion from 35-70mm.

Macro Focus

* Minimum focus is defined as the distance from the camera's sensor to the subject ** Working distance is measured from the front of the lens to the subject
	Macro - 60 x 40 mm coverage Measured magnification: 0.37x Distortion: Moderate barrel Minimum focus distance: 21.0cm Working distance*: 4.3cm Focal length: 70mm

As the 'Macro' label suggests, the Sigma 17-70mm offers good close focusing specs, on paper at least. But the reality is a little more complicated, as the working distance from the front of lens to the subject is extremely short. Coupled with the relatively large diameter front of the lens, this causes all sorts of problems with lighting and disturbing your subject. The internal focus design means that the angle of view widens quite dramatically at minimum focus too, to an effective focal length that's much closer to 50mm, so the lens doesn't 'feel' like a moderate telephoto any more at all.

Here we're looking at what we'd consider to be about the closest practical focusing distance, where the shadowing by the front of the lens generally isn't too severe, and the camera can still confirm autofocus in live view. At this point the focus distance is 0.21m, slightly shorter than Sigma's specified 0.22m, and the working distance just a shade over 4cm. You can get even closer in manual focus.

With the lens set to F4 the image is pretty soft across the beard, but central sharpness improves dramatically at F5.6. However the corners are still soft in this flat test chart shot, and only properly sharpen up at F16. There's also quite strong barrel distortion, and strong blue/yellow fringing towards the corners from lateral chromatic aberration. In context, 18-55mm kit zooms generally offer similar coverage, but with lower distortion and a more practical working distance.

Full Frame Coverage

The Canon, Nikon and Sony mount versions of this lens will mount on full-frame DSLRs, and on Nikon cameras DX crop mode will be automatically selected (the camera will therefore shoot at reduced resolution). The lens's image circle doesn't cover the 35mm full frame format at any focal length, giving severe vignetting regardless of focal length, aperture, or focus distance. So this really isn't a lens you can sensibly share across SLRs of different formats.


17mm	28mm	70mm

Optical Stabilization

The 17-70mm features Sigma's own 'Optical Stabilization' system, and the company claims that it allows hand-holding at shutter speeds up to four stop slower than usual without seeing the blurring effects of camera shake. The mechanism is silent when operational, with only the stabilization of the viewfinder image betraying the fact that it's running.

To determine the effectiveness of the OS system we subjected the 17-70mm to our studio image stabilization test, using the wideangle and telephoto settings. The subject distance for these tests was approximately 3m at 18mm, and 4m at 70mm; the test camera was the Canon EOS 700D.

We take 10 shots at each shutter speed and visually rate them for sharpness. Shots considered 'sharp' have no visible blur at the pixel level, and are therefore suitable for viewing or printing at the largest sizes, whereas files with 'mild blur' are only slightly soft, and perfectly usable for all but the most critical applications.


17mm OS OFF	70mm OS OFF
17mm OS ON	70mm OS ON

The 17-70mm fares respectably well in these tests, although it doesn't quite match the best optical stabilisation we've seen. At wideangle it offers a solid three stops of stabilisation, allowing hand-holding at shutter speeds as low as 1/4 sec, rather than 1/30 sec with OS off. At 70mm things are a bit more complicated; we're able to get a decent proportion of sharp shots at shutter speeds 4 stops slower with OS turned on (1/10 vs 1/160 sec ), but the system is never close to 100% effective, so it pays to take multiple shots in marginal conditions.

Real world examples

The examples below should give you an idea of how well the Sigma's OS system behaves in everyday shooting; in both cases the image would be hopelessly blurred without stabilization. But instead we've been able to take advantage of the ability to hand-hold at slower shutter speeds to get shots that would otherwise be difficult.

In the first example, the camera was shot in live view, held high up to shoot over the top of a crowd of people to capture the floodlit dome of St Paul's just after sunset. This is a notoriously unstable shooting position, but even so, of multiple shots at shutter speeds around 1/15 sec, half came out perfectly sharp. In the second example, the use of a shutter speed about three stops lower that could otherwise be handheld has allowed the use of ISO 1600 rather than 12800, and the image still retains a decent amount of detail even in the camera's JPEG.

37mm, Canon EOS 100D	45mm, Canon EOS 100D

1/15 sec, F5.6, ISO 400	1/6 sec, F4, ISO 1600

100% crop	100% crop

GearShop

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM C (Canon EF Mount)●	$499.00	Buy on GearShop
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM C (Nikon DX Mount)●	$499.00	Buy on GearShop
Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 DC Macro HSM C (Pentax K Mount)●	$499.00	Buy on GearShop
Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM C (Sigma SA Mount)●	$499.00	Buy on GearShop
Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 DC Macro HSM C (Sony A Mount)●	$499.00	Buy on GearShop

Sigma 884306 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens	$384.45
Sigma 884306 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens	$384.45
Sigma 884101 F2.8-4 Contemporary DC Macro OS HSM 17-70mm Fixed Lens for Canon EF-S Cameras	$468.99
Sigma 884109 F2.8-4 Contemporary DC Macro OS HSM 17-70mm Fixed Lens for Pentax KAF Cameras	$446.00
Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD Large Aperture Standard Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital DSLR Camera	$569.00
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens for Canon Mount Digital SLR Cameras	$425.00
Sigma 210101 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Lens for Canon APS-C DSLRs (Black)	$795.00
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens for Nikon Mount Digital SLR Cameras	$609.19
Sigma 884205 F2.8-4 Contemporary DC Macro OS HSM 17-70mm Fixed Lens for Sony Alpha Cameras	$446.00
Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD Large Aperture Standard Zoom Lens for Canon Digital DSLR Camera	$569.00
Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM FLD AF Ultra Wide Zoom Lens for APS-C sized Canon Digital DSLR Camera	$649.00

Show all listings (11) ...

Get more prices from Amazon

Comments

Total comments: 73

I am using this lens with a 50D and was delightfully surprised at how much sharper it is compared to a Canon 70-200 f4L non IS that I bought at the same time. It doesn't leave my camera and makes me think that I wasted my money on the 70-200 L.

0 upvotes

After shooting with the old Sigma 17-70 on a Sony mount and being very pleased with it I bought the new 'C' version for my Nikon D7100.

What a disappointment. I sent it back after less than a fortnight.

This lens is amazingly sharp at its center - easily one of the best I've seen, but when used at anywhere from 25-55mm the outer ~20% of the shot is completely soft at all apertures.

I shoot landscapes and urban mostly so corner content is important - and I expect to have some soft corners on a zoom, but this was way beyond anything I'd ever come across before.

I don't know if I got a bad sample, I didn't bother getting another.

I bought a Nikkor 16-85 instead. Its not as fast but at least its sharp.

What a shame.

1 upvote

Another great lens from Sigma. I was very impressed to hear that Sigma now offer a mount change for their new lens range.
Reading that the Pentax and Sony versions don't have OS, however, does that mean if you change the lens mount from Pentax to Nikon for example you get the lens without OS but pay the same (or more with the mount change)? If that's the case, then what's the point????????? Or am I missing something?

0 upvotes

Having got one I cannot get over how sharp it is 100% recommended

1 upvote

No mention of how this lens compares optically to its predecessor.
Is it sharper or less sharp than the previous version??

2 upvotes

I had its predecessor, and got great shots with it. I sold it because I was simplifying my lens collection...had Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina, and standardized on Sigma because their mid-to-high-end lenses are really good, and a good value. They do seem to have intermittent problems with autofocus in Live View on a Nikon camera, but that's no hindrance for me. Nikon body + Sigma lens works for me.

0 upvotes

i had the 17-70os and the new Contemporary version... i felt like the 17-70os was alot nicer..

either way i returned it and got a 28mm F1.8 and a macro attachment

0 upvotes

Sigma's been doing nothing but wonders lately.

1 upvote

If the laboratory test results are even remotely representative of what you could expect in the field, the mediocre sharpness at the wide end, in combination with the pronounced distortion, doesn't exactly make me itch for this new lens. I find I use my Pentax DA 18-55mm WR kit lens a lot at wide-angle, where, if never stellar, it at least improves till F8 (quite usable), when the new Sigma reaches its nothing-to-rave-about peak at F5.6 - that is, too early to achieve the depth of field I often need for architecture and landscape shots. So where is the carrot for upgrading to this lens? Guess I would rather save up for one or two more DA Limited primes to cover the most-needed focal lengths and be done with that range. Or wait till I can afford Sigma's own mind-blowing 18-35mm F1.8!

0 upvotes

Why no mention of the USB dock and Sigma's Lens Optimization Pro software that gives the user the ability to fine tune the lens focussing? See http://vimeo.com/64665246

0 upvotes

The USB Dock is covered on page 2 of the review.

2 upvotes

What is wrong with its OS system at 70mm, half of the shots are not sharp at 1/160s even with OS on? What is it, shutter shock, mirror slap?

1 upvote

Thinking the same thing...

0 upvotes

I have no GAS any more - Gear Acquisition Syndrome :-)

1 upvote

Looking forward to the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 review :-)

4 upvotes

So am I :-)

1 upvote

hate tests on Canon (smaller sensor, lower resolution).
is it possible to test on NEX-7? and we'll be able to compare lenses from Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Cosina, ... directly.

1 upvote

It may be possible to test on a NEX-7, but it's really not practical.

0 upvotes

Not practical how?

1 upvote

You'd need to have a set of mount adapters for all lens types which were known to be perfectly aligned. They'd also have to be able to control the aperture precisely and reproducibly, which becomes a serious problem for SLR lenses which use mechanical aperture control (in this context, Nikon and Pentax).

Overall, testing with the SLR bodies that the lenses are designed to be used on is just a more efficient way of working. Switching to the NEX-7 would bring only small benefits for significant additional effort (and indeed be potentially confusing/misleading to less-expert readers).

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

1 upvote

concentrate on the lens, which may be used on future bodies.

0 upvotes

Bought this to replace the kit lens I had been using on my D7100( So I could sell that lens with the D7000). Does the job quite well. Even used it to shoot a wedding.

1 upvote

Definitely a nice upgrade from the 18-55 Nikon kit lens.

0 upvotes

How do you know if a lens like this will work on Canon's new 70D. Canon has list of "approved" lenses for a reason. With 3rd party lenses work on the new Canon 70D?

0 upvotes

you're just being silly, right?
do you think this will break your 70D?
if not, Sigma warranties it to work... so where's the problem?

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

Canon has a set of "approved" lenses to try and keep you from going out and finding a 3rd party lens that works just as good for 1/2 the money. That may mean that Sigma will have to reverse engineer any new camera code sequences and publish a firmware update you can load yourself with the USB Dock.

4 upvotes

Seems to me that Canon's "interface" from camera to lens is not new (e.g. the STM lenses have been out for a while) and that the 3rd party manufacturers will have little difficulty figuring out any (unlikely) small changes..

0 upvotes

It's important to understand what Canon's list means. It simply tells you which of its own lenses offer full compatibility with the Dual Pixel CMOS AF system for live view and movie mode shooting. Other Canon lenses will still work just fine, but they won't focus as quickly and decisively in live view. Canon's list tells you nothing whatsoever about third party lens compatibility.

Overall, there's no reason at all to believe that the Sigma 17-70mm won't work just fine on the EOS 70D. You may have to put up with slightly slower live view AF compared to Canon's own lenses, that's all.

2 upvotes

We know for sure that Sigma's 18-35 works with the new LV AF on the 70D (look it up on youtube) so I'm reasonably confident this similar generation lens would also work with the 70D. Even if it doesn't, it's upgradeable via the USB dock so shouldn't be an issue.

1 upvote

I'm very confused. I've been shooting macro at 1-5cm for years and have had my photos published throughout the states. This length lets me shoot with one hand while stabilize the flowers with the other, plus renders the background nice and blurry while keeping much of the flower in focus. Of course I'm using a Compact (G series or Nikon P7700) for most of my work. I have no problems with light, as simply turn the subject sideways to the sun until well lite which often gives interesting lighting effects. So why exactly is this 'short' 22cm, (10x as long as I use) a problem?

0 upvotes

A macro with a short working distance is a problem when shooting live creatures like insects because they can see the lens and get spooked. Main reason most insect shooters use macros from around 100mm and longer.

3 upvotes

The 22cm you've quoted is the minimum focus distance from the subject to the camera's sensor. What matters here is the working distance from the front of the lens to the subject, which is about 4cm. The lenses on your compact cameras have much smaller diameter front elements, so won't shadow the subject anywhere near as much as the Sigma can. This is compounded by the fact that the Sigma also offers lower magnification than compacts (i.e. the image covers a larger area). The key point really is that typical SLR 18-55mm kit zooms are often better for close-up shooting than the Sigma is, as they offer the same magnification at a longer working distance. So if you really want to shoot better macros, buying a true macro lens is a much better bet.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

I tested that lens, it's rather mediocre performer. Resolution is poor on both ends. True, it does get much better closed one stop, but who needs a big and heavy f/4-5.6 lens. There is also some glow and loss of contrast in high contrast transitions, pretty unpleasant to look at. Color-wise it's probably neutral, but still somehow images look drab. The images don't really look any better than from cheap kit zooms. And somebody needs to check its T-stop, it probably loses an extra 1/2 stop at f/4.

4 upvotes

are you sure that you're even talking about the same lens?

3 upvotes

They have made 3 versions of the 17-70/2.8-4 and all have different optical formulas.

0 upvotes

Good to see the review pick up on the useless macro working distance, a feature of the Canon 24-70 f/4L IS which is ignored by most and which makes the macro credentials somewhat of a farce.

I'd take a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and forgo the extra 20mm for the much better optical performance.

0 upvotes

Thanks for the tip on the Tamron... it got me all excited to learn it's a constant 2.8

but then I checked it out and came across this:
"Unfortunately the lens has a less than desirable characteristic - at 17mm it suffers from very strong field curvature which can render the outer corners out-of-focus."
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/637-tamron175028d7000?start=1

...and the chromatic aberration figures are among the worse I've ever seen on a chart:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/355/cat/23

So yes, I agree that a constant 2.8 would be much nicer... but I'm not sure where you get your information from that it is so superb as you say... perhaps when it is stopped down? (which would be ok... after all, to be fair, one would compare the lens to others with the same opening at the various focal lengths)

0 upvotes

Beware of blanket statements and rather than rely on those questionable results do a search of these and other forums and you'll see overwhelmingly the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is highly regarded, certainly much more so than previous versions of the Sigma 17-70. They make a VC version too.

0 upvotes

these are two different lenses. Compare the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 vs tamron and youll see that the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 has higher ratings than the tamron... this is a 17-70mm and there are few lenses of its range on the market.

1 upvote

Please, add a bit more noise to the 45 mm night shot, it's a bit too clean to judge the lens output... I know, I know, there are plenty of samples... =P
Testing the 100D in low light, I suppose?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

this is an "old era" lens compared with the new 18-35/1.8
and I'm looking forward to seeing a little brother of 18-35/1.8
(smaller, darker, with wider zoom range). I'm thinking about
15-55/1.8-2.8 (APS-C version of 24-85/2.8-4, a popular lens for film SLRs)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

This just what you asked for.... slightly slower with a wider range. They do note that it is a new optical formula (necessary for OS) and is slightly lighter and smaller than the older lens.

1 upvote

whatever in the ads the preformance says different.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

"Approx. 26-110mm equivalent focal length range"

It depends on a camera, it is longer than that on Canons and Sigmas.

0 upvotes

That 26-110mm number is in fact rounded off after using an 'average' 1.55x crop factor, which is why it says 'approx'. The specific numbers Canon 1.6x and Sony/Nikon/Pentax/Sigma 1.5x are shown in the spec table for those who really care, but the difference is pretty much insignificant in practice.

1 upvote

someone should test the actual focal length first which may be, say, 17.4-67.5mm.

think most people willl prefer simple easy to understand text than law document.

1 upvote

@AndyWestlake: why not just publish the 1.5X which is the majority... and let the owners of the exception figure their's out as they'll be well aware that it's different for Canon.

1 upvote

I briefly considered this lens, its predecessor or a 17-50mm as a walkaround lens for my Fujifilm S5 pro, then I considered that that camera is nailed to the studio for portraits, for location I use m4/3 or NEX gear. But a compelling lens anyway!

0 upvotes

I still like my 17-70/2.8-4.5 :)

1 upvote

you know what would be really cool - because NO ONE else does this .. is test lenses for hotspots / wavelength smearing for infrared photography.

this would IMO make dpreview's lens reviews stand out a bit from the slrgear, photozone and a mydrid of other sites that basically all the say the exact same thing in one form or another.

2 upvotes

We once considered this, but with the best will in the world infrared photography is a very niche pursuit. This isn't helped by the extreme insensitivity of most modern cameras to IR. So it would be quite a lot of work to give information that's only of interest to a small minority of readers.

6 upvotes

Hey great idea I love IR photography, I know its a lot of work though. Maybe you can just let the lens users send some feedback on a lens' IR potential and include them at the review?

1 upvote

I just love it as a GREAT walkabout for my D7100/D300s. It's quite compact and the IQ is quite good! Too bad it's wide angle is very disappointing, since everything else was tops. >19mm is okay.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

What is your opinion on the color rendition of the lens?

I'm asking it because I have the previous model (17-70 OS HSM on Canon) and although I like the Sigma colors sometimes I have to face with some very strong yellow cast on my pictures.. Is it any better this time? (Same question for the 18-35 :) )
Thanks!

0 upvotes

The lens has a pretty neutral colour balance. If you're getting a strong yellow cast in some images, that may be because you're shooting under artificial light and the camera's auto white balance isn't fully correcting. This isn't directly the lens's fault, although the relatively fast aperture might encourage you to shoot more in such lighting.

0 upvotes

Thank you, Andy! Neutral is great :)
Actually I have yellow color shift on outdoor daylight images (both with the daylight and auto WB settings).
Back in the days my Sigma 55-200 had very pleasing colors (it was a bit yellowish but I liked it) so was my Sigma 10-20 EX. They were about the same in color rendition but the 17-70 OS (not the 'C' version)' is a bit on a heavy side in this regard. I mean it shows the color of grass to be way too yellowish compared to my Canon lenses - and reality.

0 upvotes

maybe your grass needs fertilizer? ;-p

1 upvote

At what focal length will it drop off to f3.2, f3.5 and f4.0?

0 upvotes

See the table at the bottom of page 2.

2 upvotes

I really wish they would make a native m4/3s version of this lens. 35-140mm sounds like a good focal range and having a constant aperture really isn't as good as it is made out to be.

5 upvotes

why not just upgrade to APS?

4 upvotes

Because it's no upgrade.

1 upvote

DSLR lenses starting below 40mm are unnecessarily big and heavy on mirrorless.

1 upvote

@peevee1, m4/3" has the same issue for its equivalent back focus is near 40mm against 45mm of average SLRs.

so should upgrade to APS-C, Sony NEX, Fuji X, or Canon M ... when these is a upgrade.

1 upvote

I see that a Canon SL1 was used with the Sigma 17-70mm; how was it as a camera/lens combo? Handle well?

Thanks-

0 upvotes

It works just fine on the EOS 100D - it's not so much bigger than the kit zoom.

1 upvote

Could the softer edges at wide angle be due to field curvature? In my experience this is more of a problem with fixed-distance test charts than in real-world use.

1 upvote

No, they persist in three dimensional real-world shots too.

0 upvotes

since we rarely shoot landscape at open, I think tests at near 20x focal length (2x 12233) is quite useful for real-world (portrait) though most may prefer 4x target.

0 upvotes

I use a 16-85 f3.5 on my D3100. It cost quite a bit more, in the $600s. But Nikon would not likely abandon it in future cameras. Not so sure they would help Sigma.

0 upvotes

I just came back from my holiday where I was shooting exclusively with this lens. I actually bought it for this holiday. Now, after converting from RAW and analysing several K of photos, I can confirm that 17mm is a bit more problematic than it was with original 17-70. However, I can clearly see field curvature effects here. Many shots are softer in the corners near infinity, but quite sharp in those corners with objects in the mid range. Soon, I found out that it gives better corner sharpness when I'd choose focus at infinity and stop down to f5.6 - f8 (I was accustomed to focus on closer objects at this focal length). Will try USB dock to compensate for this. Shooting close-up and mid-range objects, sharpness is more than adequate @17mm. The rest of the range is more straight forward to get consistently good results. Overall - great lens, super versatile, much better that the original 17-70 in every regard (even 17mm is better overall, IMO)

0 upvotes

Ik owned the original Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 and used it on my 10D and 40D for almost 7 years. I recently upgraded to this new C version last month and it is way better than the old version. The old one was a bit soft and also a bit out of focus at 70mm, this new C version is perfect at any zoom length.

So I am well pleased with this lens, I will use it on the 7DmkII in the future as well.

1 upvote

Sure, test targets should be at least 2m high for all lenses except dedicated macros (or macro modes). Those foot-scale targets nobody shoots in RL give misleading results all the time.

0 upvotes

Total comments: 73

Editorial content

Product database

Community