Previous page Next page

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

August 2013 | By Andy Westlake
Buy on GearShopFrom $499.00


The Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM is a premium fast 'normal' zoom for APS-C SLRs, which is designed as an upgrade for photographers who have outgrown the 'kit' zooms typically supplied with camera bodies. It was announced at Photokina 2012, as the first lens in Sigma's new 'Contemporary' category of compact general-purpose zooms for everyday photography. It's a successor to a near identically-named lens from December 2009, the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM, but is smaller and lighter, uses revised optics, and has a new cosmetic design. Prior to this Sigma made the unstabilised 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC, a lens which was very highly regarded in its time.

The latest 17-70mm offers some pretty clear advantages over the average 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens. It provides extra zoom range, being both slightly wider and usefully longer in the telephoto range. Its F2.8-4 maximum aperture range means it gathers more light - twice as much at the long end, and 2/3 stop at wideangle. This offers advantages for both low light shooting, and getting blurred backgrounds when shooting subjects like portraits. It also offers unusually close focusing to just 22cm (hence the word 'Macro' in the lens name).

The lens use Sigma's 'Hypersonic Motor' for quiet autofocus, and is available to fit Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma and Sony cameras. The Canon, Nikon and Sigma versions all feature built-in optical image stabilisation, to allow shooting at slower shutter speeds than usual without image degradation from camera shake. The Pentax and Sony versions don't have OS, and rely on the camera's built-in stabilisation systems instead. (Note that the lens won't autofocus on old Pentax DSLRs that don't have the requisite electrical contacts to power the focus motor.)

The 17-70mm doesn't have many direct equivalents from the camera manufacturers - the closest is the Pentax smc DA 17-70mm F4.0 AL (IF) SDM - and offers an interesting middle ground between upgrading to an extended range zoom such in the 16-85mm class, or a fast zoom like a 17-50mm F2.8. It's also pretty reasonably priced. So is it the ideal compromise choice, or just too good to be true? Read on to find out.

Headline features

  • Approx. 26-110mm equivalent focal length range; F2.8-4 maximum aperture
  • Available for Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma and Sony mounts (APS-C/DX format DSLRs only)
  • In-lens Optical Stabilization system (excluding Pentax and Sony versions)
  • Hypersonic Motor (HSM) focusing
  • 0.22m closest focus (0.36x magnification)

Angle of view

The pictures below illustrate the focal length range from wide to telephoto (on Canon APS-C, 1.6x).

17mm (27mm equivalent) 70mm (112mm equivalent)

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM specifications

 Price  • $499 (US)
 • £349 (UK)
 • €470 (EU)
 Date introduced  September 2012
 Maximum format size  APS-C/DX
 Focal length  17-70mm
 35mm equivalent focal length
 • 26-105mm (1.5x APS-C / DX)
 • 27-112mm (1.6x Canon APS-C)
 Diagonal Angle of view (APS-C)  79º - 23º
 Maximum aperture  F2.8-4
 Minimum aperture  F22
 Lens Construction  • 16 elements / 14 groups
 • 2 FLD ("F" Low Dispersion) glass elements
 • 1 SLD (Special Low Dispersion) glass element
 • 3 aspherical elements
 Number of diaphragm blades  7, rounded
 Minimum focus  0.22m
 Maximum magnification  0.36x
 AF motor type  Micro-type Hypersonic Motor
 Focus method  Internal
 Image stabilization  • Canon, Nikon and Sigma mount versions only
 • 4 stops claimed benefit
 Filter thread  • 72mm
 • Does not rotate on focus
 Supplied accessories*  • Front and rear caps
 • Petal-type Hood
 Weight  465 g (16.6 oz)
 Dimensions  79 mm diameter x 82 mm length
 (3.1 x 3.2 in)
 Lens Mount  Canon, Nikon, Pentax (KAF3), Sigma, Sony

* Supplied accessories may differ in each country or area


This lens review uses DxOMark data thanks to a partnership between dpreview.com and DxO Labs (read more about DxOMark and our partnership with DxO Labs). DxOMark is the trusted industry standard for independent image quality measurements and ratings. DxOMark has established this reputation with its rigorous hardware testing, industry-grade laboratory tools, and database of thousands of camera, lens and mobile test results. Full test results for this lens can be found at www.dxomark.com.

If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2013 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page
153
I own it
34
I want it
5
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 89
Miike Dougherty

I like to shoot nature and scenery with an emphasis on foreground elements. I've have been using a D7100 with 17-70 macro C which is way underrated. Since full frame is all the rage and I already have the D800 which I normally use with telephoto lenses, I decided to try the Nikon 24-70, 24-120 and recently the Sigma 24-105. With about a dozen shoots under my belt including Yosemite, Huntington Library, Safari Park and others and given my shooting style (with tripod), none of these FF combinations hold up to the D7100 with 17-70. First, the FF format depth of field is significantly less than DX. This makes a difference. Second, since the 17-70 is a macro lens, foreground elements are much sharper and with more clarity. This is very noticeable in my images. Third, the D800 FF combos technically have more resolution but this only shows up in the medium to long range elements in my images. In my case, a poorly rendered closeup element just destroys the image.

0 upvotes
John Magyar

This is a report of a possible bug I've found using this Sigma 17-70 lens on a D7100 body. Otherwise, I have nothing to add other than that I'm completely satisfied with this lens which other reviewers have adequately covered.

On 2 different D7100's I found that this lens interferes with the operation of the multi-selector scroll function. When I first turn the camera on I can only single-step through menu choices, images, etc. After many tries it will eventually start auto scrolling when you hold it down, but when you turn the camera off and on again it's back to single step only. This problem does not occur using this lens on my D80, only with both mine and a friends D7100's. Not a major issue, but an inconvenience.

Has anyone else seen this? I've only tried it with the one lens I bought.

0 upvotes
Palex

Yes ! I've read it before ! I even read a solution I thought... But I read it about a year ago.. so can't remember exact what was going on. But indeed what you said.

0 upvotes
awtan

It's a shame that OS is unavailable for A-mount.
Can not switch from old 17-50/2.8 OS for Sony NEX w/la-ea2 via that.
Hate that marketing things..

0 upvotes
Keith Hanlan

The OS version *does* exist in an Alpha mount. I have one. But they removed the OS after a short production run. I managed to find one and I'm quite happy with it on my Sony A580. It might be possible to find one still but you'd have to be very careful since the vendor might not notice the distinction. I am not at home right now but if you want the part number, I can look it up when I get home.

1 upvote
Keith Hanlan

The Sigma part number for the Alpha mount OS version is 668624

1 upvote
JapanAntoine

Bought it last weekend to replace my Canon kit lens non stabilized and it's just a totally different planet... Even on a super old body.
For the price, it's a super good investment!

0 upvotes
Ponraj

I am using Canon EOS 7D with Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC MACRO OS HSM. Recently i brought it. In low light i am not able to use autofocus. Just motor is rotating with slight noise and not able to focus. But the same time able to focus in bright light. Can anybody suggest me what may be the possible reason. If autofocus motor is the problem it should not work in all the cases. I am new to SLR photography, please help me.

0 upvotes
AlpCns2

Could be a camera problem as well. Best thing to do is to go to a knowledgeable camera specialist and have both checked out. If it turns out to be a lens problem (which is rare) then it can be readjusted by Sigma.

0 upvotes
jmreid

Fab lens - no complaints. Using it w/ my Canon SL1 and it's a small DSLR travel package. Sharp, fast and relatively light. Very solid construction and comfortable to zoom (firm and smooth). Very worthy replacement for the 18-55 EFS kit lens.

1 upvote
Mandeep Goma

Dear Sir
I am little confused regarding which lens to buy with Nikon D7100 body.
I want to click some good indoor photographs of family & friends at night in normal room light, some birthday photographs of children, some outdoor portraits with decent shallow depth of field and similar stuff...

Sir.. I have narrowed my choice to the kit lens coming with Nikon D7100 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 VR and Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC MACRO OS HSM.

Do you think Sigma F2.8 will give better indoor pictures than the Nikkon F3.5. Can this be compensated by making camera ISO adjustments?

How shallower is the depth of field in F2.8 vs F3.5?

Please help me to take the right decision.
Regards

0 upvotes
ChapelThrill23

No question that the extra speed will help you get better pictures. You can raise the ISO but that tends to increase the noise level in your pictures.

A depth of field calculator could help answer your other question. It all depends on what aperture and focal length (in other words wide angle or "zoomed" in). It also depends on how far your subject is from you.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

0 upvotes
d1abolus

I vote 18-105 VR....this one have vibration reduction(stabilization)=can use slower shutter speed, larger zoom(if you need it)...

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
4x4ken

The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 over the full range for $570 would be better. Better yet Sigma 210306 18-35 f1.8 full range for $830 is fastest, most light gathering ability. The 18-35mm would be approx 27-42mm in 35mm terms perfect wide angle before getting into vertical line bending too much. It is specified for the D7100 APS-C Nikon. I am considering the D7100.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
4x4ken

errata my conversion to 35mm value is in error, the 42mm is really 52mm, so the 18-35mm value range in 35mm would be 27-52mm.

0 upvotes
Anangeli

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
Redgod9

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.

2 upvotes
YogiGX20

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?

1 upvote
birdseyeviewphotos

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

4 upvotes
robjons

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

4 upvotes
CaseyComo

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
wylun

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
ebosch

Sigma's been doing nothing but wonders lately.

5 upvotes
Madaboutpix

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
mavc

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
Andy Westlake

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

2 upvotes
peevee1

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?

2 upvotes
ruicarv79

Thinking the same thing...

0 upvotes
techmine

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

1 upvote
fz750

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

5 upvotes
Andy Westlake

So am I :-)

2 upvotes
yabokkie

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.

2 upvotes
Andy Westlake

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

0 upvotes
Leandros S

Not practical how?

1 upvote
Andy Westlake

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
yabokkie

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

0 upvotes
Falconest174

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
CaseyComo

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

0 upvotes
Peter Gregg

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
Timmbits

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
3 upvotes
KentG

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
fz750

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
Andy Westlake

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
Pritzl

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
jorg14

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
KentG

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
Andy Westlake

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
forpetessake

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
Timmbits

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

4 upvotes
KentG

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

1 upvote
thx1138

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
Timmbits

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
thx1138

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
Maylene

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
Nerval

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
yabokkie

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
Photomonkey

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
yabokkie

whatever in the ads the preformance says different.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
peevee1

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

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

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake

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
yabokkie

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
Timmbits

@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
Anfy

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
xmeda

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

1 upvote
rrccad

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
Andy Westlake

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
CarlPH

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
Nukunukoo

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
role_of_72

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
Andy Westlake

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
role_of_72

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
Timmbits

maybe your grass needs fertilizer? ;-p

1 upvote
bayville126

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

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake

See the table at the bottom of page 2.

2 upvotes
mpgxsvcd

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.

6 upvotes
Timmbits

why not just upgrade to APS?

5 upvotes
Thorgrem

Because it's no upgrade.

1 upvote
peevee1

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

1 upvote
yabokkie

@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
deriggs

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
Andy Westlake

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

1 upvote
Gary Martin

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
Andy Westlake

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

0 upvotes
yabokkie

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
scarlet knight

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
mononoke

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
Eelco van Vliet

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.

2 upvotes
peevee1

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
Janssen Tolentino

is this lens can work with nikon D5100 as well?

0 upvotes
Total comments: 89