Reading mode: Light Dark

New Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.0?

Go to last post
W

Waterengineer

Leading Member
Messages
882
Reaction score
22
Location
AK, US
Any reports on the new Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.0 lens yet?

Ya, I know it hasn't been out to long but I have great hopes for this lens.

Reports?
 
A very famous swedish camera shop gave this a "good buy" rating. They say it perform quite good and that its sharp already from f.2.8 on the entire zoom range which sounds amazing. Here are some of the sample shots at full res.



17mm
f/2,8



17mm
f/5,6



35mm
f/3,5



35mm
f/8



70mm
f/4



70mm
f/8
 
for me the sigma isn't a best choice, because a nikkor 16-85 costs (used) 350-400 (euro), the range of nikkor is very good.

1 mm to wide and 15 mm to tele, vr and other...

the price of sigma is very high compared whit nikkor 16-85 (in italy the sigma should cost 500 euro)
--
excuse for my bad english...ciao uagliò...
 
But in north america the Sigma is a great value, it goes for $450, vs $650 for the 16-85.

great lens for the price.
 
I like this lens. I have had mine for about 2-3 wks. It is a very good lens.

As far as CA goes I have not had any trouble with it. I used Lenstip.com for information on the lenses as they tested both and at the wide end both lenses have a considerable amount of CA. The Sigma tends to be less as focal lenth increases while the 16-85 is a problem at wide and telephoto ends. However, CA can be very fickle as to when it becomes a problem. Therefore it is hard to tell when it will become a problem.

Both the Sigma and the Nikon have excellent resolution. However the Nikon has a slightly longer focal range. It also has about $150.00 more cost.

Everyone has to make up their own mind what features are the most important to them. I doubt you can go too far wrong with either one.
 
I have it and prefer it over the Nikon 16-85, which I previously owned, irrespective of the price. I think the Sigma is generally sharper (with very good contrast and saturation), and the faster aperture allows more depth of field control.

There are some drawbacks to the Sigma - no manual focus override (there's an M/A switch) and the focus ring turns during auto focus. Also, the OS stays on for one minute plus the camera's meter shutoff time. This drains the battery a little quicker, but it has the benefit of being ready for the next shot, while Nikon's VR needs a moment to re-engage.

Lenstip.com has a nice review.
 
I tried both. I ordered the Sigma first after reading the very positive reviews. After taking some test photo's and viewing them on my computer I was concerned. They simply were not as sharp as images I had taken with my Nikon D200 and 18-70 Nikon lens. I now have a D300s that my wife gave me for Christmas and had sold the D200 with lens. Anyway, I ordered the Nikon 16-85 to compare to the Sigma. I put the camera with sigma lens on carbon fiber tripod (my wife also gave me for Christmas), and took four shots, one at 17mm, 24mm, 50mm and 70mm. I then repeated the same with the Nikon lens. The results were the same at all four settings. The Nikon was both sharper and the colors more accurate. I asked my wife to look at them, she also saw the difference right away. So, needless to say I kept the Nikon. I think there is probably enough difference or sample variation from copy to copy that another set of lens may test differently. Sometimes it pays to do comparison shopping.
 
I picked up a copy of the 17-70 yesterday as a replacement for my 18-70. I was never really unhappy with the 18-70, but thought the OS and slightly faster glass would be nice. I did a lot of side-by-side tests with the two yesterday - all hand held as I rarely shoot the 18-70 on a tripod. I was interested in real world results.

In full daylight, I found there is very little difference in the two. At 100%, the 18-70 is a bit sharper at some focal lengths, while the Sigma is sharper at others. The Sigma is a bit sharper on the left side and the Nikon a bit better on the right. Viewed normal size, I doubt most people would notice a difference. On average, I think the Sigma will edge the Nikon in the number of keepers because of the OS, plus you can focus closer. Based on that, I wouldn't have spent the money to upgrade.

HOWEVER, I then took them out in the evening and shot them wide open at all focal lengths. In those conditions, the Sigma blows the 18-70 away in every single shot. So for me, the OS and slightly faster glass make it worthwhile - especially if I can sell the 18-70 for a couple of hundred bucks - I don't mind spending the extra $250 for the Sigma. I didn't want to spend the extra for the 16-85.
 
WAH said:
I tried both. I ordered the Sigma first after reading the very positive reviews. After taking some test photo's and viewing them on my computer I was concerned. They simply were not as sharp as images I had taken with my Nikon D200 and 18-70 Nikon lens. I now have a D300s that my wife gave me for Christmas and had sold the D200 with lens. Anyway, I ordered the Nikon 16-85 to compare to the Sigma. I put the camera with sigma lens on carbon fiber tripod (my wife also gave me for Christmas), and took four shots, one at 17mm, 24mm, 50mm and 70mm. I then repeated the same with the Nikon lens. The results were the same at all four settings. The Nikon was both sharper and the colors more accurate. I asked my wife to look at them, she also saw the difference right away. So, needless to say I kept the Nikon. I think there is probably enough difference or sample variation from copy to copy that another set of lens may test differently. Sometimes it pays to do comparison shopping.
Click to expand...
I tried a test between the 18-70 and the 17-70os side by side when I first got my 17-70 and the Sigma was better all the way across the focal range. So I was happy with my new lens. The Sigma seems weakest at the 70mm end but is extremely sharp from wide angle to about 50mm. I set aperature at f5.6 for test on all focal lengths.

I pitched the test photos now but I had posted them on here on another thread. Of course someone said my 18-70 was defective because there is no way it could be beat by a third party lens but I only did the test for my own good and then thought I would share with a few others. I wish I could have tested the 16-85vr against the sigma but I didn't. I did test my 70-300vr against the Sigma at 70mm and the 70-300vr was slightly better in my opinion but not as noticable as the difference between the 17-70os and the 18-70.

I might add that I originally tried to test at 28mm and 50mm also. But due to the fact I was not matching up focal lengths exactly I just scrapped those pics. I could see that the sigma photos were sharper than the 18-70 but since they did not match up at exactly the same focal length I scrapped them.

It's kind of time consuming to do this kind of testing and it makes me appreciate it when there are sights that do this kind of testing for us. I'm sure they are doing a better job of testing than I am but it is interesting to do these things once in awhile.
kasjun
 
waterengineer said:
Any reports on the new Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.0 lens yet?

Ya, I know it hasn't been out to long but I have great hopes for this lens.

Reports?
Click to expand...
Hi,

Please also about your experience with this lens. I own two years Nikkor 16-85. A few days ago I bought the Sigma. The reason is the need for low aperture for shooting in the interior. Lightning rarely use and dislikes. I welcome all to experience the problem, and suggested that I thank you in advance for opinions. Note: Tamron and Tokina for me was not a satisfactory solution.

Nikkor 16-85 is excellent. The opinion of this product does not require correction.
--
Stan
 
I had the Sigma. Sharper at center than Nikon but decentering or soft corner that got me very upset. Had to sell it. Sigma has good macro too but requires F5.6 to be sharp and has soft corners and a slight warm cast. I have the 16-85VR and like it better. Sigma has better bokeh than Nikon. It would have been excellent had it not had the soft corner.

I also had 18-105VR and it was very sharp and nice but the distortion at 18mm drove me crazy and had to sell it too. Seems 16-85VR is best compromise. I have 35F1.8, 60AFS and 70-300VR, all of which are excellent lenses and sharp. Also have Tokina 12-24 which is nice though not as sharp as the Nikon and has some CA but it is correctable. Has excellent built and focusing motor on D40.
 
Thank you for opinion. I have a Nikkor 16-85 with an excellent experience. I need a lens in the interior without using the flash . . . Sigma has a lower aperture. . .
[Nikkor 17-55/2.8 is very robust and unnecessarily expensive]
--
Stan
 
The lens is great! If I wanted pinpoint sharpness from wide to long, I would have chosen the 16-85. But, I wanted closeup focusing and nice bokeh more and have been enjoying the lens for nature/flower shots.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top