Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Add-On Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 14, 2006, 4:45 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
jpistone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 28
Default

Anyone have experience or read recent reviews on Sigma's 17-70mm lens?
jpistone is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 21, 2006, 6:32 AM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 92
Default

Simply based on what I have read, if you have a KM DSLR and the 18-70mm kit lens, the Sigma 17-70mm is not a big step up in terms of image quality, except that it is a bit faster. If you have a DSLR from a brand without a lens in this range, it would make a decent walkaround lens.
Ikki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2006, 6:16 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3
Default

Let me disagree with the last comment. The 17-70 is a VERY nice lens for everyday and for travel--at least on a 10D or 20D. Several reviews peg it as superior in image quality to Canon's much more expensive 17-85mm. Of course, in that case, youre trading IS for a max apertureof f2.8--a trade I am happy with. Inferior to the kit lens? Not to my eye--or to those of most testers and users. Do check out reviews online and in (I think) the current Popular Photography. I had a Sigma 17-35mm f 2.8. It was well made, but the image quality was not up to that of the 17-70--and it's not nearly as long! The 17-70 can't compete with my L lenses in terms of image sharpness and snap, but it is plenty good when I'm travelling or just walkin' around. It has a pretty effective macro capability. And--it's a bargain . . .
George B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27, 2006, 1:27 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 92
Default

George, my comment only applied to a comparison between the Sigma 17-70mm and the KM 18-70mm AF DT lens which is known to be a very good for a kit lens and if you have that, it doesn't appear to be worth paying nearly £300 to replace it with a lens of similar range but not much greater quality. I can't see the word 'inferior' anywhere in my post.

I am sure that if jpistone has a Canon (which you have assumed) with the 18-55mm kit lens, then it may be a worthwhile upgrade as that lens has a shorter range and seems to be of mediocre quality according to review/user comments.

From the DPReview EOS350D review:

Quote:
We were also disappointed with the 'new' Kit lens, it effectively cripples the potential of the 350D with softness and ghosting at small apertures, do yourself a favour and go for the body only option along with a good lens
Ikki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27, 2006, 7:16 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3
Default

Thans, Ikki, I appreciate the distinction. Point taken . . .
George B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2006, 8:55 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
jpistone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 28
Default

Thanks, guys...appreciate the input. The Canon 17-85 seems to register an incredibly high level of barrel distortion at the low end. I'm trying to decide on a lens that goes down to about 17-18mm, but now I'm wondering if it's worth it. I suppose I could live with the BD and stay away from straight line shots at that FL, but one thing I can't stand is CA. These lenses seem to be close to worthless at these short ends. I'm wondering if I should just go with something more in the 28-something range instead?? Thanks again!
jpistone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2006, 10:21 AM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3
Default

My 17-70 is quite satisfactory--especially for the price and the limited use I put it to. The short end is not great in resolution, but the barrel distortion is not too troublesome. And the macro feature is nice.

If you go to the "28-something" range, I suggest you look at the Canon 28-135 f/4.5-5.6 IS USM. The IS and macro functions are quite useful and efficient. It is my everyday lens. In spite of mixed reactions, I find it super. Maybe I got a "good" one, but it is a workhorse that produces consistently good images--often exceptionally good. OK--not as consistently good as my "L" lenses, but it is less expensive (a lot), less obtrusive (black not white), and a lot easier to manage (much less weight and smaller dimensions). I get some large prints with it that are quite successful. If I were stuck with only one lens, that would be the one!

Hope I haven't added to the confusion. Good luck . . .
George B is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:12 AM.