Categories
Lenses Reviews

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro

The newly announced Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro provides a relatively fast yet cheap walkaround lens that can take a spot in the amateur DSLR shooter’s arsenal. Translating to approximately 28-105mm for APS-C DSLRs, this lens also boasts strong macro shooting capabilities, with a maximum magnification of 1:2.3 that’s uncommon for zoom lenses.

Here are two links detailing the lens’s performance compared to two good lenses: against the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC and against the Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM.

I know I want this one!

44 replies on “Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro”

dogears, I got it for less than 20k, though JT Photoworld, the official distributor, lists the 17-70 at 20,500 when I last checked. I’m sure you can get it for a much lower price in Hidalgo. :)

By Post Author

Photozone also performed an in-house test on wide-zooms and the Sigma 17-70 outperformed the 18-50 EX 2.8 which is more expensive, it also beats the Canon EFS 17-85 iS USM for optics. This is currently the only lens in its range and price range with wide angle and tele + macro! Should be the ultimate walk around lens and at f/2.8 it’s also fast… I just picked one up today after selling my EFS 17-85 which BTW had horrible barrel distortions! I also got rid of my kit lens, the EFS 18-55 which was a substandard lens in most areas of my needs. I would also not compare this lens with the Tamron 28-75 as the Tammy is not a real wide lens. I own a 30D and a 530D and shoot landscapes, wildlife and weddings once in a while. This lens will be permanently attached on my 350D while I use my 30D with the big telephoto zooms.

hello Jon, I would say that the focussing of my Sigma 17-70mm lens is sufficient for most needs. I’ve done a few weddings over the years and I can’t really recall a need for a fast focussing lens in the first place – it’s not really photo-reportage after all (well, mine wasn’t) and there usually isn’t a bomb going off in the vacinity to make you want to point and shoot. To be serious for a moment though let me recommend Pixmantec Rawshooter to all and sundry. After you have taken your wonderful shots with your new Sigma 17-70 you have got to get the best out of it and the raw file….and please, if you are doing weddings, use raw files always. Rawshooter has been bought out by Adobe so you can see why I strongly recommend you try to get it before it disappears. Photoshop CS2 just isn’t up to it on converting raw images, regardless what the pundit may say – not after you see what other software like Rawshooter can do. So I urge you to visit Pixmantec website and read the chat…..highly informative, especially if you have Canon and Nikon cameras.

Jon, clayhurley’s comment says it all. The Sigma 17-70 is sufficient for most needs, even on my D60. ;)

clayhurley, one thing I really haven’t done is shoot in RAW full time. My camera can hardly keep up with it, and I find the post–processing a lot more tedious. Of course it allows for more latitude in exposure and white balance and colors, but that’s one thing I strive to get it right at the time of capture. :) But when I get a 400D or a 30D, or a 5D, I just might go with RAW 100% of the time. ;)

By Post Author

Well Markku, I am an ex Royal Air Force photographer and when I was serving in the RAF we had to be extremely frugal with paper and film, – so every shot counted and you tended to hesitate to get everyone sharp and composed (we had to think 6×8!).If you keep your finger on the trigger then in raw you are going to hit the buffers very quickly. I’ve never needed to use that function as I don’t take photos of horse or motorbike races or fashion, for that matter!!? Raw seems the way to go though. You have more control, you can convert to jpeg or tiff after the event, and the raw file will always be your digital negative. Don’t forget that each time you open and close your jpeg you are losing detail because it recompresses the image. Also, have you noticed on your landscapes or images of ‘block colours’, that the more manipulation you do the more risk of ‘posterization’ which means you get colours in definite layers. This is because a jpeg image is in 8bit, whilst a raw image is in 16bit and has millions more colours to throw away if you need to manipulate. By the way, Rawshooter is now not available so you will have to scrounge from friends. It is still the best, and easier to use than others I’ve tried.

How good is the sigma 17-70 in shooting and freezing a subject in motion, like a bike jump, or other sports. I’m curently shooting on a standard canon 18-55, which is too slow..

Wez, if your concern is freezing motion, the Sigma 17-70 is marginally better than the 18-55 kit lens. However, it isn’t just an issue of lens aperture but more importantly, shutter speed. Note that you will need fast shutter speeds to freeze motion. At the same time, you can only get good and fast shutter speeds in good light, meaning the venue should be well lit. Outdoors during the day, there wouldn’t be much difference between the two lenses and they will be equally capable of freezing motion.

By Post Author

I purchased a Sigma 17 70 november 2006. I have had nothing but soft shots with this lens. I bought this lens to replace my Canon 18 55 kit lens and wish I hadnt. My Tamron 90mm gives great results however on the same camera body (Canon 4ooD). The Sigma I have given a good workout…macro, flash, brick walls stopped down on a tripod etc and it is disappointing to say the least. If Sigma cannot rectify I will bite the bullet and buy a Canon 17 55 2.8 and be done with it.

Peter, try getting your lens calibrated, it might have some back or front-focus issues with your specific camera. My copy is tack-sharp.

By Post Author

Markku, I have sent the lens to the Sigma distributors in Melbourne for evaluation. I will keep you posted. As a by the by, I picked up a Sigma 70-300 Tele from E-Bay the other day and am more than pleased with it, especially since it is the non-APO version. It displays acceptably sharp images even at 300mm. The macro however is not usable quality wise, but then I did not buy it for its macro feature.

Wow, I never thought the Sigma 70-300 zooms are worth it. I was lucky enough to buy a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L from a friend for a very cheap price, so I guess my standards are quite high. ;)

I hope they fix your 17-70 soon, you’ll really enjoy it when it’s at at its best.

By Post Author

I sold my Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX DG for my co-worker along with a Nikon D70 to my coworker in very cheap price. I was thinking to get a Sigma 24-70/2.8, but the store didn’t have that; so I purchased the 17-70 with no choice..After I did a few test shots on my D2H, the result was impressive:) very sharp and details, very natural colour, focusing is fast..I even blew couple of the pix to 8×12; great quality and way much better than the 28-70/2.8 I used to have. The Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM is still the killer, I believe the quality is better than the Canon 70-200 L series lenses, but I barely use it or only use it less than 5 times because of its weight =(
I strongly recommand the Sigma 17-70 zoom over the Nikon stock 18-70, test it out at your local store before buying it. I never happy about the new Nikon lenses, except for their AI era fixed focal lenses.

I bought a sigma 17-70 two months ago, tested it with Canon 17-40…17-85IS and thought just as good.

Since ive been out i the field i cant get a sharp photo from f2.8 to f22 with tripod and M/L. Ive had my camera checked at a canon repairer and they checked the lens, camera was ok lens not in focus. Sigma want my camera plus lens but the lens is going back tomorrow

Hi Dash, Probably you picked up a bad copy of the lens, I think Sigma does have QC issue..I had 2 of their 28-70 and 35-70 AF and MF lenses over ten years ago..the inner part or the barrel fell off on the AF lens; my friend managed to duct tape it back on>_

Dash, perhaps Kirk is right. Sigma is quite known for having quality issues with some of its lenses, so be sure to test them when getting one.

Try to have your 17-70 replaced with another stock and be sure to test it right away.

By Post Author

Hi Richard,
A 50-500 zoom.. it’s a 10X zoom plus it’s almost $1000 bucks..better test it before consider buying it!

Comments are closed.