# Sigma lens 17-70 f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Contemporary



## vlim (Oct 9, 2013)

Does anyone use that zoom lens ? I mostly use my two dslr bodies (40D and recently acquired 70d) for wildlife photography but i need an all around zoom mostly for portraits, landscapes and travels.

I know the 24-105 f/4 L IS is certainly my best option, but considering the low price of that Sigma lens, i'm curious to read opinions from photographers who utilize or can compare it to the 24-105 f/4 L IS or even the ol' 24-70 f/2.8 L (if it can be compared to these kind of lenses)...

I f you're fans of other third party zoom lenses that can interest me, don't hesitate !

Thanks.


----------



## vlim (Oct 10, 2013)

Really, no advice


----------



## LuCoOc (Oct 10, 2013)

I don't have any of the lenses you mentioned in your post, but have you looked at the EF-S 15-85. Bought it in a kit with my 7D and have no regrets. Nice focal length range, good AF and IS + overall IQ. Budget wise it's in the middle between the two Ls and the Sigma.


----------



## Sith Zombie (Oct 10, 2013)

I don't think the 24-105 is a good walkaround option on crop, remember it's around 38m on crop at the widest which is not all that great for landscapes. Not used that sigma lens but I have used a Tamron 17-50 2.8 vc that was very good for the price, they do a version without VC for even cheaper I think. Theres some good write ups for both on the web.


----------



## Cory (Oct 10, 2013)

Bought it right when introduced and it didn't come close to focusing (may have just been a lemon). The Sigma 17-50 is a much different story - great lens, but I finally sucked it up and got the venerable Canon 17-55. The Tamron 17-50 is also seems pretty nice and I do notice a lot of them out there. Many say that the non stabilized Tamron is "better".


----------



## wsgroves (Oct 10, 2013)

I have the Tamron un-stabilized 17-55 for my 7D and it takes amazing sharp photos (I have a good copy).
The only thing is the semi slow autofocus. I have however used it to photo my kids with no troubles so YMMV.

Scott


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 10, 2013)

vlim said:


> Does anyone use that zoom lens ? I mostly use my two dslr bodies (40D and recently acquired 70d) for wildlife photography but i need an all around zoom mostly for portraits, landscapes and travels.
> 
> I know the 24-105 f/4 L IS is certainly my best option, but considering the low price of that Sigma lens, i'm curious to read opinions from photographers who utilize or can compare it to the 24-105 f/4 L IS or even the ol' 24-70 f/2.8 L (if it can be compared to these kind of lenses)...
> 
> ...


I have used my friend's Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-f/4 OS lens on a few outings on my Canon 7D (now sold) ... its a decent lens, definitely better than the EF-S 18-55 IS kit lens and the EF-S 18-135 IS, but not as good as the EF-S 15-85 lens. You cannot compare the quality of 24-105 IS with that Sigma lens ... 24-105 is far superior. Why don't you check out the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC lens (costs $395) ... but if budget permits, try the awesome EF-S 15-85 lens or Sigma 18-35 f/1.8.
I know that decisions related to lens purchases can be quite tough (especially when there is a specific budget ... happy shopping anyway.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Oct 10, 2013)

+1 to consider the EF-S 15-85. Refurb on sale now for $544. I use it and the 24-105L on 60D and find the IQ is equal. Depending on venue, the 24 may not be wide enough on crop, yet the extra reach can avoid a lens change. Always compromises! If f5.6 at the long end is an issue, consider the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 -- more $$$ but most claim it is essentially L grade. No direct experience with it or the requested newer Sigma. Have used the older Sigma EX 17-50 -- wonderful at the short end, not so nice on the long end -- i.e. softer, lower contrast.


----------



## vlim (Oct 10, 2013)

Thanks a lot guys, i'm gonna check the lenses you're talking about...


----------



## preppyak (Oct 22, 2013)

Or, if you want something like the Sigma, grab an older 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 Macro. That's the one I have, and it does nearly 1:2 macro, focuses pretty well, and is generally shop. Some field curvature, but that's true of all the nicer kit-level zooms. And its pretty cheap, usually can get it in the $200 range. I'll also second the 17-50 f/2.8 from Tamron suggestions, non-VC of course. They can be had in the $250 range I believe.

If you really want stabilization, then the 15-85 is probably the lens to go with. By the time you pay $4-500 for the Tamron and Sigma versions with VS/OS, you might as well get the Canon.


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 2, 2013)

Hi Vlim.
Loosely speaking I use this lens, I only got it recently and other than the obligatory test pictures I haven't been able to do much with it. First impressions are its a big improvement over the 17-85 kit lens I had. I looked at all the options, but went for the Sigma because of the dock and the issue I had with the kit lens needing a large AFMA spread at opposite ends of the zoom range. I figured that this being the only lens that can be fine tuned at 4 points across its range it was the best option in my price range. It is much brighter than the kit lens enabling the f2.8 centre point at 17mm.
It appears to be bang on out of the box, I haven't done AFMA yet but I didn't feel the need to rush and by the dock! 
It feels like a well built bit of kit, smooth zoom, smooth quiet focus and seems fast enough to lock focus. 

I'm know there are better lenses but this one ticked all the boxes for me starting with budget! ;D

I think the 24-105 would be perfect IF you were using FF. I have heard the same as others have said here it is too long on crop sensors! 

Cheers Graham.



vlim said:


> Does anyone use that zoom lens ? I mostly use my two dslr bodies (40D and recently acquired 70d) for wildlife photography but i need an all around zoom mostly for portraits, landscapes and travels.
> 
> I know the 24-105 f/4 L IS is certainly my best option, but considering the low price of that Sigma lens, i'm curious to read opinions from photographers who utilize or can compare it to the 24-105 f/4 L IS or even the ol' 24-70 f/2.8 L (if it can be compared to these kind of lenses)...
> 
> ...


----------

