Sigma 17-70

[cameronpatrol]

Hi all
I ordered a sigma 18-50 3 weeks ago which I ended up getting a refund on.
very hard to get in contact with the bloke.
Anyway chekcing through my paypal notes from the seller he says he was away and they no longer can get the 18-50 and had upgraded me free of charge. Damn if only he'd rung me back. As paypal were meant to see if the lens was to be delivered or not/refund.
Anyway I didnt even know what the upgrade was to.

So still waiting for the refund to come back into my account i am looking at lenses again :(

Im looking at this one now
Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM | C Lens (for Nikon)
it's more than I wanted to spend and i'll have to save up some more.
does anyone have this lens?
Ive had a look at some reviews and they says its a good lens apart from, at it;s widest its a little rough and the focus work space for macro isnt flash.
which is sort of what i was looking at this lens for, wide and some begginer macro.

any thoughts and opinions apreciated.
cheers cam

[Lance B]

I do not have this lens but from what i have heard it is a very good lens and much, much better than the 18-50, even at wide angle. Here are test results from Photozone on each lens and go to the last page of each test (3 pages all up for each lens) to see their verdict. The 17-70 gets 3.5 stars from 5 and the 18-50 only gets 2 stars from 5!

17-70 f2.8-4 OS HSM | C:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/822-sigma1770284os?start=1

18-50 f2.8-4
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/639-sigma18502845os?start=1

[ameerat42]

Ditto as Lance said. Was it a dealer you ordered it from? Are you being "forced" to buy this lens?
Also, on the DPR Σ forum the consensus is that this version of the lens is "better" than the later f/3.5 version,
but who knows?
Have you called CR Kennedy Melbourne (03) 9823 1555, direct, as they used to/may still do price matching.
Am.

[cameronpatrol]

I do not have this lens but from what i have heard it is a very good lens and much, much better than the 18-50, even at wide angle. Here are test results from Photozone on each lens and go to the last page of each test (3 pages all up for each lens) to see their verdict. The 17-70 gets 3.5 stars from 5 and the 18-50 only gets 2 stars from 5!

17-70 f2.8-4 OS HSM | C:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/822-sigma1770284os?start=1

18-50 f2.8-4
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/639-sigma18502845os?start=1

Thanks lots for the links.
Your right with the 17-70 being a lot better than the other one.
I think I best start saving some more and get shopping :th3:
thanks again
cheers cam

- - - Updated - - -


Ditto as Lance said. Was it a dealer you ordered it from? Are you being "forced" to buy this lens?
Also, on the DPR Σ forum the consensus is that this version of the lens is "better" than the later f/3.5 version,
but who knows?
Have you called CR Kennedy Melbourne (03) 9823 1555, direct, as they used to/may still do price matching.
Am.

G'day mate.
I ordered it through a shop in WA.
No, no one is forcing anything.

The bloke said in a meassage that he had upgraded to a better lens free of charge, which lens i wouldnt have a clue.
The refund is alreading under way.

The reason Im looking at thsi current lens is from what ive found its the next best thing in my budget.
I think you did rekomend this lens in my other thread.
But the marco wasnt a 1:1 which dosnt really fuss me.

I have only just starting looking at this lens the other night.
I was thinking of trying a hong kong dealer?
Try my luck with DWI again maybe.
I still need to do some more price checking aorund and see how it goes.
cheers cam

[ameerat42]

Well, it might be worth looking up the old CRK. There's one in Perth. They have had pretty good prices for the 2 lenses I bought and the other few I asked about.
17/19 Oxford Close West Leederville WA 6007
(08) 9489 8550

The advantage is local warranty.
Am.

[cameronpatrol]

Well, it might be worth looking up the old CRK. There's one in Perth. They have had pretty good prices for the 2 lenses I bought and the other few I asked about.
17/19 Oxford Close West Leederville WA 6007
(08) 9489 8550

The advantage is local warranty.
Am.

Right'o
cheers for the link :th3:

[arthurking83]

Was the 18-50 Sigma lens that you ordered, the slower f/2.8-4.5 version(cheaper) or the faster constant f/2.8 version?

if it were the f/2.8=4.5 version than a comparison between it and the 17-70 could hardly be called a fair fight!
That model 18-50 is equivalent to an 18-55 kit lens ... which cost about 1/2 - 1/3rd of the price of the 17-70 lens.
As far as I'm aware, I think that slower aperture version is an old lens design, and has been discontinued by Sigma.(so has the 18-50/2.8 too tho).

Another option for you to consider could be the newer Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS lens too.
Faster constant aperture(always a bonus to have access too) ... and maybe this is the upgraded lens that the supplier was referring too.
If so, I'd be inclined to go with that type of lens, rather than a general purpose, not quite macro 17-70 macro type lens.
Other options would also be the Tamron 17-50/2.8 which I still have ..... and can't seem to gather the willpower to sell it.

IIRC, a 17-50/2.8OS would set you back something like <$600, where the 17-70 is more like $450 or so ... so the difference would be in the $150 between those two type lenses.

The 18-50/2.8-4.5 would be a <$200 type lens .. as per the other 18-55 kit lenses!

The Tammy version(non VC) has been around since the dinosaurs too, and is now one of the cheaper of this type of lens. Well worth the very few dollars spent on it.
Word has it that the VC version is not that much more expensive(but still cheaper than the Sigma equivalent) .. but is not as good as the non VC version overall.

And going by the Photozone tests on all these lenses, the Sigma 17-50 appears to be the best lens in this sector too .. but whether it's price premium is worth that slight extra IQ edge is a point to consider too.
The Tammy lenses are way cheaper!

[Tannin]

Cam, I think you sort-of know this already, but it's worth being clear that the "macro" feature on this lens is just a scam. It's a general-purpose wide/normal zoom lens, and a pretty good one by all accounts (I very nearly bought one for a family member a while back but went for the Canon 15-85 instead), but it is NOT a macro lens. It will be around about as good for macro work as any other general-purpose non-macro lens, which is to say not very.

Sadly, Sigma and several other lens manufacturers all make a habit of this deceitful and underhand practice. they stick the word "macro" somewhere in the name of the lens and, unfortunately, our consumer protection authorities don't want to or can't put a stop to it.

Take home lesson: it's a perfectly good walkaround lens but it is NOT a macro lens, nor anything remotely close to being a macro lens. Real macro lenses are usually (or possibly always?) fastish primes somewhere around the f/2.8 mark; usually (but not always) in the 50 to 150mm focal length range (most commonly 90, 100, or 105mm, with 60mm being another popular length); and always designed especially for the purpose with long-travel, fine-grained focus mechanisms and carefully corrected optics to produce a very flat focal plane instead of the more usual curve. Oh, and they focus closer, of course.

Summary: so long as you are aware that it isn't quite what it says on the label, you can buy with confidence. Good luck!

PS: I nearly forgot. Nikon, just 'coz they like being different, always call macro lenses "micro" lenses. Nobody else does. Same thing, different name.

[BastardSheep]

That's my day to day workhorse lens for my Canon. About the only time it disappoints me is for landscape. I suspect that's more operator error than anything as I don't do landscapes very often, and when ever I haven't done any particular type of shoot for a while there's always 1-50 vital settings I neglect to set to steps I neglect to do.

It's definitely not a true macro lens, but in marketing land "macro" just means "can get pretty close". Can definitely get closer than a lot of other lenses I've tried. Both of these shots (you'll have to excuse me, first attempt adding images on this forum) were at 70m and you can see the bottom left in both of them the lens itself is pushing petals back - that's how close you need to get for such shots. Hopefully this will give you an idea of what it can/can't do as far as "macro"/close is concerned, that's the main reason I'm posting them.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3691/9855632314_cd9c274713_n.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bastardsheep/9855632314/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bastardsheep/9855632314/) by Bastard Sheep (http://www.flickr.com/people/bastardsheep/), on Flickr

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2818/9855747263_04379db6df_n.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bastardsheep/9855747263/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bastardsheep/9855747263/) by Bastard Sheep (http://www.flickr.com/people/bastardsheep/), on Flickr

It's a great workhorse lens at the very least, that's what I got it for. I absolutely love it, but if you want a lens primarily for macro I'd suggest something else.

[chappo1]

I also have the 17-70 F2.8-4.0 DC macro but the older screw drive version.
Mine is a Sony/Minolta mount and I have been perfectly happy with it for more than 5 years. It is currently doing "shelf stability" along with the Sony A700 as, having gone full frame A99 I replaced it with the 24-70 Zeiss..... john

[cameronpatrol]

Thanks for the replys everyone :th3:
Arthurking The 18-50 was $299 in Aus so Im pretty sure it was the cheaper one.

for the Tamron, lol you wouldnt belive me if I told you.
I originaly bought a Tamron 18-50 same price 300 bucks from an overseas.
eitherway I wasnt happy with it and got refunded, the auto focus was crap to hardly worked.

so that one was canned and then I bought this sigma 18-50 same price.
but this one never turned up as in the original post.

So I have literally spent the last 2 months trying to get a stupid lens that works and gets delivered. :devil1:
I cant seem to win.


Tannin
thanks also for the in depth reply.
From what Ive picked up reading a few articles online, id come to the theory the same as yours that macro doesn't mean macro.

A true macro lens is 1:1 isn't it?

It sounds like this lens is pretty good (sigma 17-70)

im pretty keen on it and I think the budget is stretched enough to get it lol.
out of curiosity can a true macro lens be used as a general wide/normal/zoom allrounder lens???



Bsheep
The photos look pretty good :th3:
Have you tried extension tubes with that lens??



chappo
Im glad you like it, I think I might have to have a crack and get one.
its doing my head in not having a shorter lens around, especially trying to get some of the kids etc.
Im still a begginer and i dont really think I could tell the difference in something that's the ducks nuts and something that is normal.


thanks again to all
cheers cam

[Mark L]

out of curiosity can a true macro lens be used as a general wide/normal/zoom allrounder lens???


Good question.;)

[hus]

Just to let you know I have this lens as well and it will focus right down to the UV filter I have in front of it, there have been times when I have actually tapped on the subject I was focus on with the front lens. Also this lens produces excellent images with my 40D but for some reason not so great with my 50D ( yes I have tried the micro adjusting). Thats my experience with this lens so just thought I'd share it. :):)

[cameronpatrol]

Just to let you know I have this lens as well and it will focus right down to the UV filter I have in front of it, there have been times when I have actually tapped on the subject I was focus on with the front lens. Also this lens produces excellent images with my 40D but for some reason not so great with my 50D ( yes I have tried the micro adjusting). Thats my experience with this lens so just thought I'd share it. :):)


So a lens that will foucs up to close things is why they call them macro?
ive done a little reading on macro but still confused.

I know the lens I have now I cant be closer than a few foot for it to be in focus.
So in theory the 17-70 that can focus all the way in is a big bonus? And I might be able to put extension tubes on to get some bug photos? eyeball detail etc?

cheers cam

[BastardSheep]

Bsheep
The photos look pretty good :th3:
Have you tried extension tubes with that lens??

I bought an actual macro lens a month or two prior to the Sigma so haven't felt the requirement for extension tubes yet.

Edit: (Removed name/model just in case it's seen as promotion prior to my getting to 50 posts).

[arthurking83]

So a lens that will foucs up to close things is why they call them macro?
.....

True macro lenses will allow focus to reproduce the subject in a 1:1 ratio on the sensor plane.

That is, your 5mm subject will be photographed across 5mm of the sensor(or film if you prefer).

Some time back, it was agreed by some photographic body and the manufacturers that the macro designation could be used on lenses that magnify the subject by up to a ratio of 1:3.
That is, 1/3rd magnification.

My understanding of what the term macro actually means is a reproduction ratio of between 1:1 and about 6:1(that's 6x magnification).
Beyond 6x magnification the term become microscopy, which is not the same term as Nikon's 'Micro' designation of it's lenses.

Not all 'proper' macro lenses will allow focus down to 1:1, and even these previously referred too prime lenses.
Ziess, Voightlander (amongst others) have high quality macro designated prime lenses that can only do 1:2 reproduction natively and require extension tubes to go to 1:1.

I can't think of any zoom type macro lens that can do 1:1 reproduction without the use of any extension.

That I can think of, only one lens currently and easily available to the public is a true macro lens, and that is the Canon MPE which I think does 1:1 and higher magnification.(I can't remember all the specs of this lens, others have more knowledge of it).

Reproduction ratio is stated in a few ways.

X:Y is one way(eg. 1:3),

and N.NNx is another(eg. 0.33x) .. where the x means times, not X, and is the maximum magnification ability of the lens.

As an example of this, if you look at the specs of the Sigma 17-70 macro lens, it's maximum reproduction ability is 1:2.9, which is basically 1:3, which turns out to be 0.344x magnification

[Lance B]

Thanks for the replys everyone :th3:

A true macro lens is 1:1 isn't it?

Yes. It becomes a little more murky when quoting reproduction ratio figures on APS C, though. ;)


out of curiosity can a true macro lens be used as a general wide/normal/zoom allrounder lens???

cheers cam

Yes, macros can be used as normal lenses quite successfully. Generally, most macro prime lenses are around the 100mm mark and mounted on a FF camera make for very good portrait lenses, even when used on an APS C camera the FOV (1.5x crop factor) can still be very good focal length for a portrait lens. However, macros are optimised for close focus and things like bokeh may not be as good at longer camera to subject distances, although form what I have seen from many of these macros, they also perform very well at portrait distances as far as bokeh is concerned, amongst their other attributes. Also, they are optimised for peak sharpness at macro distances and may not be quite as good at longer distances. Having said that, I have not seen any that are bad at long distance, just that other lens options may be better at distance. Some manufacturers have also made lenses specific for APS C like Pentax has made a 35mm f2.8 macro - being a similar FOV as a 50mm (macro) on FF.
The main drawback for them being used in other capacities is that they have very long focus throws, ie how far they need to travel from minimum focus to infinity, simply because their range of focus is from so close, and this may not make them the best option for fast auto focusing purposes like action shots etc. They need to have a long focus throws for accuracy purposes, ie, in order to allow for precise focus adjustments at macro distances.

As for the Sigma, and other zooms, stating that they have macro capability, it really should be quoted as a "close focus ability" and not a true macro ability, however, this is still a useful feature and should not be dismissed. I find it frustrating that my prime lenses always seem to have their minimum focus as being about the 8-10x their focal length, so, a 50mm lens has a minimum focus distance of around the 45-50cm mark, an 85mm lens is always about the 75-85cm mark, my 500mm lens is 400cm (385 in manual mode) etc. This makes it difficult when you want to get close to small subject matter in order to fill the frame.

My suggestion is to get the Sigma 17-70 as it is supposed to be very good optically and so, enjoy it's versatility and excellent results. :)

[Tannin]

Excellent post by Lance B just above; worth reading twice. Take care with Arthur's reply: he is mixing up standard photographic understandings with a few Nikon-only specials and the result is very confusing!

As Lance says, while a true macro lens is defined as a lens capable of reproducing the subject at 1:1 (Nikon call this same thing "micro"), in practice, most people are comfortable extending the "macro" designation to any lens which is specifically designed for close-up work even if it doesn't quite manage the 1:1 ratio. Arthur mentions designated macro lenses from Ziess and Voightlander that aren't technically macro capable because, like the Canon 50mm macro, they don't do 1:1 without an extra converter. The point is, however, that these not-quite-macro lenses function just like "real" macro lenses insofar as they have very shord MFDs, slow, precise, long-throw manual focus mechanisms, and flat planes of focus. (Most lenses offer a curved "plane" instead, which is vastly easier to design and manufacture and doesn't matter much for a portrait or even a landscape, but is no good for (e.g.) copying a map or a document. Achieving this in a (optically simple) prime lens is one thing; achieving it in a (vastly more complicated) zoom lens might be something else entirely! Old-time enlarger lenses were the same in this regard: very flat plane of focus. You can probably make or buy adapters to redeploy then as high quality manual focus camera lenses for macro - I bet at least three members here have done just that!)

I think everyone in this thread is saying "get the 17-70 anyway, 'coz it's a good general-purpose lens", and that's a sensible response.

By the way, as others have mentioned, macro lenses make great general-purpose lenses, though of fixed focal length, of course. Here are some examples of my two:

Tokina 35mm macro: http://tannin.net.au/browse.php?first=1&second=6&sort_by=cam_code

Canon 60mm macro: http://tannin.net.au/browse.php?first=1&second=8&sort_by=shutter

[arthurking83]

...... Take care with Arthur's reply: he is mixing up standard photographic understandings with a few Nikon-only specials and the result is very confusing! .....

If I remember correctly the OP has a Nikoncentric camera system, so the Nikon terminology could come into play .. specifically the use of the term Micro in place of Macro(for their lenses).

I re read my reply and I can't see anywhere that I may have caused confusion.

If there is confusion in my reply it may be due to the confusing manner in which all other manufacturers use the term macro.

The term Macro in photography relates to the greater than lifesize reproduction of a subject at the sensor plane.
This is not my understanding of the term, it's a technical aspect as cataloged by the likes of Wiki and others.

Look it up on the Wiki if you please, lenses with the ability to reproduce an image at up to 1:1 lenses are not true macro lenses.

1:1 is where macro starts!(not ends).

Nikon have their reasons for using the term Micro and when you read it it makes sense.

But for the sake of conforming so as to not confuse, I have no issue with the misuse of the term macro lens where clearly by the true definition of the term .... it's most likely not!

The member asked the question: "A true macro lens is 1:1 isn't it?"


...... while a true macro lens is defined as a lens capable of reproducing the subject at 1:1 .....
This is the generally accepted but incorrect use of the designation .. a common misconception.

Technically this is where macro starts in photography. I can't remember the actual specifics of where it stops, but from memory at about 6:1 or so.

Some time ago, a manufacturer thought is may improve sales of their lenses if they used the term macro on their lenses. Memory serves me to think this lens was also a zoom lens, and was only capable of 1:3 repo ratio.
Some other lens manufacturers argued the point, and eventually it was agreed by some lens manufacturer's governing body that the use of the term macro for lenses with reproduction ratios up to 1:3 was acceptable. :confused:
(strange, as the term was already defined with the larger than lifesize reproduction capability).

I think the point was argued that while the subject at the sensor(film back then) wasn't larger than lifesize, in the print(obviously larger than the film copy) was. So it seems that the reproduction being done at larger than lifesize was determined to be 'the print' and it seems a compromise was found ..... and we now have a bit of a shambles in terms of what terminology is acceptable, and what is accurate.

So for the OP, and specifically to the question posted. Where all others call their substandard lenses macro, Nikon call them Micro.

Hopefully that unconfuses my prior 'confusing' reply!

:p

Also on the topic of macro and crop factor .. this should have no bearing on the topic either.

Macro defines the reproduction of the subject at the sensor.
Once we refuse to beleive this point, then the term macro no longer actually means anything at all .. because in the end, all lenses are macro capable.
That is, unless the lens is of a totally useless design .. no lens currently made is not capable of macro reproduction.

If you want a really confusing reply ... this is the reality of photography today.

Once a specific and technical definitions is broken (for the sake of marketing or common acceptance) then the term no linger means anything at all!

Nikon's use of the term micro makes more sense every time this can'o'worms is opened all over again :rolleyes:

[Tannin]

:lol: Thankyou, no further questions for this witness. Your Worship, I rest my case.