sigma lens choice

[chad79]

I have been looking at two sigma lenses the 24-70mm and 17-70mm i still can not make up my mind what one to purchase.
Anyone with ideas and have tested them out? Maybe can post a test shot with lens.
Thankyou.

[arthurking83]

with what you already have.. I'd take the 24-70mm.

It'd be nice to have a more general purpose one size fits all lens, and if that's your photographic methodology then you'll probably get better value from the 17-70.

I think once you've been shooting for long enough, you soon realise what it is that you really want, and at what focal length you want to work at!

FWIW: I'd take the faster aperture over the longer zoom ratio any day.

[ricktas]

I have the 24-70 as well and its one sharp lens. Good walk around lens! Though if you are into landscapes the extra you will get at the wide end with the 17-70 might make it worth it.

However, considering you have the Sigma 10-20, then the 24-70 would be my pick for you

[enduro]

I have had the 17-70mm for about 18mo and have found it an excellent lens for closeups, semi-macro, wide angles and portraits. It's also pretty much the main lens I take on holiday. My only beef with it is that it is not a fast AF lens and not USM, which means it make a little noise during its not very quick AF.

The 17-70 is very sharp straight out of the camera and has a MWD of about 2cm. It's the lens I now use for taking "macros" of anything over about 5cm in height/width. Previously I would be using the 100mm f/2.8 for that.

I don't know anything about the 24-70mm and if it has faster AF, is just as sharp you might consider it as an option. You may have the 10-20mm already (as I do) but getting down to 17mm on the one lens is very handy particularly given the MWD of the 10-20mm is 24cm.

I just checked the sigmaphoto website and they say the 17-70mm has a MWD of 20cm, perhaps that is just for AF? I'm sure I am shooting at much shorter distances than that. :confused013

[N*A*M]

i'm also in the market and looking at the 17-70 HSM version which should resolve the AF speed issue. keen to test it out next week. any 17-70 owners want to post up sample shots?

[SpaceJunk]

I'm using the 24-70 as a walkaround and have been really pleased with it, but I also have a 10-20 , truth be told I sometimes wish the 24-70 was just a bit wider, but constant f2.8 is more important to me than a little wideness, I would have considered the 17-70 if it was available whhen I purchased the 24-70, but I'm very happy with the results from the 24-70 and you soon become accustomed to composing with the lens you have on the camera, and that holds true for the 10-20 also :)

[enduro]

i'm also in the market and looking at the 17-70 HSM version which should resolve the AF speed issue. keen to test it out next week. any 17-70 owners want to post up sample shots?

I have the 17-70mm and will strongly consider the HSM model when the dollar gets to a reasonable level again. That said the 17-70mm I have is not too bad on AF.

Wish I could post some sample shots for you, but my main PC hard drive fell over on Sunday night. It's got 200Gig of images on it and I am unable to drive for a few weeks.

There's a 17-70 thread on this Forum or on POTN.

[Calxoddity]

I have the Nikon HSM version of the 17-70 and it's both fast and quiet at focusing - faster than the kit lens. It's also great value compared to some of the other options.

As a walkaround lens it's really nice - great sharpness, can do decent macro-ish shots, some distortion down at the 17mm end, consistent with other lenses. Whilst the 24-70 is faster throughout, the tradeoff is that you lose the wide angle end and that could be sucky for your landscape photography.

Regards,
Calx

[Ellen]

Hi there,

I recently bought the 17-70 and am very very happy with it. I rarely take it off, its a great walk around lens.

Here are some photos I have taken with it recently.......

[campdog]

Ellen thankyou. I have a K10D and deciding which lens to get.Choice now made.Sigma 17-70mm

John

[TEITZY]

I just checked the sigmaphoto website and they say the 17-70mm has a MWD of 20cm, perhaps that is just for AF? I'm sure I am shooting at much shorter distances than that. :confused013


They are possibly quoting the MFD from the sensor rather than the front element. 5cm sounds a bit close to me but I could be wrong :D

Cheers
Leigh

[Astroman]

I was going to get a Canon 17-40mm f4L lens but it's a little out of my price range now. Might consider the 17-70. as an alternative, unless I find a cheap Canon lens.

[Calxoddity]

Hi,
Sorry - tried to post a pikkie - didn't work. Something at this end, I think
Regards,
Calx

[habro]

They are possibly quoting the MFD from the sensor rather than the front element

Bang on, MFD is always specified from the sensor

[BLWNHR]

I own the Sigma 24-70. I really like it, it is a well constructed lens and pretty sharp (though not as good as my 70-200). Given you have the 10-20 you'll be fine for covering the whole focal range when you need to.

The downside of this lens is flare. It can be very annoying at times and I've had to compromise photos to remove flare. The only other thing is the 24mm minimum length. I did my first street-shots with this lens yesterday and must say I did find the lack of wide-angle a bit annoying. As a walkaround lens I think a 17-50 2.8 or similar would be better.

Would I buy this lens again, probably, as for what I do the lack of wide angle isn't a problem, and I like the 70mm long end.