Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS Macro

[rwg717]

I had been researching the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM lens which I considered buying, I put a thread on the similar Tamron offering to see if anyone had much experience from AP on the similar Tamron lens, not much joy for a Canon mount.

The reviews I could find on the Tamron were fairly "blistering", so I though of trying the Sigma and its reviews weren't much better. Finally bit the bullet and ordered the Sigma

http://i1026.photobucket.com/albums/y330/rswilliamsports/Personal/IMG_10.jpg

There were remarks like: "performance at 70mm is comparitively poor", and "images with the lens stopped down below f4 showed de-centred results", CA is not too bad but barrel distortion is pronounced at all shorter focal lengths and at 70mm there is bad pin-cushion?

http://i1026.photobucket.com/albums/y330/rswilliamsports/Personal/IMG_19.jpg

I put the two above images in to say that my untrained eye can't see any of the poor results which the "independent reviewer" was writing about? Both images were shot hand-held, the first at 1.125 sec and the second at f3.2 and 1/1000 sec. ISO in both is 100 taken with a Canon 7D.

The shot of the wheel was taken at a wide aperture to try to detect the "significant degradation" at the corners of the image:confused013

What do you guys think, or am I totally mad????

Richard

[Mircula]

Hey,

these pics look really good in my untrained eye opinion :)

But i guess it is always a difference what you can see in the actual image and in a lab experiment....

I am looking for that lens as well. May I ask where you bought it and how much you paid?

Cheers,
Mirc

[old dog]

looks alright to me Richard. Have a great time with it.

[Calxoddity]

I've had the non-OS version of the lens for a couple of years, and love it. Nothing wrong with your pikkies - enjoy your new toy (have a go of the macro capability).

Regards,
Calx

[rwg717]

Hey,

these pics look really good in my untrained eye opinion :)

But i guess it is always a difference what you can see in the actual image and in a lab experiment....

I am looking for that lens as well. May I ask where you bought it and how much you paid?

Cheers,
Mirc

Thanks for the remarks Mirc, and I agree with you because I could not see any fault with the glass at all, if you have a look at the horizon there is one quite "rounded" hill near the centre top of the frame, there is a wind finding tower on top of that, which I doubt anyone will be able to see, it was a dreadful day for smoke haze and although the tower is visible in the image before I sent it to photobucket, its not there now.
This is another offering from DWI

http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=1959

The non-stablilzed version is listed here but no longer available, so I had to add a bit over a hundred $ to secure the order some weeks ago, not a lot of change out of $500.:D
Richard

[rwg717]

Thanks for the comments folks, I was really worried when I had just finished reading the review (for the 3rd. time) and downloaded the frames to the computer, could not really detect what the reviewer was talking about???
If you look at the spoked wheel shot at f3.2, it looks to me to be uniformly round (which it is) but should not be and the edges are still pretty sharp to me too:confused013
Thanks again, Richard

[PindanRose]

Just to add a (perhaps) final word. I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens and it is just amazing what I can get from it. For close-ups on manual focus you can achieve even more. The images are super sharp. Only drawback is it's weight. But then good glass does weigh! Enjoy.

[hus]

I also have the sigma 17-70, just be careful when you doing macro cause it will focus right down to the front lens and its not uncomon to ave you tapping the subject with the lens:)

[rwg717]

I also have the sigma 17-70, just be careful when you doing macro cause it will focus right down to the front lens and its not uncomon to ave you tapping the subject with the lens:)

Yes, this was mentioned in the review I quoted above even though the learned reviewer had stated that the 17-70 was not "a true macro" lens! I included this image taken at the same time as the two above because this one is at 17mm, although at f5.6 there is plenty of grass and things in the bottom corners of the image to see any distortion/degradation there as the reviewer was quite positive that this lens was quite bad at 17mm at most apertures?

http://i1026.photobucket.com/albums/y330/rswilliamsports/Personal/IMG_0015.jpg

Image is at ISO100 and I used Mongo's method of sharpening images before posting in threads, but I either sharpened it too much or missed an important part of his instructions:Doh:

Anyway, thought you might be interested to see that this Sigma is a better lens than some give it credit for. As for its weight, absolute featherweight when compared to Canons 24-70L "BRICK"

Richard

[hus]

Yes, this was mentioned in the review I quoted above even though the learned reviewer had stated that the 17-70 was not "a true macro" lens!
It focus down to the front glass and its not a true macro? ....................... I can live with the label that my sigma 17-70 is not a true macro, but l'll still focus it down the the front glass :lol:

BTW your images are great ;)

[rwg717]

It focus down to the front glass and its not a true macro? ....................... I can live with the label that my sigma 17-70 is not a true macro, but l'll still focus it down the the front glass :lol:

BTW your images are great ;)

Well, I did descibe him/her as a "learned" reviewer, I thought that was the least I could do considering the obvious bias against Sigma:lol2:
Richard.
(P.S. thanks for the compliments:D)

[Kevin M]

I have the 17 - 70 sigma lens and find it quite satisfactory overall.I cannot fault it I realise it may not measure up to a Canon L lens but for monitor viewing the difference is what I would consider neglible and very acceptable to me at least.
I am aware and can attest to this first hand from personal experience that with Sigma lenses the qualitiy can differ significantly.
My own personal story here - I have a standard 500 mm telephoto lens purchased over 15 yrs ago now for my EOS 620 & 630 cameras, it was used quite heavily for a couple of years but was looked after overall, but found significant barrel casing deterioration about 2 yrs later.....

Good luck with your purchase - enjoy it....make sure you use the close up("macro") feature too it isn't too bad.
Regards