anyone have any experiences with: Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC IF Macro Lens for Canon?

[rasheemo]

i'm looking to get this and was wondering if anyone else had any experiences using it. the wide angle and wide range of zoom coupled with macro make this very desirable at such an affordable price.

i'm not a pro so i think it would suit me, but would like some other perspectives on this ^_^

 

[Montana]

I own this lens, and it practically lives on my 40D. I love this lens. I am not sure if its because I got a great copy or if all are similar. You don't hear much about this lens. Its sharp when stopped down a little and the wide end shows very little vignetting when wide open (in my opinion). There is a little barrel distortion on the wide end, but its minimal to me. It is a great walk around lens on a crop body for those that rather have wide than reach. The build quality is not quite as good as their EX line, but it is darn close. Its why better than the plastic crap Canon sells for similar money. For instance, I love my Canon 100mm Macro, but the build quality....junk. Plastic sucks. (Rant now over) The Sigma is a fine lens with good color/contrast. Its not a true Macro lens it is 1:2.8 Has very close focus though. I think that they make a newer version with HSM (hypersonic motor). I have the older version. Great bang for the buck in my opinion. It also comes with a nice Petal hood. Its a good all around lens. The only bad thing comes from its good.....its a tad heavy because its built like a tank. It actually feels like a real lens, I think it would have the EX label if it were built for a full frame camera.

This was shot at 17mm f/7 @ 1/20sec handheld ISO 100

 

[NateWagner]

Well, it sounds good... what do you want it for?

The reason I ask is there are a few other lenses that serve a similar purpose that would be good to look at as well.

You can get the sigma 18-50 2.8 Macro for about the same price, and it's nice cause it is the 2.8 all the way through the range.

Another awesome lens for the range is the tamron 28-75 2.8 or the sigma 24-70 2.8

I guess it may just be me but I love having the continuous 2.8 throughout zoom range because it makes lower light photography much easier.

Just my .02

I will say I am a fan of sigma (I have the 18-50 2.8 and I also have the 70-200 2.8)

 

[Montana]

Constant 2.8 is nice, but not as wide. On the wide end, there is a noticable difference in every mm of focal length. I wish the 17-70 was constant.