thoughst on the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8

devaji108 · May 26, 2013

looking to add to my camera bag....
I am looking for a sharp, fast & wide aputre for my general all purpose shooting.
i shoot with the nikon D5100 the 18-55vr is a pretty good lens and fr the most part pretty happy with it but I do wish I had a faster low light zoom lens.
also have the nikon 35mm F1.8 and to be honest I don't really like it...maybe got a bad copy?? but the AF is SO slow I use in in manual or it will drive me nuts...

anyway back to the Sigma. form the reviews I have read looks like a great lens? anything in the same-ish price point i should think about??
would love the nikon 24-70 but yeah just starting out so no...but i know what good glass can do I once have the 80-200 amazing but lost job and had to sale it..

thoughts feedback
cheers

devaji108 · May 27, 2013

anyone??
I know a few of you out there have this lens...lol or a least used it would love your feedback.

Big Mike · May 27, 2013

Note that the Sigma 17-70mm has a variable aperture. It's max is F2.8 at 17mm but drops to F4 at 70mm. That is still faster than most kit lenses, but it's still not a constant aperture zoom like the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8.

I don't have any first hand knowledge of it, but I'd always seen that it got good reviews. But keep in mind that it's usually compared to kit lenses, and others in the $400 range. So while I'd expect to be OK...it's probably still a far cry from the $1000+ lenses.

SCraig · May 27, 2013

I have one. I've had it for a couple of years and have been well pleased with it. The focal length range works quite well for the subjects that I tend to shoot, and if I had to I'd gladly purchase it again. Here's a sample that was shot with it. I have others, of course, but this set was one that I know was shot with that lens.

devaji108 · May 27, 2013

Big mike yeah I am aware that it is not F2.8 all the away kinda suck too. really wish I could afford $1000+ lens like the nikon 24-70mm but untill I start making $$ form shooting I having a really hard time spending that much on a lens even if I know it's one of the best out there.

ScCraig i do not see the link to your sample shoots? do you find this alot better than your kit lens? was it worth the upgrade?

SCraig · May 27, 2013

devaji108 said:
Big mike yeah I am aware that it is not F2.8 all the away kinda suck too. really wish I could afford $1000+ lens like the nikon 24-70mm but untill I start making $$ form shooting I having a really hard time spending that much on a lens even if I know it's one of the best out there.

ScCraig i do not see the link to your sample shoots? do you find this alot better than your kit lens? was it worth the upgrade?

I agree with Mike that the Sigma isn't in a league with the high-end Nikkor lenses, but it didn't cost $1,800 either. It is a DX lens, not an FX lens, but in my opinion it is much better than the 18-55 kit lens.

The image is showing for me, however my site has been acting odd the past few days.

devaji108 · May 28, 2013

ok after a day or so of searching reading threads and reviews I am between the sigma 17-70F2.8 and the Tamron 24-70F2.8
I'll lest the pro and cons of each lens plz chime in and help out...I am trying to see if the extra $1000 is really worth it or not.
I would really like a lens that i can "grow in too" and only buy once that said money is an issue ...

Sigma
pros 900 cheaper than the tamron
nice focal range
still good Iq in its class

cons not as good build quality but for the price I hear it still good.
the kicker for me is it's not a content aperture through out if it was i would pull the trigger.

the Tamron 24-70F2.8
ok it's not really far to the sigma to compare the two but gonna do it anyway

the build quality looks amazing
sharpness looks to be on pair with cannon and nikon but cheaper
has VC the only one in it class that does, I like that...
the macro looks nice too

cons
really just the money...if I get i'll have to put most of it on the CC
like i said just trying to see if the tamron is really that much better lens...

so thoughts & feedback very welcome!
thanks

SCraig · May 28, 2013

devaji108 said:
ok after a day or so of searching reading threads and reviews I am between the sigma 17-70F2.8 and the Tamron 24-70F2.8
I'll lest the pro and cons of each lens plz chime in and help out...I am trying to see if the extra $1000 is really worth it or not.
I would really like a lens that i can "grow in too" and only buy once that said money is an issue ...

Sigma
pros 900 cheaper than the tamron
nice focal range
still good Iq in its class

cons not as good build quality but for the price I hear it still good.
the kicker for me is it's not a content aperture through out if it was i would pull the trigger.

the Tamron 24-70F2.8
ok it's not really far to the sigma to compare the two but gonna do it anyway

the build quality looks amazing
sharpness looks to be on pair with cannon and nikon but cheaper
has VC the only one in it class that does, I like that...
the macro looks nice too

cons
really just the money...if I get i'll have to put most of it on the CC
like i said just trying to see if the tamron is really that much better lens...

so thoughts & feedback very welcome!
thanks

I haven't used the Tamron so I really can't say how good (or bad!) it is. I just don't know. I have a Tamron 300mm prime for my 35mm body and it has always been a good lens, but that's my only experience with that brand.

That said, generally speaking a lens that costs more is going to have something going for it. Especially if it costs $1000 more. My guess would be that of the Tamron costs that much more than the Sigma then the difference in IQ would be immediately apparent. Whether it is in line with other lenses in that price range is another question and I don't have an answer.

Personally I've never chased constant aperture lenses. I've always had the suspicion that if they can build a 17-70mm constant f/2.8 then they could probably also build a 17-70mm f/1.8-2.8 if they wanted to. Sure it's nice to have more light coming in, especially when trying to autofocus in low light conditions, but I don't shoot enough in low light to worry about it.

devaji108 · May 28, 2013

well from what I have read and seen the tamron is right up there and sometime beating the nikon & canon...it's a solid lens for sure just don't know if i really want to pay that much...
i know only i can decide that

but it always nice to get feedback!!

SCraig · May 28, 2013

devaji108 said:
well from what I have read and seen the tamron is right up there and sometime beating the nikon & canon...it's a solid lens for sure just don't know if i really want to pay that much...
i know only i can decide that but it always nice to get feedback!!

Understood. Sometimes it's hard to make up our minds, even when we know exactly what we want. When there are choices it makes things even worse.

I've been kicking around the idea of a Nikon 80-400 for months and I keep going back and forth because I don't really need it. I shoot mostly wildlife and birds, and I have a Nikkor 70-300 as well as a Sigma 150-500 so that range is already covered. For some reason I just want one. So, yeah, I can understand

devaji108 · May 28, 2013

^ yeah i hear you I also do wildlife living here in wyoming there is more animals than ppl....so it's easy to find "subjects" to pose for you. been thinking about sigma "bigma" lens would love to try it out. maybe some day...

SCraig · May 28, 2013

devaji108 said:
^ yeah i hear you I also do wildlife living here in wyoming there is more animals than ppl....so it's easy to find "subjects" to pose for you. been thinking about sigma "bigma" lens would love to try it out. maybe some day...

Yeah, Wyoming is definitely on my bucket list of places to see. If I ever get out that way I'll bring mine and you can try it out

Derrel · May 28, 2013

I tell you what...I would buy the Sigma 17-70mm zoom, and then with the $900 difference saved, think about buying one, two, or even three specific Nikkor prime lenses that would augment such a "standard" zoom for APS-C. For example...the 50mm 1.8 AF-S G is getting lower-cost as Nikon starts discounting it, and other gear, or buy a refurbished one, or a used one. Less than $200. In fact, this weekend, Nikon was selling the 50/1.8 G Nikkor for $186, direct, refurbished from the Nikon Store online.

I dunno...I usually buy Nikkor lenses used. Sigma has big depreciation when it's bought new, then sold used, so...buy one used if you really need to save. Buy from a retailer that offers a money-back or exchange option. If your 35/1.8 is clear, and immaculately de-greased and clean front and rear, it might be a bad copy or one that's been dropped or knocked out of cente, or what have you. Get rid of it.

17-70 Sigma + 50mm 1.8 for low light + 85/1.8 AF-S G for low-light/scenics/portraiture/selective focus stuff

devaji108 · May 29, 2013

thanks Derrel i have thought of that option too...man so many to choose from.
my idea is to get one really good lens that i am going to love and use for years to come. that is 1 reason i am thinking about the tamrom 24-70 yes it was out of my price point however if I slowly payoff the lens over the next 1/2 year or so and keep it for years to come and grow in to it, then i think it might be the "best" one.
I just really wish there was a camera store somewhat close by i could test then out. that would be really nice and very helpful.

personalt · Jun 2, 2013

devaji108 said:
thanks Derrel i have thought of that option too...man so many to choose from.
my idea is to get one really good lens that i am going to love and use for years to come. that is 1 reason i am thinking about the tamrom 24-70 yes it was out of my price point however if I slowly payoff the lens over the next 1/2 year or so and keep it for years to come and grow in to it, then i think it might be the "best" one.
I just really wish there was a camera store somewhat close by i could test then out. that would be really nice and very helpful.

One other lens to consider is he tamron 17-50 2.8. I was looking used but there is guy on eBay selling new ones out of Hong Kong for $298. I went with this lens because it is 2.8 through the whole range. I felt that was more valuable to me then the extra 20mm. Of course the warranty is not the same as if I spent $500 from a us store but for the price difference it was a chance I was okay taking.

I kinda followed derrels logic... I started with a 35mm f1.8. I just added a 85mm f1.8, I bought a d model used for $300. i love this lens... i am looking for a 50mm f1.8 to fit between the 35 and 85. I might have skipped this length but used/refurbed 50 f1.8d models can be had for less then a $100. That plus a 70-300mm vr and I should be set until I can afford a 70-200 f2.8