New Sigma 17-70

K

koffiejunkie

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
9,756
Reaction score
998
Location
Australia
Sigma just announced the 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM. This is already a nice lens and good value for money - adding HSM and Optical Stabilisation makes it one sweet lens for an all-round lens, especially given that it's a whole stop faster at the long end than most other kit-class lenses.
 
I wonder how long it will be before I can get one. Looks like a good replacement for my 17-85 Canon kit lense.
 
I don't know that it's necessarily a good replacement for the Canon 17-85. It's a slightly smaller range with about the same features. Unless you're after the faster aperture.
 
koffiejunkie said:
I don't know that it's necessarily a good replacement for the Canon 17-85. It's a slightly smaller range with about the same features. Unless you're after the faster aperture.
Click to expand...

I've found my 17-85 a bit lacking in low light conditions when shooting out of hand. Or am I completely confuculated and it's my 20d that is letting me down? :confused:
 
koffiejunkie said:
I don't know that it's necessarily a good replacement for the Canon 17-85. It's a slightly smaller range with about the same features. Unless you're after the faster aperture.
Click to expand...

I'm also hoping beyond hope that Santa Claus (read my wife) will get me the 70-200 f2,8 IS Canon for x-mas so there shouldn't be any "gaps" in my lenses. ;) Might just mean some more lense swapping but for the added speed, I think it will be worthwhile. :D
 
MadMailMan said:
I've found my 17-85 a bit lacking in low light conditions when shooting out of hand. Or am I completely confuculated and it's my 20d that is letting me down? :confused:
Click to expand...

No, that would be the lens. f/4 is only one stop better though. You should look at the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 or the (new) Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC. Or the older, non-VC version if you need to be cheap, but then you give up the stabilisation and USM motor.
 
koffiejunkie said:
No, that would be the lens. f/4 is only one stop better though. You should look at the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 or the (new) Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC. Or the older, non-VC version if you need to be cheap, but then you give up the stabilisation and USM motor.
Click to expand...

Thanks I will looky see if either of those are bank breakers. :o
 
koffiejunkie said:
No, that would be the lens. f/4 is only one stop better though. You should look at the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 or the (new) Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC. Or the older, non-VC version if you need to be cheap, but then you give up the stabilisation and USM motor.
Click to expand...

:eek: Will have to sell the house and the dog for the Canon lense. Why do I always have such expensive hobbies? :o Any experience with the Sigma EX 18-50mm f/2.8 DC ? it's about half the price of the Canon.
 
I just found the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD (IF) for half the price of the Canon too. Is that the Lense you suggested koffiejunkie? I get confused (easily) by all the DC, XD, IF, GTI and XR6 stuff. :o
 
MadMailMan said:
Thanks I will looky see if either of those are bank breakers. :o
Click to expand...

The Canon certainly is. But aside from being a f/2.8 lens, it is generally a superb lens. Easily the best in Canon's EF-S line-up, and optically right there with Canon's L glass. In fact, it outperforms the 17-40mm f/4 L USM and 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM with respect to shapness and distortions.

MadMailMan said:
Any experience with the Sigma EX 18-50mm f/2.8 DC ? it's about half the price of the Canon.
Click to expand...

Sadly no.

MadMailMan said:
I just found the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD (IF) for half the price of the Canon too. Is that the Lense you suggested koffiejunkie?
Click to expand...

Yes. The price difference is easily explained by the AF (slow compared to Canon's USM and Sigma's HSM) and lack of stabilisation. That's why I mentioned the VC version (Vibration Control, i.e. stabilisation). It was announced quite recently, so I don't know the pricing yet.
 
koffiejunkie said:
Yes. The price difference is easily explained by the AF (slow compared to Canon's USM and Sigma's HSM) and lack of stabilisation. That's why I mentioned the VC version (Vibration Control, i.e. stabilisation). It was announced quite recently, so I don't know the pricing yet.
Click to expand...


The VC version I can get here a bit more expensive but still only 2/3 the price of the Canon. BUT by the sounds of things the Canon is far superior, well in your eyes. Would I notice the difference? Probably not. I wonder if I can't hire the different lenses for a few days before I bite the bullet? House and dog are already on ebay. :D
 
Well, yes, the Canon is superior, but optically the Tamron is still very good. Better than the Canon 17-85mm, I think. The AF is a matter of personal taste. Most people here don't seem to mind the non USM motor. I got spoiled with it on my 24-105L, and on my non-USM lenses it bothers me. But that's me. I just found the Tammy VC on B&H - it's good value for money.
 
koffiejunkie said:
The Canon certainly is. But aside from being a f/2.8 lens, it is generally a superb lens. Easily the best in Canon's EF-S line-up, and optically right there with Canon's L glass. In fact, it outperforms the 17-40mm f/4 L USM and 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM with respect to shapness and distortions.
Click to expand...
I've heard that claim before with the 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM not the improved 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM.

Anyway - IS is for sissies. :p :)
 
I'll give the II the benefit of the doubt until evidence to the contrary surfaces. Nevertheless, the 17-55mm is superb.
 
Schweet. I can get the VC version locally for CHF730 (R5.3k) and probably sell my 17-85 for half that too. :D <-- Happy bunny. Now just to convince the wife that i NEED the 70-200 F/2.8 IS USM. :o
 
koffiejunkie said:
Those requirements are mutually exclusive. Just getting a lens like that to f/2.8 makes is substantially bigger than a regular f/4-5.6.
Click to expand...

Sorry by small zoom I meant wide zoom (vs. big/telephoto). While it would be bigger than your regular 4-5.6 lenses. There is a rumor that canon is working on such a lens. I would like something in that range but for more low light, as I tried my hand at photographing squash, from behind the back glass. The range I would need would be around 30mm - 55mm. Would probably be better if I could do it from the font glass, but in SA not many courts have that capability.
 
SubliminalThought said:
Sorry by small zoom I meant wide zoom (vs. big/telephoto). While it would be bigger than your regular 4-5.6 lenses. There is a rumor that canon is working on such a lens.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's apparently f/2. We don't know the range though. It could be something like 20-30mm in which case it would already be really huge (ask bwana about his 16-35mm f/2.8). Look at the size difference between the 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2, and 50mm f/1.0 (same chassis as the 85mm f/1.2, i.e. massive). Aside from having to get more light into the lens, the need to straighten it out and get rid of aberrations means they have to put bigger and more elements in.

I would like the 24-105L in an f/2.8, but looking at the size of the 24-70L f/2.8, I can only imagine how big that would be :eek:

SubliminalThought said:
I would like something in that range but for more low light, as I tried my hand at photographing squash, from behind the back glass. The range I would need would be around 30mm - 55mm.
Click to expand...

Sports shooters often go for primes instead of zooms, to get the fast apertures. I think you're more likely to lose shots to motion blur than to the players being outside your frame. Try something like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Canon 35mm f/1.4 L and just crop if you need to.
 
koffiejunkie said:
Sports shooters often go for primes instead of zooms, to get the fast apertures. I think you're more likely to lose shots to motion blur than to the players being outside your frame. Try something like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Canon 35mm f/1.4 L and just crop if you need to.
Click to expand...

Have the Sigma 30mm 1.4 and it does work nicely for getting the action shots. But then if the player is frustrated at a ref call, I would want to get a bit closer on his/her expression. After taking a couple of game shots, I would switch the lens to the 50mm to get a few different kinds of shots.

But anyway, its just a me having fun and trying out different things to shoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X