User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  4
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS Macro

  1. #1
    Ausphotography Veteran rwg717's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2009
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,547
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS Macro

    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



    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?



    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

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

    Richard
    I've been wrong before!! Happy to have constructive criticism though.Gear used Canon 50D, 7D & 5DMkII plus expensive things hanging off their fronts and of course a "nifty fifty".

  2. #2
    Member Mircula's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Dec 2009
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    406
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Constructive criticism is most welcome!!!

    Canon 40D, 100-300 5.6 L
    Sigma 17-70
    Manfrotto Tripod

  3. #3
    keen learner of new tricks.
    Join Date
    09 Feb 2009
    Location
    Newcastle, NSW
    Posts
    8,372
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    looks alright to me Richard. Have a great time with it.
    Graeme
    "May the good Lord look down and smile upon your face"......Norman Gunston___________________________________________________
    Nikon: D7000, D80, 12-24 f4, 17-55 f2.8, 18-135, 70-300VR, 35f2, SB 400, SB 600, TC-201 2x converter. Tamron: 90 macro 2.8 Kenko ext. tubes. Photoshop CS2.


  4. #4
    Member Calxoddity's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Apr 2008
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    473
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Calxoddity
    Concert Pianist, Test Pilot, Pathological Liar


    Nikon D40, Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 HSM, Nikkor AF-D 50mm f1.8
    Post Processing: Aperture 3 & Photoshop Elements 6

  5. #5
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    rwg717's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2009
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,547
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mircula View Post
    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/...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.
    Richard

  6. #6
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    rwg717's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2009
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,547
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Thanks again, Richard

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    13 May 2010
    Location
    Ellenbrook
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  8. #8
    Dr Big hus's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Dec 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    313
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    The fastest way to a man's heart is through his chest with a sharp knife
    Canon 50D,
    Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, A very bright light, EF 50 f1.8, Tamron 17-50 f2.8

  9. #9
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    rwg717's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2009
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,547
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hus View Post
    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?



    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

    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

  10. #10
    Dr Big hus's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Dec 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    313
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rwg717 View Post
    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

    BTW your images are great
    Last edited by hus; 29-07-2010 at 10:03pm.

  11. #11
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    rwg717's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2009
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,547
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hus View Post
    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

    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
    Richard.
    (P.S. thanks for the compliments)

  12. #12
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    07 Jan 2009
    Location
    Brisbane Northside
    Posts
    511
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Kevin M
    "FNQ Bolter"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •