Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC

[Culhwch]

My continuing search for a new lens, erm, continues... Anyone have any experience with this here lens? I'm looking at it as a replacement for my 18-50 kit lens, to be used as my main walkaround. Actually, it would be my sole walkaround. I've read a few good reviews, but I'd like to hear some first-hand opinions, if anyone's got one to share...

[Ellen]

I've had mine for a little while now, and LOVE it. Stays on pretty much all the time, and I find its quite sharp. Sometimes I wish it had the 2.8 all the way through but mostly it doesn't bother me. Definitely recommend, its quite cheap too.

[bigdazzler]

By all accounts its a great bang for your buck lens .. I doubt youll be disappointed for the money. I considered it for a while as a kit upgrade but bought the Tamron 17-50 2.8 instead.

[Culhwch]

Cheers for the comments, guys. Sounds like a goer. Now just have to convince my wife that I need it...

[phild]

I had one on my 20D, a quantum leap above the kit lens.

[enduro]

Supremo lens, Riktas has one too but it wouldn't ever be so good on his Nik.

I've had mine for about 2 years (it's not the current model one) and it is sharp off camera, excellent colour and contrast, wide, goes way past the 50mm mark for long, MWD of 20mm.

Cons: the AF is not real quick on the original model as I would like. Still it is a great lens and is the primary tool I take as a walk around or "macro" lens for subjects larger than 4cm.

[Psycronic]

very nice lens, I've had mine for a few months. Got mine from JB HiFi for $430 in March

[Culhwch]

What mount was that, Psycronic? I'm guessing Canon or Nikon? I don't know I'll find a JB that stocks Pentax, but I'll certainly have a look...

[Calxoddity]

Hi,
Got mine around 12 months ago and it hardly ever leave the camera. Brilliant walkaround lens with a macro capability that ain't too shabby either.

Regards,
Calx

[Psycronic]

Nikon, I got the last one in stock, but they couldn't find it at first and said they would order it in. Worth a try

[hugle]

By all accounts its a great bang for your buck lens .. I doubt youll be disappointed for the money. I considered it for a while as a kit upgrade but bought the Tamron 17-50 2.8 instead.

Big Dazzler; why did you choose the tamron over the sigma? I am in the same boat as the OP and trying to work out whether the sacrifice of aperture for extra length is worth it; can you shed any light on the situation?

[nlewis]

I have this lens and am very happy with it. However I have since used the Canon 24-70 L and would kill for one rather then this.

[bigdazzler]

Big Dazzler; why did you choose the tamron over the sigma? I am in the same boat as the OP and trying to work out whether the sacrifice of aperture for extra length is worth it; can you shed any light on the situation?

yea mate I got the tamron .. I mainly shoot portraiture/people photography these days and the 2.8 at 50mm suits me better for what I do. I also have a 50 1.4 prime but that can be a little long at times on a crop body, so the tamron is nice to have be able to back off a little and go a touch wider in smaller studio spaces.

I have a Tamron 70-200 2.8 and Im about to grab a Tamron 28-75 2.8 as well .. Im a big fan of Tamron lenses. Super sharp from about f4 and good colour/contrast. Great value lenses.

[ricktas]

Supremo lens, Riktas has one too but it wouldn't ever be so good on his Nik.

Um, no I don't! - I have the sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG (not 2.8-4.5 DC). The 2.8 version is stunningly sharp. Probably the sharpest lens I own.

[PROtog]

I have this lens. I chose it mainly for macro ability, but now I find I use it as my main lens. Having the range to 70mm (rather than the 18-50 of the kit lens) means it covers most of my needs.

[enduro]

Um, no I don't! - I have the sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG (not 2.8-4.5 DC). The 2.8 version is stunningly sharp. Probably the sharpest lens I own.

whoops!

could have sworn you had one.

[Peuty]

Sorry to drag up an old thread, but I am considering one of these for a walkabout lens on a 450D.

I'd also consider using it to capture low light scenes without a flash, say, concerts/pubs etc. People who use this lens, in your opinion how do you think it would fare? The reason I would want to go flash-less, so to speak, is I find using one washed the colour out from the stage lights etc, which detracts from the pics.

[enduro]

Sorry to drag up an old thread, but I am considering one of these for a walkabout lens on a 450D.

I'd also consider using it to capture low light scenes without a flash, say, concerts/pubs etc. People who use this lens, in your opinion how do you think it would fare? The reason I would want to go flash-less, so to speak, is I find using one washed the colour out from the stage lights etc, which detracts from the pics.

I've shot a dozen or more live shows, plays and performances with the 17-70 and the 70-200mm on the 350D, later the 40D and now with the 7D. As I progressed through the camera models, I found they handled the low light better (higher ISO) and there was less need for a tripod or bracing myself for a good clean shot. If you can get almost full frame shots and don't do much cropping, you can get away with quite a bit of noise. Visible noise is a function of the amount you crop and the processing you use- or something like that.

With the 450 you would do fine if you stick to the wider apertures and full framers that can deal with high ISO. Ulimately however it all depends on the lighting. It might be the best performance/pub/club in the world, but if the lighting is shite, then the images will be limited.

[Peuty]

Great, thanks for the reply. I'm not quite ready to upgrade the body yet, so I think I might learn to come to grips with the lens on the 450, then hopefully the job should be much easier with a better body, say 7D that can handle low light/high ISO a bit better.

Thanks again