• Apologies for the inconvenience, but AVForums will be offline from 6am Thursday 21st January 2021 for a few hours while we perform a major update to our core software. See what changes are coming.

Sigma 17-70 mm f2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM

Status
Not open for further replies.

icemanonline

Distinguished Member
Sigma 17-70 mm f2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM...................I have been looking at this for the Nikon D5000 as a all day lens and night if needed. I have looked at the Onestop-Digital site and they have it at a total of £308.19 delivered and that is with the 7 years warranty option for this lens.

Anybody got this lens...............and how is it to use?

Also - Has anyone actually paid for the extra for the warranty at O.S.D?

Be interested in feedback on the lens (This newer OS HSM model) and warranty from the company.

I have used them before and had the older version of this lens on a Sony but this is the newer version for the Nikon with OS and the HSM motor, which I have not seen or read about.

Any input or feedback much appreciated :smashin:


icemanonline
 

shotokan101

Distinguished Member
Sigma 17-70 mm f2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM...................I have been looking at this for the Nikon D5000 as a all day lens and night if needed. I have looked at the Onestop-Digital site and they have it at a total of £308.19 delivered and that is with the 7 years warranty option for this lens.

Anybody got this lens...............and how is it to use?

Also - Has anyone actually paid for the extra for the warranty at O.S.D?

Be interested in feedback on the lens (This newer OS HSM model) and warranty from the company.

I have used them before and had the older version of this lens on a Sony but this is the newer version for the Nikon with OS and the HSM motor, which I have not seen or read about.

Any input or feedback much appreciated :smashin:


icemanonline
Well I bought the Sony version of this from you Andy and can certainly say that it's a great lens - not fixed F2.8 like some of the 17-50 alternatives but I love the lens and have taken many a sharp shot with it - just check out my "Church" photo sharing threads :smashin:

Is the Nikon version you talk about really any different as the Sony was also DC OS HSM ?

JIm
 

icemanonline

Distinguished Member
Well I bought the Sony version of this from you Andy and can certainly say that it's a great lens - not fixed F2.8 like some of the 17-50 alternatives but I love the lens and have taken many a sharp shot with it - just check out my "Church" photo sharing threads :smashin:

Is the Nikon version you talk about really any different as the Sony was also DC OS HSM ?

JIm
Not really sure Jim.............Is that 1 F4 or F4.5? Cos that would be about the only difference apart from Sigma QC since then to know :laugh: and I would hope Sigma are on the ball when it comes to QC nowadays.


icemanonline
 

twist

Distinguished Member
Personally had to many bad experiences with them. 2 decent copies out of 6 lenses for me is completely unacceptable. And they werent the cheapo models. 3x 70-200 Nikon fit, 1x 70-200 Sony, 1x 10-20 Nikon, 1x 10-20 Canon so not manufacturer specific either.
 

twist

Distinguished Member
Have read good things about the 17-70 though. QC aside, I went with the 17-50 as not bothered about the extra 20mm and prefer the sharpness of the Tamron wide open and consant F2.8.
 

shotokan101

Distinguished Member

Pirate!!

Banned
Sigma 17-70 mm f2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM...................I have been looking at this for the Nikon D5000 as a all day lens and night if needed. I have looked at the Onestop-Digital site and they have it at a total of £308.19 delivered and that is with the 7 years warranty option for this lens.

Anybody got this lens...............and how is it to use?

Also - Has anyone actually paid for the extra for the warranty at O.S.D?

Be interested in feedback on the lens (This newer OS HSM model) and warranty from the company.

I have used them before and had the older version of this lens on a Sony but this is the newer version for the Nikon with OS and the HSM motor, which I have not seen or read about.

Any input or feedback much appreciated :smashin:


icemanonline
I've got the bread and butter Sigma AF 17-70mm f/4.5-5.6 DC Macro and it's tack sharp. Remember, in a small package, something has to give in order to incorporate the OS (which isn't necessary in a short zoom really), therefore more room for glass hence arguably sharper and better IQ. Not just me saying this, but from general feedback across the board.

Superb lens.
 

shotokan101

Distinguished Member
I've got the bread and butter Sigma AF 17-70mm f/4.5-5.6 DC Macro and it's tack sharp. Remember, in a small package, something has to give in order to incorporate the OS (which isn't necessary in a short zoom really), therefore more room for glass hence arguably sharper and better IQ. Not just me saying this, but from general feedback across the board.

Superb lens.
Dunno that I entirely agree Mark - nothing wrong with the sharpness of the OS version IMO and of course for "In-Body" IS owners it's always a definite boon to have at least a couple of extra stops to play with in low light :)

Jim
 

icemanonline

Distinguished Member
Well just ordered this 17-70 F2.8 OS HSM from OSD with option of 7 year warranty (Honored in UK and fixed in UK if needed I found out before purchasing) at a grand total of £308.19 delivered. :) :beer:

That has to be a very good deal and I saved a whole £39.00 :eek:

Will do for me



icemanonline
 

shotokan101

Distinguished Member
Well just ordered this 17-70 F2.8 OS HSM from OSD with option of 7 year warranty (Honored in UK and fixed in UK if needed I found out before purchasing) at a grand total of £308.19 delivered. :) :beer:

That has to be a very good deal and I saved a whole £39.00 :eek:

Will do for me



icemanonline
:smashin:

Looking forwards to the shots already Andy :)

Jim
 

loz

Well-known Member
I just took delivery of one of these to replace my broken Canon 17-85mm IS.

I have to say that so far after about a 100 test shots (on a 550D) of various things I am pretty disappointed.

Inconsistent AF.
Not particularly sharp at any aperture.

Looking at comparable photos, my Canon 17-85 seems to beat it hands down.

This was a real surprise given all that I have read about the Sigma.

Have I received a lemon?

Might as well send it back and get my Canon repaired.

Edit: I did some side by side testing of the Sigma 17-70 v Canon 17-85 (still work above 24mm) v Canon 50mm (as a reference), and I was really disappointed how soft the sigma was in comparison, especially at the wider apertures (where it is supposed to be good).

Now returned to Amazon.
 
Last edited:

Tharksha

Active Member
It must be a bad copy. I have used sigma 24-70 lens with very good result. Sharper than canon 17- 85. Worth upgrading to sigma.
 

shotokan101

Distinguished Member
It must be a bad copy. I have used sigma 24-70 lens with very good result. Sharper than canon 17- 85. Worth upgrading to sigma.
+1

I've this lens in Sony mount and love it - find it reasonably fast to AF and also pretty sharp.

How about posting a couple of sample shots from it ?

Jim
 

nikonuser11

Well-known Member
Sigma 17-70 is definitely NOT a tack sharp lens as a few have stated here, I'd be grateful if you could prove me wrong and post a tack sharp pic taken with it, all reviews and any I've tried include one I owned was a 'nice' lens but no way could it be classed in the tack sharp brigade:nono:
 

shotokan101

Distinguished Member
Sigma 17-70 is definitely NOT a tack sharp lens as a few have stated here, I'd be grateful if you could prove me wrong and post a tack sharp pic taken with it, all reviews and any I've tried include one I owned was a 'nice' lens but no way could it be classed in the tack sharp brigade:nono:
Pirate! was the only one to use the term that you seem to object so strongly to so is unlikely to respond as an "Ex-Member" :rolleyes:

I do remember quite a few of his aviation related shots taken with the 17-70 as being pretty sharp though - how about you posting a shot that you feel meets your stringent criteria in order to be classed as "tack sharp" so that we can compare ?


Jim
 

icemanonline

Distinguished Member
Pirate! was the only one to use the term that you seem to object so strongly to so is unlikely to respond as an "Ex-Member" :rolleyes:

I do remember quite a few of his aviation related shots taken with the 17-70 as being pretty sharp though - how about you posting a shot that you feel meets your stringent criteria in order to be classed as "tack sharp" so that we can compare ?


Jim
+1 on that. I have to say the 2 I have used (New 1 at the moment) and the one I sold Jim is pretty sharp and no issues.

I have noticed a lot of Canon users having issues with focus problems though and not just with Sigma lenses. Maybe Canon have a problem with focus on their DSLR Bodies at the moment, would not surprise me at all.

I will add that I had 2 Canon's DSLR's and had focus problems with the camera itself. 1 was a 50D at near on a grand when i got it with the Canon 17-85 lens. That Canon lens was the worst I have ever used. I sent that body back to Warehouse Express and got a FULL refund no questions.

As a Nikon user now and a Sony\Minolta before, using 3rd party lenses including Sigma, that I have never had any problems with any Sigma lenses.

Just my personal experiences with Sigma gear and different major brand bodies and maybe I have been lucky.

Getting back to the lens in question, I to think you may have a bad copy and that you have been unlucky.


icemanonline
 

nikonuser11

Well-known Member
Pirate! was the only one to use the term that you seem to object so strongly to so is unlikely to respond as an "Ex-Member" :rolleyes:

I do remember quite a few of his aviation related shots taken with the 17-70 as being pretty sharp though - how about you posting a shot that you feel meets your stringent criteria in order to be classed as "tack sharp" so that we can compare ?


Jim
quite a strong reaction from you also shotokan, dont see why you want to escalate simple facts:thumbsdow
you and iceman both say its pretty sharp, thats not tack sharp not by a long way, I think you know what tack sharp is without me posting a picture to satisfy yourself on my standards:nono:
 

icemanonline

Distinguished Member
quite a strong reaction from you also shotokan, dont see why you want to escalate simple facts:thumbsdow
you and iceman both say its pretty sharp, thats not tack sharp not by a long way, I think you know what tack sharp is without me posting a picture to satisfy yourself on my standards:nono:


Em , lets get it right mate................I never mentioned Tack sharp :mad:

I said what you just highlighted that the Sigma I have purchased and used have been pretty sharp..........and that is good enough for me and what I paid for the lenses in question. I always used editing software to get the extra sharpness needed when editing to get the end result that pleased me.

I think to get a "Tack Sharp!" lens you got to pay for it, but even then these so called Tack Sharp expensive lenses are not always as sharp as we maybe expected or hoped for even after reading reviews or forums.

The point I made was the guy who had purchased the lens has IMHO got a bad copy.

I agreed with Jim on the "show us some shots to compare e.c.t.!"

I never said nowt about Tack sharp or any other comment like that, and to be honest I have better things to do in my life than Bitch about how Tack sharp a lens is...............Blah Blah!!!



Get it right!!


icemanonline
 

loz

Well-known Member
Here's a comparion between the Sigma 17-70mm I sent back and my Canon 17-85mm.
Both at 50mm. Sigma F4, Canon F5.6 (widest ap at 50mm)
Taken on tripod, using remote release.
Crop taken from the centre of the frame where it was focused.

Sigma


Canon


At F6.3 and F8, the Sigma performed better and pretty much the same as the Canon. At F11, the Sigma was marginally better.

However, I bought it on the basis of it having wider apetures than the Canon, but this is where it performed the worst - dispite reviews I have seen suggesting that is where it should be sharpest...

I am sure I must have got a bad sample, but I just wasn't prepared to start swapping them trying to find a good one. (Amazon didn't offer a replacement anyway, just a refund)
 
Last edited:

shotokan101

Distinguished Member
quite a strong reaction from you also shotokan, dont see why you want to escalate simple facts:thumbsdow
you and iceman both say its pretty sharp, thats not tack sharp not by a long way, I think you know what tack sharp is without me posting a picture to satisfy yourself on my standards:nono:
Not trying to escalate anything at all and genuinely interested in what others consider "tack sharp" to be - especially straight from camera and without PP sharpening... :) and for all I know my Siggie might well be tack sharp - certainly sharp enough for me so I'm still interested in seeing an example of what you consider tack sharp especially as it's so open to interpretation.

JIm
 
Here's a comparion between the Sigma 17-70mm I sent back and my Canon 17-85mm.
Both at 50mm. Sigma F4, Canon F5.6 (widest ap at 50mm)
Taken on tripod, using remote release.
Crop taken from the centre of the frame where it was focused.

Sigma
image


Canon
image


At F6.3 and F8, the Sigma performed better and pretty much the same as the Canon. At F11, the Sigma was marginally better.

However, I bought it on the basis of it having wider apetures than the Canon, but this is where it performed the worst - dispite reviews I have seen suggesting that is where it should be sharpest...

I am sure I must have got a bad sample, but I just wasn't prepared to start swapping them trying to find a good one. (Amazon didn't offer a replacement anyway, just a refund)
To me that looks like a bad copy of the lens, I've had 3 Sigma 17-70's, 1 Sony and 2 Pentax fit, the Sony one was amazing and it was really sharp but I was disappointed with the Pentax fit ones, I suspect they were just a bad copy but who knows.
 

loz

Well-known Member
Not trying to escalate anything at all and genuinely interested in what others consider "tack sharp" to be -
Well I guess as a point of reference, I would say a prime usually has the best performance, and ergo that might be considered "tack sharp"

Here's the same shot again, but with a Canon 50mm 1.8 mk II, at F4 (sorry it is slightly bigger. What is reported as 50mm on both zooms is similar, but clearly a little bit wider than the 50mm prime. The position of the camera and subject hadn't changed.



So I would rank (at F4 at 50mm)
Canon 50mm = Tack Sharp
Canon 17-85mm = Sharp
Sigma 17-70mm = Soft
 
Last edited:

loz

Well-known Member
To me that looks like a bad copy of the lens, I've had 3 Sigma 17-70's, 1 Sony and 2 Pentax fit, the Sony one was amazing and it was really sharp but I was disappointed with the Pentax fit ones, I suspect they were just a bad copy but who knows.
I am sure it is, given the reviews I have read.

But it really shouldn't be a lottery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: CES 2021 Special - Sony, LG, Panasonic, Samsung, TCL and Hisense TV news and more...

Latest News

Cyrus Audio announces soundBuds2 in-ear headphones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Audio Research launches Reference 80S power amplifier
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
What's new on Netflix UK for February 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
NAD launches CI 16-60 DSP amplifier
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sky seals Studiocanal movie deal
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom