Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Sigma 17-70 zoom?

Reply
Thread Tools

Sigma 17-70 zoom?

 
 
SimonLW
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
Having had the original Rebel and kit lens, I say the lens is not bad, but
only fair. Canon has a "step up" IS lens, but optical performance is
disappointing. I also looked at the Canon 17-40L, but it is pricy and quite
large (77mm filter). Looking at Photozone's fairly detailed lens tests of
several normal range zooms, the next decent performer I can find is the
Sigma 17-70. While not perfect, it seems to outclass the kit lens in
resolution. Anyone try it?
Thanks!


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
bmoag
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
What does "resolution" mean in terms of the final image for lenses of this
class?
Sharpness is both real (the absolute resolution of sensor and lens) but the
visual appearance of sharpness is equally or more affected by software
sharpening, whether done in-camera by a jpeg algorithm or post-camera.
Linear distortion, particularly barrel distortion at the wide end of these
zooms, is easily corrected by software and while ideally should not be
created by the lens is not as big an issue as formerly.
The point is: if you want a new lens you may be better off looking into
focal lengths you do not have rather than making a more or less horizontal
move into glass not all that much different than what you have.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chips
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
OP used the past tense of have.

"Having *had* the original Rebel and kit lens,"

And he then asked a question.

"While not perfect, it seems to outclass the kit lens in
resolution. Anyone try it?"

GC

"bmoag" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:U632h.21605$(E-Mail Removed) t...
> What does "resolution" mean in terms of the final image for lenses of this
> class?
> Sharpness is both real (the absolute resolution of sensor and lens) but
> the visual appearance of sharpness is equally or more affected by software
> sharpening, whether done in-camera by a jpeg algorithm or post-camera.
> Linear distortion, particularly barrel distortion at the wide end of these
> zooms, is easily corrected by software and while ideally should not be
> created by the lens is not as big an issue as formerly.
> The point is: if you want a new lens you may be better off looking into
> focal lengths you do not have rather than making a more or less horizontal
> move into glass not all that much different than what you have.
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
SimonLW
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
"Chips" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:9W32h.21632$(E-Mail Removed) et...
> OP used the past tense of have.
>
> "Having *had* the original Rebel and kit lens,"
>
> And he then asked a question.
>
> "While not perfect, it seems to outclass the kit lens in
> resolution. Anyone try it?"
>
> GC
>
> "bmoag" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:U632h.21605$(E-Mail Removed) t...
>> What does "resolution" mean in terms of the final image for lenses of
>> this class?
>> Sharpness is both real (the absolute resolution of sensor and lens) but
>> the visual appearance of sharpness is equally or more affected by
>> software sharpening, whether done in-camera by a jpeg algorithm or
>> post-camera.
>> Linear distortion, particularly barrel distortion at the wide end of
>> these zooms, is easily corrected by software and while ideally should not
>> be created by the lens is not as big an issue as formerly.
>> The point is: if you want a new lens you may be better off looking into
>> focal lengths you do not have rather than making a more or less
>> horizontal move into glass not all that much different than what you
>> have.
>>

>
>

Yes, I sold the Rebel and the lens supplied with it to raise money for the
XTi/400D and a better lens. I had better results with other lenses such as
the 50/1.8 and others on that camera, so I feel the "kit" lens is not up to
snuff. Considering I'm increasing resolution by 4mp, the kit lens will not
provide image quality I need of a "normal" kit lens. This is why I'm looking
for a better lens. I realize fixed focal length lenses are ideal, however,
I'm more interested in the zoom.
Thanks


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Tuthill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
SimonLW <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Yes, I sold the Rebel and the lens supplied with it to raise money for the
> XTi/400D and a better lens. I had better results with other lenses such as
> the 50/1.8 and others on that camera, so I feel the "kit" lens is not up to
> snuff. Considering I'm increasing resolution by 4mp, the kit lens will not
> provide image quality I need of a "normal" kit lens. This is why I'm looking
> for a better lens. I realize fixed focal length lenses are ideal, however,
> I'm more interested in the zoom. Thanks


Have you looked at the Tamron 17-50/2.8 yet? It is supposed to be great,
and has a much better warranty (and reputation) than Sigma. You give up
50-70 range but you get f/2.8 not f/4 at the long end.

 
Reply With Quote
 
SteveB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
It's got a high reputation amongst Pentax owners as a good step up in
quality from the 18-55 kit lens and I'm seriously considering it as my next
purchase for my K100D as I've seen some impressive images taken with it.
Can't see it being any different with a Canon.



"SimonLW" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4548af00$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Chips" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:9W32h.21632$(E-Mail Removed) et...
>> OP used the past tense of have.
>>
>> "Having *had* the original Rebel and kit lens,"
>>
>> And he then asked a question.
>>
>> "While not perfect, it seems to outclass the kit lens in
>> resolution. Anyone try it?"
>>
>> GC
>>
>> "bmoag" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:U632h.21605$(E-Mail Removed) t...
>>> What does "resolution" mean in terms of the final image for lenses of
>>> this class?
>>> Sharpness is both real (the absolute resolution of sensor and lens) but
>>> the visual appearance of sharpness is equally or more affected by
>>> software sharpening, whether done in-camera by a jpeg algorithm or
>>> post-camera.
>>> Linear distortion, particularly barrel distortion at the wide end of
>>> these zooms, is easily corrected by software and while ideally should
>>> not be created by the lens is not as big an issue as formerly.
>>> The point is: if you want a new lens you may be better off looking into
>>> focal lengths you do not have rather than making a more or less
>>> horizontal move into glass not all that much different than what you
>>> have.
>>>

>>
>>

> Yes, I sold the Rebel and the lens supplied with it to raise money for the
> XTi/400D and a better lens. I had better results with other lenses such as
> the 50/1.8 and others on that camera, so I feel the "kit" lens is not up
> to snuff. Considering I'm increasing resolution by 4mp, the kit lens will
> not provide image quality I need of a "normal" kit lens. This is why I'm
> looking for a better lens. I realize fixed focal length lenses are ideal,
> however, I'm more interested in the zoom.
> Thanks
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
SimonLW
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
"Bill Tuthill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> SimonLW <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I sold the Rebel and the lens supplied with it to raise money for
>> the
>> XTi/400D and a better lens. I had better results with other lenses such
>> as
>> the 50/1.8 and others on that camera, so I feel the "kit" lens is not up
>> to
>> snuff. Considering I'm increasing resolution by 4mp, the kit lens will
>> not
>> provide image quality I need of a "normal" kit lens. This is why I'm
>> looking
>> for a better lens. I realize fixed focal length lenses are ideal,
>> however,
>> I'm more interested in the zoom. Thanks

>
> Have you looked at the Tamron 17-50/2.8 yet? It is supposed to be great,
> and has a much better warranty (and reputation) than Sigma. You give up
> 50-70 range but you get f/2.8 not f/4 at the long end.
>

Bill,
I check it out. It sounds expensive and big, but might be worth it. It
doesn't seem the camera brand lenses are necessarily the best choice anymore
unless going with the high end glass.
-S


 
Reply With Quote
 
g n p
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
"Bill Tuthill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> SimonLW <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I sold the Rebel and the lens supplied with it to raise money for
>> the
>> XTi/400D and a better lens. I had better results with other lenses such
>> as
>> the 50/1.8 and others on that camera, so I feel the "kit" lens is not up
>> to
>> snuff. Considering I'm increasing resolution by 4mp, the kit lens will
>> not
>> provide image quality I need of a "normal" kit lens. This is why I'm
>> looking
>> for a better lens. I realize fixed focal length lenses are ideal,
>> however,
>> I'm more interested in the zoom. Thanks

>
> Have you looked at the Tamron 17-50/2.8 yet? It is supposed to be great,
> and has a much better warranty (and reputation) than Sigma. You give up
> 50-70 range but you get f/2.8 not f/4 at the long end.


Not THAT great.
Check it out at photozone.de


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Tuthill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
SimonLW <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> Have you looked at the Tamron 17-50/2.8 yet? It is supposed to be great,
>> and has a much better warranty (and reputation) than Sigma. You give up
>> 50-70 range but you get f/2.8 not f/4 at the long end.
>>

> I check it out. It sounds expensive and big, but might be worth it. It
> doesn't seem the camera brand lenses are necessarily the best choice anymore
> unless going with the high end glass.


The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is actually lighter and slightly smaller than
the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5, but costs more.

The Tamron takes size 67 filters, so you could match it (share filters)
with the Canon 70-200/4, now available with IS. In this case, there is
no third party vendor that makes a better 70-200/4 lens.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Toby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2006
To answer your question: I have the lens and am basically quite happy with
it. It shows slightly less sharpness at the center than a Tokina 28-70 f2.8
that I have at widest comparable apertures, but the difference is slight.
The macro setting is handy, and the macro quality quite good. There is
noticeable chromatic aberration in the corners at the wider apertures, but
this is par for the course with these lenses.

Build quality is OK, cheapish but so far it has worked fine. Be aware that
if you don't need the extra range Sigma just introduced a new 18-50 f2.8
constant aperture lens at Photokina that looks to be in about the same price
range.

Toby

"SimonLW" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4548643c$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Having had the original Rebel and kit lens, I say the lens is not bad, but
> only fair. Canon has a "step up" IS lens, but optical performance is
> disappointing. I also looked at the Canon 17-40L, but it is pricy and
> quite large (77mm filter). Looking at Photozone's fairly detailed lens
> tests of several normal range zooms, the next decent performer I can find
> is the Sigma 17-70. While not perfect, it seems to outclass the kit lens
> in resolution. Anyone try it?
> Thanks!
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Digital Delta-Sigma DAC Davy VHDL 10 04-14-2007 09:16 PM
Sigma or OEM Sigma as Quantaray Mikevt1 Digital Photography 4 10-17-2006 10:04 AM
Sigma 18-125/3,5-5,6 and Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro IIusers friglob Digital Photography 3 02-06-2006 08:12 PM
Sigma 24-60 DG compare with sigma 24-70 DG rolento Digital Photography 1 11-13-2004 02:40 AM
6th sigma? glunk Java 0 07-14-2004 03:32 PM



Advertisments