Sigma 17-70 zoom?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SimonLW, Nov 1, 2006.

  1. SimonLW

    SimonLW Guest

    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!
     
    SimonLW, Nov 1, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SimonLW

    bmoag Guest

    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.
     
    bmoag, Nov 1, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SimonLW

    Chips Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:U632h.21605$...
    > 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.
    >
     
    Chips, Nov 1, 2006
    #3
  4. SimonLW

    SimonLW Guest

    "Chips" <> wrote in message
    news:9W32h.21632$...
    > OP used the past tense of have.
    >
    > "Having *had* the original Rebel and kit lens,"
    >
    > And he then asked a question.
    >
    > "While not perfect, it seems to outclass the kit lens in
    > resolution. Anyone try it?"
    >
    > GC
    >
    > "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    > news:U632h.21605$...
    >> 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
     
    SimonLW, Nov 1, 2006
    #4
  5. SimonLW

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    SimonLW <> 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 Tuthill, Nov 1, 2006
    #5
  6. SimonLW

    SteveB Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:4548af00$...
    > "Chips" <> wrote in message
    > news:9W32h.21632$...
    >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:U632h.21605$...
    >>> 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
    >
     
    SteveB, Nov 1, 2006
    #6
  7. SimonLW

    SimonLW Guest

    "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > SimonLW <> 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
     
    SimonLW, Nov 1, 2006
    #7
  8. SimonLW

    g n p Guest

    "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > SimonLW <> 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
     
    g n p, Nov 1, 2006
    #8
  9. SimonLW

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    SimonLW <> 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.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Nov 1, 2006
    #9
  10. SimonLW

    Toby Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:4548643c$...
    > 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!
    >
     
    Toby, Nov 2, 2006
    #10
  11. SimonLW

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Toby <> wrote:
    >
    > Build quality is OK, cheapish but so far it has worked fine.


    That's what I thought about my 2 Sigma products, until they failed.

    > 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.


    Sigma already had an 18-50/2.8 DC. The new one has closer close-focus
    but otherwise seems similar. Tests I've seen placed the Tamron 17-50/2.8
    ahead of the Sigma 18-50/2.8 and you also get wider angle.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Nov 2, 2006
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ronny Svensson

    Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom

    Ronny Svensson, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    951
    Ronny Svensson
    Aug 23, 2003
  2. Stefan Patric

    Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom

    Stefan Patric, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    820
    Stefan Patric
    Aug 23, 2003
  3. rolento

    Sigma 24-60 DG compare with sigma 24-70 DG

    rolento, Nov 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    501
    rolento
    Nov 13, 2004
  4. friglob
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    521
    Michel Souris
    Feb 6, 2006
  5. Mikevt1

    Sigma or OEM Sigma as Quantaray

    Mikevt1, Oct 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,460
    Graham Fountain
    Oct 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page