Sigma 17-70mm/2.8?

[itsmeamanda]

Would this be a good walk around lens for Disney? I am a little concerned about sharpness of images, particularly since I am used to prime lenses.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Are you talking about the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4? If you are, then depending on your camera body (I don't recall what you have), it could work well. It has a good combination of focal lengths for a walkaround. When I stated it depended on your camera body, I was referring to the usability of higher ISO's. Because the lens is a variable aperture lens, as you zoom your max aperture will close down from the 2.8 to 4. I'm guessing it would get to 4 about 50mm, give or take. If your camera can compensate with using higher ISO, then you can maintain your shutter speeds. Otherwise you would have to slow the shutter speed and that brings about blur. With variable aperture lenses this is the tradeoff. The upside is they tend to be smaller and lighter. What I'm saying only applies to those lowlight situations where you are trying to get max light to the sensor.

 

[HPS3]

I can't speak for the 17-70 f2.8-4 but the 17-50 f2.8 OS is an excellent lens. I used it on a Sony Nex and it was sharp and the OS is fantastic.

 

[cjstarr]

itsmeamanda, what camera will you be using?

 

[itsmeamanda]

I have a Nikon d7000. The variable aperture concerns me a bit because I am not used to that. I only have primes now, and worry that I will not be able to adjust my setting as quickly as I am used to if the aperture changes.

 

[2Tiggies]

Are you likely to get a fair amount of day to day use out of this lens outside of Disney or do you anticipate that you will fall back on your preferred primes after the trip? I was just wondering if it may be worth renting a lens with a fixed 2.8 aperture for your trip while you are there, especially if you are just looking for something to get you by while on vacation

 

[HPS3]

I have a Nikon d7000. The variable aperture concerns me a bit because I am not used to that. I only have primes now, and worry that I will not be able to adjust my setting as quickly as I am used to if the aperture changes.

Both the Sigma and Tamron 17-50 have constant apertures at 2.8. Both lenses are great.

 

[havoc315]

I think you're worrying a bit too much. I don't have experience with that exact lens, and certainly, it won't match your primes in low light or overall quality.

But for walking around outdoors in good light, the lens *should* perform wonderfully. (Unless someone has some experience that it is a particularly poor quality lens). The variable focal length is just right for most Disney World shots. And if you zoom in and the aperture changes from 2.8 to 4... It is not going to radically alter your shot. Unless you are shooting full manual mode, the camera will of course automatically adjust the exposure for any changes to the aperture.

If you do want a constant aperture lens, the Tamon 17-50 2.8 comes highly recommended for Nikon/Canon/Sony, and it is fairly affordable. (New, it would cost a bit more than the Sigma... or can get a high quality used copy for about the same price as the Sigma/new)

 

[cpbjgc]

I use the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 for Canon as my walk around lens. I have used it a number of years at home and at Disney and I have been very satisfied with it.

 

[wbeem]

Would this be a good walk around lens for Disney? I am a little concerned about sharpness of images, particularly since I am used to prime lenses.

Here's a link to a DxO benchmark of the lens. Doesn't rate very well.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Sigma/24-70mm-F2.8-IF-EX-DG-HSM-Nikon

The focal length seems fine for walking around. I like using my 24-70 for Disney. It's just this one doesn't seem very sharp and has other issues.

 

[havoc315]

Here's a link to a DxO benchmark of the lens. Doesn't rate very well.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Sigma/24-70mm-F2.8-IF-EX-DG-HSM-Nikon

The focal length seems fine for walking around. I like using my 24-70 for Disney. It's just this one doesn't seem very sharp and has other issues.

Is it just me, or do basically no lenses rate well on dxomark?

I can't find any lens that has better than a mid-rating, lol.

 

[wbeem]

Is it just me, or do basically no lenses rate well on dxomark?

I can't find any lens that has better than a mid-rating, lol.

I have this one.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Le...5mm-f14G/(camera)/792/(cameraname)/NIKON-D800

 

[havoc315]

I have this one.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Le...5mm-f14G/(camera)/792/(cameraname)/NIKON-D800

Let me revise the statement... are there any non-prime, non $1500 lenses.. that get excellent ratings? lol.

I can't find a single zoom lens that gets better than a mid-range score.

 

[wbeem]

Let me revise the statement... are there any non-prime, non $1500 lenses.. that get excellent ratings? lol.

I can't find a single zoom lens that gets better than a mid-range score.

You're changing the rules. Here are the best lenses by rating.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings

 

[havoc315]

You're changing the rules. Here are the best Nikon lenses by rating. Actually, they're the best lenses and just happen to be Nikon.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings

Apples to apples, as the question was the Sigma zoom lens...

So the absolute highest rated zoom lens is a total score of 23, with a sharpness rating of 12p -- but that's only when you put it on a fullframe body. If you put that same lens on the Nikon D7000 -- you get a total score of 14, with a sharpness of 6p.
On the other hand, the Sigma lens, on the Nikon D7000 -- scores 15, with a sharpness of 9p.

So at least according to DXOMark.... the Sigma matches or exceeds the top Nikkor zoom lenses.. or am I misinterpreting it?

 

[wbeem]

Apples to apples, as the question was the Sigma zoom lens...

So the absolute highest rated zoom lens is a total score of 23, with a sharpness rating of 12p -- but that's only when you put it on a fullframe body. If you put that same lens on the Nikon D7000 -- you get a total score of 14, with a sharpness of 6p.
On the other hand, the Sigma lens, on the Nikon D7000 -- scores 15, with a sharpness of 9p.

So at least according to DXOMark.... the Sigma matches or exceeds the top Nikkor zoom lenses.. or am I misinterpreting it?

I'm not entirely sure what you're interpreting, because you seem to change the criteria with every new post.

In any case, you can have some fun on this site seeing how the numbers stack up with your lens and camera combination. That said, the numbers aren't the picture. The Nikon 85mm f/1.4D doesn't score as well as the newer version that I posted first, but there are photographers who swear by it for portraits. Some have even returned the new version to get the old one because they like the way the older one renders the skin.

It's all subjective when you look at the photo. You get a sharper lens and maybe you get a less desirable portrait. Some folks think that way and who am I to say they're wrong?

Before I buy a new lens, I like to visit http://flickriver.com/lenses to see examples shot with the lens in question.

 

[havoc315]

I'm not entirely sure what you're interpreting, because you seem to change the criteria with every new post.

In any case, you can have some fun on this site seeing how the numbers stack up with your lens and camera combination. That said, the numbers aren't the picture. The Nikon 85mm f/1.4D doesn't score as well as the newer version that I posted first, but there are photographers who swear by it for portraits. Some have even returned the new version to get the old one because they like the way the older one renders the skin.

It's all subjective when you look at the photo. You get a sharper lens and maybe you get a less desirable portrait. Some folks think that way and who am I to say they're wrong?

Before I buy a new lens, I like to visit http://flickriver.com/lenses to see examples shot with the lens in question.

Not changing criteria, but asking different questions. I'm noticing the dxomark scores seem to say more about the camera than the lens. The 85mm prime that you own with the high score, check what happens to the score if you mount it on the d7000---the score is now only slightly better than the sigma. So considering the price difference and that it is a zoom, it suddenly starts to look pretty good.


It appears, that when mounted to a crop body, Dxo doesn't rate any lens very highly.

 

[wbeem]

Not changing criteria, but asking different questions. I'm noticing the dxomark scores seem to say more about the camera than the lens. The 85mm prime that you own with the high score, check what happens to the score if you mount it on the d7000---the score is now only slightly better than the sigma. So considering the price difference and that it is a zoom, it suddenly starts to look pretty good.


It appears, that when mounted to a crop body, Dxo doesn't rate any lens very highly.

Yet another reason why I abandoned crop sensors for full frame. That rating was with my D800 and my 85mm f/1.4. If you want great results, you buy great stuff that works together.

 

[Pixel Dust]

Don't forget, Simga has a new 17-70 f/2.8 lens with OS. It's their new "contemporary lens" line. The older 17-70 was pretty soft.

Here's a review
http://fstoppers.com/fstoppers-reviews-the-sigma-17-70mm-f2-8-4-creative-lens

 

[sjfc99]

The Sigma 17-50 2.8 has served me pretty well. Here are a few, handheld, sample shots from WDW when it was used with my Nikon D300