Thoughts on Sigma 17-70, F2.8-4?

[Ratpack]

Was looking at this lens for a good walk around lens and overall general lens to stay on the camera most of the time. Anyone have the lens and care to comment good or bad? It will go on a Nikon D7000 if that has any bearing.

 

[PythonFan888]

I had the Sigma 17 - 70 on my D7000 in 2013 and I found it to be very capable performer as a walkaround lens. Some samples:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2194238@N22/pool/allen_castillo

 

[Ratpack]

Do you think this one is better than the 17-50 F2.8? I know I lose some range, but constant aperature through the entire range.

 

[mom2rtk]

Have you considered a 24-70 2.8 lens? Tamron makes one that I really have fallen in love with. You give up a bit on the wide end but it's nice to have that extra reach still at 2.8. The Tamron version also has VC.

 

[Ratpack]

I may look into that one as well, how does Tamron compare to Sigma in regards to quality?

 

[PythonFan888]

Do you think this one is better than the 17-50 F2.8? I know I lose some range, but constant aperature through the entire range.

The reviews on the 17-70 seem to trend better than the 17-50. I haven't tried the 17-50 though so I can't give you a first hand impression.

I have tried the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 but only on a full frame (D610). It is fantastic and performed better for me than the Nikon. I have never tried it on a crop sensor. If you see a full frame body in your future then the Tamron is worth a look.

 

[nigelp]

Do you think this one is better than the 17-50 F2.8? I know I lose some range, but constant aperature through the entire range.

I have the sigma 17-50 f2.8 and it basically stays on my camera. Love the sharpness and colour rendition. But I have no experience of the 17-70 or 24-70.

I expect the reality is, whichever you go for, you will get on well with.

 

[SkaGoat]

Personally I'd go for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC, it's sharper, has less distortion, and controls chromatic aberrations better than the either the Sigma 17-50 or 17-70mm.

That extra 20mm in zoom isn't worth the drop in IQ.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the precursor to the 24-70 f2.8 the Sigma 28-70 f2.8. Each are almost exclusively mounted to their respective cameras. I prefer the 28-70 for the extra reach (as a walkaround) however when I need to go a little wider I will grab the camera with the 17-50 on it. Both lenses render very good images and are well worth the $. With the Tamron I do find that I have to use a +1 EV (Pentax camera) to get the exposure I want.

 

[mom2rtk]

I may look into that one as well, how does Tamron compare to Sigma in regards to quality?

You can't really generalize. You need to seek out reviews of specific lenses. In some cases Sigma is better, in others Tamron is.

If you are considering the 17-50 2.8 lens, I've always heard the Tamron is sharper, at least in the unstabilized version. Other lenses, I have heard Sigma is better.

 

[SkaGoat]

according to dxomark, the Tamron 17-50mm is sharper than the Sigma equivalent.

 

[bob100]

according to dxomark, the Tamron 17-50mm is sharper than the Sigma equivalent.

according to photozone.de the Sigma 17-50mm is sharper than the Tamron equivalent

But it depends on the camera model, center vs. corners, etc.


At around only $200 (used) the older Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc version is no slouch

Canon 60D
Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc
f3.2
1/200
ISO 4000

 

[Ratpack]

Well it looks as if I have narrowed it down to the Sigma 17-50, F2.8. According to both photozone.de and DxOMark, when mounted on my camera, it has the best ratings between it and the Tamron.