| Review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Great walkaround lens., Tuesday, 02 March 2010


Overall rating (weighted)		5.0
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		5.0

Not much to say but that this is a great walkaround lens. Macros are pretty good (you do need a tripod).

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful

Sharp Sharp Sharp Lens, Friday, 09 October 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		4.8
Sharpness		4.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		5.0

When my wife dropped and broke my Nikkor 18-200Vr lens two days before Hawaiian vacation, I needed a quick replacement. I am so glad I got Sigma 17-70. It stayed on my D300 90% of the time. I love this lens. It is very sharp, as sharp as my Nikkor 18-135 and probably sharper. The 2.8 at wide end is great. The range is respectable for most application and as a walk around. HSM works great and the lens focuses quickly in low light, unlike my Nikon 18-200VR lens (which is twice as expensive). The built is excellent. I took off one star on features because of lack of OS, which would be nice. Overall, I highly recommend this lens, and I specifically recommend it above Tamron 17-50 2.8, which costs $100 more than Sigma, but focuses much slower in low light, despite constant F2.8.

One thing though, at wide end, you have barrel distortion, and it is pronounced and i mean pronounced, to the point, that the Ocean on a background may look like a portion of a large circle. Even PT Lens program struggles with fixing the distortion. However, I personally don't care about barrel distortion, as much as I care about sharpness. I can't stand soft photos! But I just wanted to point that distortion is there.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful

Great value!, Wednesday, 23 September 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		4.3
Sharpness		4.0
Build Quality		4.0
AF Speed		4.0
Value for Money		5.0

For the price, the lens works great. I use it for portraits and it comes in very sharp. Definitely will buy Sigma again.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful

Color dispersion problems, Sunday, 13 September 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		3.3
Sharpness		3.0
Build Quality		3.0
AF Speed		3.0
Value for Money		4.0

Pictures were sharp and bokeh was decent but my shots lacked contrast and saturation. They just looked a little washed out. At first, I thought I just had exposure setting issues or that my D90 photos simply had a different look to it. I changed my D40 to a D90 about the same time so this wasn't a controlled experiment at the beginning. Later I got some Sigma EX lenses as well as the new 18-250 OS lens that isn't EX and my pics suddenly jumped to life. Richer color saturation and less washed out. I could only conclude that this lens wasn't as good as my new Sigmas. However, I note that the 18-250 lens also has a washed out look when shooting at the very long end.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful

Wow..., Monday, 17 August 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		3.8
Sharpness		3.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		4.0
Value for Money		3.0

It is hard to purchase lens online without "test driving" them. When I received it and took it with me on a trip, it was incredible. It has a nice wide angle, and takes very clean pictures. You have to work out the out-of-focused pictures that one occasionally gets when shots are taken from a distance, but I think mostly that is due to the fact this lens is meant for up-close shots.
Over all ... awesome LENS!!!

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful

As good as I hoped, Tuesday, 02 June 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		4.8
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		4.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		5.0

I have been shooting with this lens for a couple of weeks now and I am impressed with the capabilities. The near-macro capabilities are amazing and I have taken some really nice flower close-up shots. I am very satisfied with my purchase.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful

Excellent with minor flaws, Wednesday, 20 May 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		4.5
Sharpness		4.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		4.0
Value for Money		5.0

I compared this lens with the excellent Sony 50mm f1.4 lens (arguably a bit unfair since this is a prime lens). The camera was a Sony a350.

Build: Smooth secure operation. No complaints.

Flare: I had heard that this was impressive and I could not induce significant flare under any circumstances - even without the included hood. Great!

Chromatic aberration: If I "pixel peeped" I could sometimes see a pixel width or two of color, but no worse than the Sony 50mm. Really good!

Resolution: To test this I shot text on a wall at various focal lengths from wide (17mm) to telephoto (70mm) at wide open and f8. The results were quite comparable to the pictures with the Sony 50mm lens except at the extreme edges wide open where it was a bit soft. However, at 17mm f2.8 the picture was quite soft at the edges and somewhat soft even in the middle. In this test situation, the 17mm f2.8 shot ended up at less than 3 feet from the wall. This is a bit extreme and I have not yet repeated this test at a more realistic distance.

However, does this matter if it is soft at 17mm f2.8? On a recent trip to Arizona, I shot a lot at 17mm, but none of the shots were at f2.8. So I think that this is a minor point and probably typical of a lot of other zoom lenses as well. Because of the high resolution of the Sony a350 (14M pixels) any focus errors readily show up, but this can't really be blamed on the lens (the Sony 50mm sometimes misses focus also). I recently saw a discussion where focus errors were called the dirty little secret of the (various) SLR makers. Oh well, considering how fast the SLR cameras focus, I suppose it is amazing that any shots are in focus.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful

Sigma's Quality Control Needs WORK !, Monday, 18 May 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		1.5
Sharpness		2.0
Build Quality		2.0
AF Speed		1.0
Value for Money		1.0

Bought two sigma 17-70mm. First one back-focused really bad. Sent it back for replacement. Second/replacement lens had a "de-centering" issue, where the subject on the left side of photo was blurry and the right side was in focus. These were for Nikon mount. I once owned a canon mount version that was nothing short of perfect. So, I was very disappointed when I got two bad versions for Nikon mount. Went back to the Nikon 18-70mm.

Amazon's service Rocks! I will shop with Amazon again. Just not for Sigma.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful

Too many bad copies of this lens being produced..., Sunday, 17 May 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		3.0
Sharpness		3.0
Build Quality		2.0
AF Speed		4.0
Value for Money		3.0

I got a bad copy. I read a ton of reviews online about this lens and knew that it was a crap shoot as to whether you'll get a good copy or a bad one, but the more you look it appears that there are quite a few bad examples being produced; so many, in fact, that it makes buying this lens a real gamble. For such spotty production the 1 year warranty from Sigma is simply too short and makes this lens a risk.

I'm sending my copy back to Amazon (free shipping both ways and a 30 day exchange period are a real bonus with Amazon) and am getting a Tamron 17-50mm, which I hear may also have some quality issues, but at least the Tamron has a 6 year warranty.

May luck be with you if you're ordering this lens, and don't throw away your Amazon shipping box/packaging until you've thoroughly tested it out. Mine had back-focusing issues at the wide end, fyi.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful

very good walkaroun lense, Thursday, 14 May 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		4.5
Sharpness		4.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		4.0
Value for Money		5.0

My copy is good. it focuses without problem. this is a really sharp lens and comparing it to my canon 17-40L, it is little better. The motor is not that noisy, you can hear it but really not that bothering.

build quality is decent, but definitely worse than the canon L lenses.

for those concerning the barrel distortion at wide ends, it is hard to detect in normal shooting conditions, so not a problem at all.

all in all, this is an excellent walk-around lens. the focus length range is really sweet.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Sigma 17-70, Sunday, 03 May 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		4.3
Sharpness		3.0
Build Quality		4.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		5.0

Great item at a great price. Much better price than a Nikon lens would cost. For anyone who is not a highly paid professional, why would you spend the $$ for a Nikon lens? This item is great and performs without issue. Sigma is a great brand.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 4 people found the following review helpful

To return, or not to return? In any case, not yet, Wednesday, 01 April 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		2.0
Sharpness		2.0
Build Quality		1.0
AF Speed		3.0
Value for Money		2.0

Hopefully after working a bit more with this lens, I will come back here and update this review in a positive light. But for now, having just got the lens and taking only a handful of pictures, I am hesitant. I am almost disappointed, only not quite sure yet.

It's really heavy. I could get over this if the photos are worth it.
I really wanted a macro for close up flower photography, I maybe should have looked at a few other options.

Reading the reviews got me excited for this lens. I started thinking I didn't really need a prime, or a dedicated macro lens, because here was this great lens that could offer other shots too. Everyone seemed to say it was so sharp and so great.

Maybe it is. I'll be trying to figure that out in the next couple days. But for now I am almost considering exchanging it. So I came back to read the reviews again, and compare.

If you are not looking to replace your kit lens with a better "everything" lens, this might be great for you. But if you really wish you had a macro and you feel you might get something extra here, hmnmnmn....

You need great light, or an extra flash. The built in flash casts a huge shadow as it shines down over the lens. I don't usually take indoor flower shots but I was just practicing.

I must be too amateur to understand any low light benefit because that's not really happening for me yet.

It's troubling how many bad copies are reported here. I think mine is ok but I'll be checking that closely tomorrow.

Get a filter. I figured I'd order one later or pick it up at the shop. Local shop was a lot more. Now I have to order one. Should have just done it at the same time.

I might have to get a book too, for heaven's sake, on macro photography. Seems like a simple concept but the shallow depth of field is more shallow than I thought. I'll need to adapt.

I got a new, tiny tripod today too. My regular tripod isn't that fun to carry everywhere.

I'll come back and update this review. I just hoped to write something to encourage other shoppers in my situation to give their interest in primes or other macro ranges a long, long consideration before jumping on the good review bandwagon like I did.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful

A Fine lens, Monday, 09 March 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		4.0
Sharpness		4.0
Build Quality		4.0
AF Speed		4.0
Value for Money		4.0

I couldn't afford the Nikon 24-70 lens, and I was not too sure if I could remain constrained with the fixed focal length 85mm lenses. I needed something definitely wider than 24mm. This lens met all these constraints

Bought it after much wrestling with choices in my budgetary zone, and my first thoughts: I think it's a fine lens.
I have shot some portraits, landscape and snapshots, I must admit the lens is sharp enough and color rendering has been vivid and faithful. When I compare with Nikkor lenses that I own, this does stand up and count, though I personally don't claim to have anything in this zoom range, of a professional quality, in the Nikon world.

The negative impressions from these first observations, the zoom ring is very tight. While there are claims of this lens being a macro, I doubt it would deserve serious mention, I have noticed lens shadow on my objects, hood or no hood. With this big a barrel, you do need the hood, I might add.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful

A Fine lens, Monday, 09 March 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		4.0
Sharpness		3.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		3.0
Value for Money		5.0

I couldn't afford the Nikon 24-70 lens, and I was not too sure if I could remain constrained with the fixed focal length 85mm lenses. I needed something definitely wider than 24mm. This lens met all these constraints

Bought it after much wrestling with choices in my budgetary zone, and my first thoughts: I think it's a fine lens.
I have shot some portraits, landscape and snapshots, I must admit the lens is sharp enough and color rendering has been vivid and faithful. When I compare with Nikkor lenses that I own, this does stand up and count, though I personally don't claim to have anything in this zoom range, of a professional quality, in the Nikon world.

The negative impressions from these first observations, the zoom ring is very tight. While there are claims of this lens being a macro, I doubt it would deserve serious mention, I have noticed lens shadow on my objects, hood or no hood. With this big a barrel, you do need the hood, I might add.

03/11/09
--------
Addendum: I shot some *close up* shots over the weekend, and was blown away by the results. I could focus from extremely close and at full zoom, and absolutely no problem in rendition or sharpness. I guess it does qualify as "macro". If I could update my rating on this lens, it would be a five star.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful

Great lens for the money!, Friday, 27 February 2009


Overall rating (weighted)		5.0
Sharpness		5.0
Build Quality		5.0
AF Speed		5.0
Value for Money		5.0

Read lots of reviews before I decided to purchase this lens. I am happy I chose it. It is a very sharp high quality lens. Fast focus, good build. Nice feel. Most important, excellent sharpness, great look, contrast. I would definately recommend this lens.

Was this review helpful to you? yes

Report this review