Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro samples

dr_romix · 10-31-2011, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by pop4

I've now got the Sigma 17-50/2.8 and comparatively, I find it sharper than the 17-70/2.8-4.5, however, the extra 20mm range was a little bit more versatile at times. On it's own, the 17-70 is still quite sharp and I think it would be a step up from a kit lens (not that I've ever had any experience with any kit lenses). And as for the DA* 16-50/2.8, I personally wouldn't touch it with a 100ft pole.

Thanks for your feedback. I just got off the phone with Sigma Technical support and they guy said if I have K-5 and not worried about low light high ISO, I should stick to 17-70. Both 17-70 and 17-50 use the same optics..The only difference is EX lenses have fixed 2.8 aperture and 4 year warranty vs DC lenses don't have fixed aperture and only 3 year warranty. He also said " As much as I would want to sell you 17-50 , if you have 17-70, I would hold on to that. I have the same lens and extra 20mm comes handy quite sometime. and in our lab test, I didn't notice a difference between the two".. now I'm even more confused..what do you guys think?

calicojack · 10-31-2011, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by dr_romix

".. now I'm even more confused..what do you guys think?

It's very simple. Which is more important to you / your style of shooting, the fixed f2.8 aperture or the extra range between 50 & 70mm focal length?
For me, 17-70 wins over fixed 2.8.

dr_romix · 10-31-2011, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by calicojack

It's very simple. Which is more important to you / your style of shooting, the fixed f2.8 aperture or the extra range between 50 & 70mm focal length?
For me, 17-70 wins over fixed 2.8.

well, I have tamron 28-75 f2.8 if wanna do portrait and also I'm planning to buy Pentax 50-135 later to add to my portrait family collection.

I feel like sometime for walk around and street shooting, 50 would be a little short....
Since I mostly shoot outdoor and usually with higher f# 8 ( street, landscape ) during the day, I am not sure if I would get the same IQ on either lens.

As far as indoor shooting, how about if I set the aperture to 8 and use external flash, would there be any difference on IQ with either lens?

I think the only time I would lose a bit a sharpness compare to 17-50 would be take photos at night ( outdoor ) as I would need to raise the ISO on my K-5. even with that the f at 50mm is 4 which I don't know if that's a big difference with 2.8 anyway... please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks

calicojack · 10-31-2011, 03:55 PM

The 50-135 is a stellar performer. You'll love it (IMO).
I don't have and have never used the 17-50 or the 28-75. I love my 17-70 2.8-4.5.
Indoor under flash at f8 you'll get very similar results, I imagine.
I run into problems outdoors at night with my K10D, but if I work at it and keep the ISO down (400 or below, absolute max at 800), I can get some excellent results.

dr_romix · 11-02-2011, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by calicojack

The 50-135 is a stellar performer. You'll love it (IMO).
I don't have and have never used the 17-50 or the 28-75. I love my 17-70 2.8-4.5.
Indoor under flash at f8 you'll get very similar results, I imagine.
I run into problems outdoors at night with my K10D, but if I work at it and keep the ISO down (400 or below, absolute max at 800), I can get some excellent results.

thanks. I think I'm going to go with 17-70.

mickey · 11-24-2011, 02:02 AM

Some quick and recent crops with some basic editing.
Slight sharpening.
K10D.

JinDesu · 12-22-2011, 10:08 PM

Do we put the F2.8-4 version in here too, or should we create a new thread for that one?

dosdan · 12-23-2011, 12:03 AM

I have ambivalent feelings about this lens. Yes, it's about 2/3rd faster than the kit lens, has a greater zoom range, and is relatively cheap, but there are problems at the wide end with vignetting, distortion, softness & particularly CA. These can be corrected in PP, but it would be nice if the design was sophisticated enough not to need that much help.

The lens should not really have the f/2.8. It's very soft at the edges. Here are 3 comparison shots, all taken at 17mm FL & f/2.8.

The first comparison shot shows:

Top: the uncorrected shot

Bottom: CA, vignetting & distortion correction preset I created for this aperture & FL combination in Silkypix Pro 4.

You can see that the distortion is very obvious. The top is a little darker (shaded by the overhand of the roof more), but it looks a different shade too.

The second comparison compares the centre uncorrected area, with the uncorrected top right & the corrected top right.

1. The corner softness is very obvious
2. So is the CA. This is easy to notice even in the shop - I tried 2 copies of this lens and they both have obvious CA.
3. The vignetting can be seen, but I think the roof shading makes a difference here too.

Finally, the bottom right corner. Again, the centre uncorrected area, with the uncorrected bottom right & the corrected bottom right.

The lens is still soft, but not as soft as the top right.

Dan.

calicojack · 12-23-2011, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by dosdan

I have ambivalent feelings about this lens. Yes, it's about 2/3rd faster than the kit lens, has a greater zoom range, and is relatively cheap, but there are problems at the wide end with vignetting, distortion, softness & particularly CA. These can be corrected in PP, but it would be nice if the design was sophisticated enough not to need that much help.

The lens should not really have the f/2.8. It's very soft at the edges. Here are 3 comparison shots, all taken at 17mm FL & f/2.8.
<snip>
Dan.

If you really want to take pictures of a brick wall, you'll need a special "Flat Field" lens.

dr_romix · 01-06-2012, 02:38 PM

dr_romix · 01-06-2012, 02:39 PM

**Lowell Goudge** · 10-10-2013, 01:24 PM

There are also samples posted here which was a duplicate thread not in the archive index
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-sample-photo-archive/239280-sigma-17...ens-1-2-a.html

I will not be putting theirs thread into the archive

old4570 · 10-11-2013, 01:34 AM

Pentax K5 + Sigma 17-70 ( +4 Close focus filter also fitted )

12-23-2011, 12:03 AM	#23
dosdan Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,741	I have ambivalent feelings about this lens. Yes, it's about 2/3rd faster than the kit lens, has a greater zoom range, and is relatively cheap, but there are problems at the wide end with vignetting, distortion, softness & particularly CA. These can be corrected in PP, but it would be nice if the design was sophisticated enough not to need that much help. The lens should not really have the f/2.8. It's very soft at the edges. Here are 3 comparison shots, all taken at 17mm FL & f/2.8. The first comparison shot shows: Top: the uncorrected shot Bottom: CA, vignetting & distortion correction preset I created for this aperture & FL combination in Silkypix Pro 4. You can see that the distortion is very obvious. The top is a little darker (shaded by the overhand of the roof more), but it looks a different shade too. The second comparison compares the centre uncorrected area, with the uncorrected top right & the corrected top right. 1. The corner softness is very obvious 2. So is the CA. This is easy to notice even in the shop - I tried 2 copies of this lens and they both have obvious CA. 3. The vignetting can be seen, but I think the roof shading makes a difference here too. Finally, the bottom right corner. Again, the centre uncorrected area, with the uncorrected bottom right & the corrected bottom right. The lens is still soft, but not as soft as the top right. Dan. Last edited by dosdan; 04-25-2012 at 02:59 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II Lens Samples	pop4	Lens Sample Photo Archive	34	02-04-2018 12:56 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 17-70mm DC Macro F2.8-4.5, Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro F4-5.6	link_1111	Sold Items	4	07-21-2011 05:19 AM
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM - VS - Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro	Braciola	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	10-15-2010 04:54 AM

10-31-2011, 06:33 AM	#16
dr_romix Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 321	Originally posted by pop4 I've now got the Sigma 17-50/2.8 and comparatively, I find it sharper than the 17-70/2.8-4.5, however, the extra 20mm range was a little bit more versatile at times. On it's own, the 17-70 is still quite sharp and I think it would be a step up from a kit lens (not that I've ever had any experience with any kit lenses). And as for the DA* 16-50/2.8, I personally wouldn't touch it with a 100ft pole. Thanks for your feedback. I just got off the phone with Sigma Technical support and they guy said if I have K-5 and not worried about low light high ISO, I should stick to 17-70. Both 17-70 and 17-50 use the same optics..The only difference is EX lenses have fixed 2.8 aperture and 4 year warranty vs DC lenses don't have fixed aperture and only 3 year warranty. He also said " As much as I would want to sell you 17-50 , if you have 17-70, I would hold on to that. I have the same lens and extra 20mm comes handy quite sometime. and in our lab test, I didn't notice a difference between the two".. now I'm even more confused..what do you guys think?

10-31-2011, 09:42 AM	#17
calicojack Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Long Island, N.Y. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,124	Originally posted by dr_romix ".. now I'm even more confused..what do you guys think? It's very simple. Which is more important to you / your style of shooting, the fixed f2.8 aperture or the extra range between 50 & 70mm focal length? For me, 17-70 wins over fixed 2.8.

10-31-2011, 10:38 AM	#18
dr_romix Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 321	Originally posted by calicojack It's very simple. Which is more important to you / your style of shooting, the fixed f2.8 aperture or the extra range between 50 & 70mm focal length? For me, 17-70 wins over fixed 2.8. well, I have tamron 28-75 f2.8 if wanna do portrait and also I'm planning to buy Pentax 50-135 later to add to my portrait family collection. I feel like sometime for walk around and street shooting, 50 would be a little short.... Since I mostly shoot outdoor and usually with higher f# 8 ( street, landscape ) during the day, I am not sure if I would get the same IQ on either lens. As far as indoor shooting, how about if I set the aperture to 8 and use external flash, would there be any difference on IQ with either lens? I think the only time I would lose a bit a sharpness compare to 17-50 would be take photos at night ( outdoor ) as I would need to raise the ISO on my K-5. even with that the f at 50mm is 4 which I don't know if that's a big difference with 2.8 anyway... please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks

10-31-2011, 03:55 PM	#19
calicojack Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Long Island, N.Y. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,124	The 50-135 is a stellar performer. You'll love it (IMO). I don't have and have never used the 17-50 or the 28-75. I love my 17-70 2.8-4.5. Indoor under flash at f8 you'll get very similar results, I imagine. I run into problems outdoors at night with my K10D, but if I work at it and keep the ISO down (400 or below, absolute max at 800), I can get some excellent results.

11-02-2011, 07:13 AM	#20
dr_romix Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 321	Originally posted by calicojack The 50-135 is a stellar performer. You'll love it (IMO). I don't have and have never used the 17-50 or the 28-75. I love my 17-70 2.8-4.5. Indoor under flash at f8 you'll get very similar results, I imagine. I run into problems outdoors at night with my K10D, but if I work at it and keep the ISO down (400 or below, absolute max at 800), I can get some excellent results. thanks. I think I'm going to go with 17-70.

11-24-2011, 02:02 AM	#21
mickey Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Some quick and recent crops with some basic editing. Slight sharpening. K10D.

12-22-2011, 10:08 PM	#22
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Do we put the F2.8-4 version in here too, or should we create a new thread for that one?

12-23-2011, 06:27 AM	#24
calicojack Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Long Island, N.Y. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,124	Originally posted by dosdan I have ambivalent feelings about this lens. Yes, it's about 2/3rd faster than the kit lens, has a greater zoom range, and is relatively cheap, but there are problems at the wide end with vignetting, distortion, softness & particularly CA. These can be corrected in PP, but it would be nice if the design was sophisticated enough not to need that much help. The lens should not really have the f/2.8. It's very soft at the edges. Here are 3 comparison shots, all taken at 17mm FL & f/2.8. <snip> Dan. If you really want to take pictures of a brick wall, you'll need a special "Flat Field" lens.

01-06-2012, 02:38 PM	#25
dr_romix Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 321

01-06-2012, 02:39 PM	#26
dr_romix Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 321

10-10-2013, 01:24 PM	#27
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	There are also samples posted here which was a duplicate thread not in the archive index https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-sample-photo-archive/239280-sigma-17...ens-1-2-a.html I will not be putting theirs thread into the archive

10-11-2013, 01:34 AM	#28
old4570 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 2,551	Pentax K5 + Sigma 17-70 ( +4 Close focus filter also fitted )