| Author: | | Veteran Member Registered: February, 2012 Location: Below sealevel Posts: 1,100
6 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 25, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $238.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Fairly sharp, very usable range, price, durability | | Cons: | Zoomcreep, blocks onboard flash, outerfinish | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 9
| |
Bought this lens second hand as a replacement of the 18-55 kitlens. It is my oldest lens and has served me well for over 5 years and 3 bodies (K100d, K20d and K5). It`s a a great travelcompanion because of it`s reach. While it is not blistering fast or as sharp as some of my other lenses, it does it`s job decently and reliable once you know it`s limitations. Also the semi-macro function is great, one can make nice closeups with it.
Like stated before by others it`s a jack of all trades due to it`s reach. If I go to an event or trip where I don`t know what to expect this lens allways let me capture it in a decent way.
Offcourse it has some drawbacks: Distortion is somewhat pronounced @ 17mm and the sunhood blocks the onboard flash. Furthermore the outer finish gets dull but it sure is durable and can sustain a lot of mistreatment. The srewdrive is a little noisy and it`s not really a small lens but it`s not overly heavy and balances good on the different camera`s.
My conclusion: It is a cheap and reliable workhorse that delivers decent to good images at all apertures.
Lincoln Memorial
Marjolein I
Machine @ work: Lathe
Dawn @ Kinderdijk (Explored)
Mosque of Muhammad Ali
Day 13: Gaustablikk | | | | | | | Junior Member Registered: December, 2010 Location: Zagreb Posts: 32
5 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 3, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $220.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | range, sharp, price | | Cons: | lens cap - hard to put when hood attached | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-5, Pentax K-r
Autofocus: 8
| |
I bought this lens because zoom range. Pretty wide and solid zoom at 70mm. I also use DA 16-45 but it is too short for me. Sigma seems to be great all around lens. It also have macro capability, not as real macro lens, but can do a job.
 | | | | | Forum Member Registered: February, 2014 Location: Warsaw Posts: 76
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 25, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $240.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | range, sharp, price, build quality, ~macro | | Cons: | weight, lack of WR | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-70
Autofocus: 9
New Or Used: 8
| |
After last holiday while using mainly DA 18-50 which done good job I realized that while small and WR new kit is sadly slow, not super sharp and it's range is not versatile enough.
I found this lens and decide to give it a try.
17mm vs 18mm gives a bit more range, 50 vs 70mm is significant better especially after taking into account that kit is 5.6 at 50mm while Sigma is 4.5 at 70mm and f4 at 50mm i.e much faster.
f2.8 for 17-21mm
f3.5 for 22-35mm
f4.0 for 35-50mm
f4.5 for 50-70mm
Good new is that at long end it is really sharp from f4.5.
Sadly at wide end it starts to be sharp only after f4 and literally super sharp at f5.6. F2.8 to f3.5 can be useful but are rather soft.**
**Update 1. Lens can at times be sharp even at f2.8. I suspect that it is related to AF. Literally I can take photo of some subject and it will be soft, and one minute later I can take exactly the same photo (the same settings, subject, light) and it is sharp.
**Update 2. Lens is much sharper when focused manually. After adjusting focusing using AF FINE ADJUSTMENT function(-6) on my K-70 photos started to be sharp straight from f2.8.
At 50mm f5.6 it is as sharp as DA 50mm f1.8 at 5.6
At 17 mm it is significantly sharper then relatively sharp new kit DAL 18-50 at 18mm.
There are some aberrations but less then in DA 18-50 and much less then in DA 18-55.
Sigma is much bigger and heavier but has more versatile range, is faster and sharper then new and significantly sharper then old kit.
In general lens offers very good image quality, fast AF is, reasonably fast and really sharp.
70mm f4.5 (~100% crop)
Macro is OK.
 | | | | | New Member Registered: December, 2013 Posts: 23
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 20, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $325.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | sharpness, range, build quality, 1/2 macro ability, speed | | Cons: | nothing to me | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Autofocus: 10
| |
This lens known for it's sharpness as a Sigma lens. It's very sharp in the center across its focal length range, but the corners do get slightly soft when shooting wide open at both ends of its focal length range. Where the Sigma 17-70mm really shines though, is when you stop it down a little: One stop down from wide open, the corners get much sharper, and two stops down it's tack sharp across the entire frame, and across the full focal length range.
Chromatic aberration is very low at middle focal lengths, rising slightly at maximum wide angle and telephoto.
Another good side of this Sigma lens is its macro capability. The closest-focus spec of 20cm translated to a distance from the front element of only a couple of inches or so on our Pentax K-5 body, very close focusing indeed.
Sigma 17-70mm is quite satisfying, it has a nice solid feel, probably better than average for lenses in its price. Highly recommended.
| | | | | | | Junior Member Registered: December, 2012 Location: Dobrich Posts: 27
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 1, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $250.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Easy to use, well built, nice balance on my k10d, sharp | | Cons: | focus ring rotates during focusing, zoom ring turns in the other direction | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 8
Value: 9
| |
Got this lens a few weeks ago and it has been on my body since then. Really well built lens. No zoom creep issues yet. The hood fits nice and tight and does a great job. The focus is nice and sort of fast, hunts a bit in low light and contrast but then again most lenses do. Defocus is rendered nice and soft like most Sigma lenses. Here are some samples on my K10d:
Flowers by the window by nickodim, on Flickr
The Lake by nickodim, on Flickr
Before the fight by nickodim, on Flickr
A Way Of Life by nickodim, on Flickr
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: February, 2011 Location: Brno Posts: 295
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 11, 2021 | Recommended | Price: $550.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Price, image output, F2.8, close-up capability | | Cons: | AF could be faster and more reliable | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: K20D, K5, K3
Autofocus: 8
New Or Used: New
| |
I've bought this lens back in early 2008 as my first lens with K20D body and it served me almost daily for something over three years until I bought K5 with DA18-135 and that DA18-135 is now my most used lens since.
BUT Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 is still one of my favorite lenses, it has better image quality than DA18-135 and it can be called universal lens for everything untill you need longer reach 
Resolution is good even for 24Mpix K3 body, lens exhibits very little chromatic aberations. Sigma 17-50/2.8 has a bit better output, but lacks the all-in-one feel of Sig17-70. It has F2.8 at the wide end which helps in low light and also focusing sensors have more light than with kit lens for example. It has very useful close up ability which can almost be called macro. At 70mm lens can focus on things that are touching front element.
Lens works best when paired with DA55-300 that provides the long end. With such combo you are fully covered for travelling. It can even be used to shoot stuff like wedding or other ceremony as around F4-F6.3 it proveides great image across whole frame and across whole zoom range.
AF operation is not amongst the fastest, but certainly usable. Reliability depends on camera and careful calibration.
Build quality is on very good level. But my lens was once serviced because of lens zoom creep. Since then it is tightened enough and does not extend easily. Rubber band on zoom ring started to expand over years and was a bit loose, so one day I decided to put it away, place a layer of thick double sided tape there and put the ring back. Since then it holds on place firmly. Lens surface gets a bit grayish over time but even after 13 years I see NO scratches or finish defects. Lens hood is somewhat loose after all those years, but still clicks on place.
With current 2nd hand prices I only can recommend this lens instead of kit lenses or various old lenses. It is great tool that can fit into many roles. It is wide enough, bright enoug, focuses close enough, image quality is good and even the zoom range is very useful. When shooting RAW the image output can be tuned to even better levels with slight sharpening and contrast.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: May, 2008 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,697
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 7, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $110.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | I've now got one! | | Cons: | I'm not sure how good it actually is! | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 8
Value: 8
Camera Used: K-30, K 3II
Autofocus: 7
New Or Used: 8
| |
Above ratings are only my first impressions as I only got it s/h a few days ago.
The only real problem so far is the original Sigma lens hood is very loose, and my initial efforts to "fix" that have been only partially successful.
Edited 31 Aug 2017: put some tape around parts of the inside of the hood bayonet, and that seems to have sorted the looseness.
I hope it will replace my 18-135 in general use on the K-30, and occasionally on the K-3/K-3 II, but what I would be really interested in would be any comparisons with the later HSM &/or OS versions of this lens or its derivatives - so, your comments please
Edited 31 Aug 2017: did a back-to-back test for front/back focusing on the K-30 and the K3 II using a 1m rule at about 5m distance (no problems there on either body), and found that the lens seems to out-resolve the K-30 sensor as the equivalent images on the K-3 II were notably sharper!
It's now my go-to walkabout lens for days out, even though it's larger and heavier than the original model 18-135 but it seems sharper (never totally "satisfied" with the latter, especially the contrast).
Edited Jan 2018: Should have said that I paid around $100 US in mid-2017 - and, for that amount, I think it was a bargain.
PS: the "average price" is now well out-of-date, being that it is quite an old lens - probably should now be around the price I paid if you want to buy one in 2018
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: October, 2013 Location: Ontario Posts: 726
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 22, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $300.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp, fast(ish), great IQ | | Cons: | Maybe the 72mm filters... | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| |
At solid 9/10 for the Sigma, like most other reviewers I would say this lens is as good as a zoom lens can be.
This is by far my favourite lens past and present, it's not perfect but it is very good.
Even wide open the pictures are sharp and colour rendition is spot on. Low aberrations and/or fringing (Except maybe at 70). (lets say it's a 10/10 for a mid-zoom)
There is a bit of distortion at both ends but nothing which isn't expected from a zoom lens.
Bokeh is smooth and buttery and blends the OOF areas nicely.
Handling is nice, the lens feels good although a bit on the heavy side. Zooming is smooth and unless shaken quite badly it doesn't creep.
Focus ring travel is a bit short for manual focussing and on both my K5 and Kr, sometimes the AF hunts a bit so if you're into live action/sport photography it might bug you. For anything else, it's top notch.
Even if the name says Macro, it is not well suited for macro photography, the focus range is too short for it's minimal focussing distance.
This lens is always in my bag and is always on one of my cameras whenever I am planning on doing some landscape and/or casual portraiture. I even use it for studio portrait shots.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: December, 2008 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 1,548
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 10, 2012 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp, nice image tone | | Cons: | A bit large, slow to focus | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 7
Value: 10
| |
I've neglected this lens and the reason comes down to handling- it's fairly large and has no quick shift focus. Plus it's very front heavy.
However, when I do use it and review the photos, ALL IS FORGIVEN.
Awesome image quality. Totally kills the kit lens and is as good as any of my primes.
Other notes - a little weak when compared with a prime if the sun is in shot - tends to loose contrast, but no worse than other zooms.
VERY close focusing, will focus on a subject touching the front element - leading to having your shadow in the photo... Really brutally sharp at close distances also.
Can only use camera's pop up flash if subject is about 1m away - otherwise you get the lens shadow - this is made worse by adding filters as they tend to stick out quite a bit. But this problem is actually due to the fact it's so versatile - if it didn't focus so close, you wouldn't notice the problem of getting shadows in shot.
| | | | | New Member Registered: June, 2012 Posts: 8
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 11, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $500.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Does everything you need until telephoto takes over | | Cons: | Not constant f2.8 (but a 17-70 never would be) | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
First let me just say, there is literally no such thing as the perfect lens. Think about it: there can't be. Some people say "the perfect lens would be 18-300 at f2.8".
Well, OK, EVEN if that could exist, which it couldn't, it'd be far from perfect. It'd be huge, it would weigh 20kg, it'd be soft, it'd cost $50,000 and EVEN then, it's not really perfect is it - 18mm is not wide enough for everything, and 300mm is not long enough for everything - and f2.8 isn't as fast as primes can be.
SO - why am I talking about this when reviewing this lens?
Well it is my opinion, that this lens does the MOST things the BEST way, and is thus the closest a lens gets to perfect.
We've got zoom range:
Over 4 times. 17 is useful. 70 is useful. So full marks there.
Speed:
f2.8 at the short end, f4.5 at the long end. Pretty good.
Sharpness:
This is the real kicker for me, because it could be faster - but it is SHARP, at all apertures.
Handling:
Excellent - small and light.
Other stuff (colour, aberations, barrel distortion):
All very very well contained.
Cost:
If you handed me this lens and told me to use it for 2 months, and didn't tell me how much it was - I'd offer you $1000 for it. So at under $500, it's a steal.
Here endeth the review.
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: January, 2010 Posts: 5
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 2, 2011 | Not Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 4 |
| Pros: | Macro, Fast 2.8 at wide end | | Cons: | poor quality control resulting in frequent bad copies | | Sharpness: 3
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 7
Value: 4
| |
I'm told there are good copies of this lense in existence. Mine is certainly not one of them.
It is very soft on the right hand side, and at the top of the frame (the left hand side is OK). It also back focuses. And as I by habit rotated the camera anti-clockwise when taking portraits, I consequently always ended up with blurry, out of focus faces (I since been rotating clockwise with better results).
For nearly 2 years I have struggled with this lense, assuming there was something very wrong with my technique. But after purchasing the Pentax 55-300 and seeing the massive difference, I finally obtained some charts and gave this lense a solid test. Just awful.
Sadly I live some distance from any dealers or repairers, so I will have to live with it. But I would strongly urge anyone considering buying this lense to test the lense before purchase, or at lease ensure they are able to easily return the lense.
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: October, 2010 Location: Jakarta Posts: 96
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 13, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $250.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Faster autofocus than kit, also bigger so looks like serious piece of lens, good range, good aperture, sharp enough | | Cons: | heavy, zoom creep | |
Sharper, better bokeh, faster autofocus, better for low light and better build than the 18-55 DA kit. Good macro too (better put some protective filter for macro works, it can get very close to the subject). If you want a better lens, you'd have to use a shorter zoom range (like the 17-50s) or primes, both will cost more.
For the price, an excellent wide zoom lens.
edit:
Come to think of it, if you want a longer range you'd have to give up some image qualities, and still have to pay more. So I guess this is kinda the jack-of-all-trade, the optimum point, of lenses.  | | | | | Senior Member Registered: February, 2011 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 123
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 16, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $275.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Wider, longer, macro | | Cons: | Heavy and kinda slow | |
This was the first lens I bought to replace my kit lens and it was a really good choice. It adds in some important areas.
- A bit wider
- A big longer. If you feel like 55mm is "just a tad short" then 70mm is just right.
- A bit sharper
- A bit faster. Not a LOT faster but faster.
All in all an excellent upgrade without breaking the bank. On the down side it's quite heavy and loud to focus. If you have a small-ish K-x or K-r then this Sigma feels big and heavy.
You have to live with these trade-offs with this lens but, for the money they got a lot right with this one.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: August, 2008 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 141
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 28, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $240.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Speed, bokeh, construction and flexibility | | Cons: | None stand out | |
I'm not sure I have ever rated a lens a 10 before, but I decided to in this instance because while it's a very good lens, it's truly incredible for what it cost. I bought my copy used about 2 years ago. It has been my walk around lens which stays on the camera most of the time since I got it.
It's much more satisfying than the kit lens. It does a really nice job in a wide variety of situations. I strongly considered the Sigma 18-50 2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8, but ended up going with this lens for the extra reach. In a perfect world it would have the extra reach and the speed as you zoom, but if it did, the cost would be much much higher.
One of the things that impresses me so much with this lens is how versatile it is. It has good range, good speed, and while it's not a true macro lens it has the ability to take good close ups, it's well made and while not tiny, it's not massive either. It's a lens that in my opinion gives the photographer more than he or she actually paid. I'm consistently pleased with the the photos this lens takes.  | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: April, 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,901
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 24, 2010 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Good range, resonably sharp and, great build | | Cons: | | |
This is a very good choice to up-grade from kit lens. The range is very good and it is moderatley fast. This is the lens I chose after having the kit only a few weeks.
Its a little bit heavy but thats because of the great build quality and glass. I really can't say anything bad about it except it isn't a constant 2.8, otherwise I might still have it, and that darn LBA
Lets have a picture do the talking. Shot with K10D
 | | |
