| Author: | | Pentaxian Registered: December, 2007 Location: In the most populated state... state of denial Posts: 1,854 | | Review Date: February 21, 2024 | Recommended | Price: $170.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Versatile, image quality, distortion control | | Cons: | soft in the corners at low end, | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K3-iii
Autofocus: 10
New Or Used: Used
| |
Found one used for a decent price as an upgrade to the 18-55.
Very Good upgrade, very versatile for walking around with only 1 lens.
F/2.8 only at 17mm and F/4 in all other focals
AF is fast and handles very well
At wide angle, it is soft outside of the center and color fringing is noticeable in the corners
Above 25mm it is good all around
| | | | | | | Forum Member Registered: April, 2018 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 66
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 20, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $349.99
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Versatile, Good to Great Image Quality, Great AF, Compact | | Cons: | Kinda Soft Wide Open, Huge Filter Thread Size, Zooms "The Wrong Way", No WR | |
I saw this lens on special from B & H for its lowest price ever: $350. I saw the reviews and it was the In Depth Review that compelled me to pull the trigger. I try not to buy things within the same day of finding them but given that this was one day special, I had to take a plunge. I am glad I did. This has become a staple in my kit. I do freelance, event and concert photography; I've been able to use it for all of them. This lens is always in my bag or on my K-70.
The Good:
- Super versatile thanks to the focal length and the relatively fast aperture. On my K-70, it can do just about anything other than fast paced action in low light.
- Image quality on the whole is pretty good. Interestingly enough, it gets noticeably better on the long end. This thing actually takes pretty legit portraits. But it produces admirable results at all focal lengths. Though on the wide end, you're going to need to stop down.
- The Autofocus is amazing and probably it's best selling point. It's fast, rarely hunts, works well in low lighting and it's silent. One of the best AF experiences, I have had yet.
- Build quality is nice. Not like Pentax DA Star nice but it feels solidly built yet it looks sleek.
The Bad:
- Softer on the wide end. I am not sure I would rely on this as my main landscape lens. The resolving power just isn't there. It's not bad but it's definitely not as good as it is on the narrow end.
- It's bit heavy for a lens this size. I agree with the decision of the variable aperture (I'm sure this would have been huge otherwise) but it's still hefty. Not an issue for me but I can see some people not enjoying that.
- Huge 72 mm filter size.Mostly a con because bigger filters = more cost.
- You have to turn it the opposite way of most zooms in order for it to zoom. I'm used to it but depending on how used you are to this, it can be a little jarring in the beginning.
Verdict:
I love this lens. My issues with it are small and almost entirely build and handling related. If it were weather sealed, I'd say it's damn near perfect. Even so, it's a great purchase. It just has some steep competition. Highly recommended, overall.
| | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2013 Location: Worcestershire, England Posts: 18 | | Review Date: June 5, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $250.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | lightweight, and sharp | | Cons: | Not weatherproof | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: K3
Autofocus: 10
New Or Used: Used
| |
Great lens!! bought this to use as my carry around lens. Already own a sigma 24-70 2.8 ff but I have to say that this little lens is just great to use. the focusing is fantastic, quick and accurate. Silly price  | | | | | Senior Member Registered: February, 2013 Location: Canada Posts: 198 | | Review Date: December 22, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $399.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharp, build quality, Price | | Cons: | not WR | |
Lens produces great images and handles well. I see some negative review so maybe patchy quality control but i have a good one.
| | | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: April, 2011 Location: Canberra, Australia Posts: 582
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 21, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $350.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Price, Size, Zoom range, Sharpness | | Cons: | No longer comes with bag/pouch | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: K5 IIs
Autofocus: 9
New Or Used: New
| |
Great wide-to-(just beyond)-Normal zoom.
Fantastic to have that little more reach than a 17-50 and the slower aperture at the far end is a compromise I'm happy with.
Size and weight suits the K5 perfectly.
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: January, 2008 Location: belgium Posts: 96 | | Review Date: June 26, 2016 | Not Recommended | Price: $450.00
| Rating: 4 |
| Pros: | ? | | Cons: | weak colours, a lack of contrast | | Sharpness: 4
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 5
Handling: 6
Value: 4
Camera Used: K5
Autofocus: 7
New Or Used: New
| |
I had the chance to use this lens for a couple of months, and to compare it with my trusted Pentax 17-70 mm. I'm really disappointed with the Sigma 17-70. Maybe I got a bad copy but the pictures I made with the lens are really soft: weak colours and a lack of contrast. This lens is a waste of the money.
| | | | | New Member Registered: November, 2015 Location: L'assomption, QC, j5w5z8 Posts: 24
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 24, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $400.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Sharpness, IQ, focal lenght. | | Cons: | Flare and ghost issue | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 6
Camera Used: K50
Autofocus: 9
New Or Used: New
| |
First of all i'm posting this revue after a moderator asked me. I will firstly put the original post that originated this revue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To put a final note on the flare and ghost issue, i found a site '' lenstip.com'', where they decipher all the characteristics of lenses. So for this Sigma lens and others like the 18-250 and 18-200, they all have some flare and ghosts issues. Mine was not different than the others.
I have to say, that prior to buying this lens i read many reviews, and no one was talking about bad flaring and ghosting.
So for IQ, sharpness and other stuff, it's a great lens, but if you want to take nice sunbirsts, forget it, because it will be bad, in some cases it gets really bad.
So, if you have a kit lens, find it's sweetspot and work with it. One thing is sure, Pentax lenses do a lot better job on flaring and ghosting than Sigma.
It's only my opinion.
Have a nice day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't get me wrong, this lens has a lot going for it, I've cropped images a lot and still the details are great. But the flare is not well controlled on mine.
So for the price i paid, it's rather disappointing.
Like i said, the review on lenstip.com, was probably the only negative one i saw on flaring and ghosting, but that's exactly what i got with mine.
Here are some examples.
I'm not telling you not to buy this lens, just be aware and not surprised if you have this issue with it.
Have a nice day.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: May, 2015 Location: Paris Posts: 49
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 18, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $320.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharpness, AutoFocus | | Cons: | Sliding Aperture | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K30
Autofocus: 9
New Or Used: Used
| |
This lens is my first walkaround lens I bought after seeing some shots taken with it. I am fully satisfied with it. I have some sample photos in my flickr
https://www.flickr.com/photos/117312932@N02/sets/72157652959725972
The sharpness is excellent, the focus is very precise, no back/front focus (as reported on the tamron 17-50 f2.8). For walkaround, weddings, this lens is near perfect. I said near perfect because if it had a constant aperture then it would be. But for that, you probably need to pay quite a bit to get the same quality. This lens is very good value for money, you will not regret it.
For low light, if you have a good camera that can handle high iso (like the K30), this is not a problem anymore.
Aside of that, this lens is polyvalent and is constantly mounted on my k30 | | | | | Inactive Account Registered: April, 2015 Posts: 9
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 11, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $341.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Brilliant All Rounder | | Cons: | Lens Hood | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax KR
Autofocus: 10
New Or Used: Used
| |
I'm not into over-analysis of equipment. Sometimes this can be like a group of artists arguing for hours about the relative attributes of their paint brushes. At the end of the day it is the artist/photographer who makes the difference. After all these years of lens development I don't think there are many "bad" lenses, just relative degrees of "good". After all, who amongst us has their prints blown up to poster size or are published or sold on? For the vast majority of photographers, most photographs in this digital age remain on the computer, and if printed, seldom above 4x 5. I have owned many cameras over the years and have mostly used the supplied kit lens as I find the cost of many lenses prohibitive. However having owned a Pentax K-r for 5 years and used only the kit lens I decided this very clever camera deserved something a bit better. So I bought a second hand Sigma 17-70 C off e-bay for £220. All I can say is it is quiet,efficient and very sharp as illustrated by the photographs of other contributors to this thread. For a general purpose, non specialist, all-round useful lens I don't know what else anyone could expect off such a relatively cheap lens. For me it does just about everything I want from a lens except true 1: 1 Macro, super wide or super telephoto. A brilliant every day accompaniment to your Pentax camera.
| | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2012 Posts: 14
5 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 16, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $300.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Focal range, HSM, size, weight, sharpness | | Cons: | Perfomance at 17mm. Color rendering is not "pentax". | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-5
Autofocus: 10
New Or Used: Used
| |
It is always difficult to judge "standard" lenses, and I guess even more difficult to design them. Mainly because of the increasing quality of kit lenses. Pentax (or any other brand) 18-55 gives you a good amount of sharpness, compactness and reliability, as these kit-lenses are the first instrument to introduce newbies to photography.
I've tried to move into using fixed-focal lenses and succeeded in it. But as my daughter was growing up I clearly understood that I need a bright lightning-fast-focus vario-focal lens. I've tried several lenses, including pentax's star 16-50 and 17-70 sdm, and none of them were nearly as good as Sigma. Don't get me wrong those are great lenses, but Sigma is clearly better for me. And those 20 mm on the long end are "must have" for kids photos.
Sharpness. Sigma 17-70 C is not a perfect lens. Performance at 17mm is "meh". But it is usable. From 24 to 70 even wide open it's damn good. Just don't expect it to perform like a prime. The downside is color rendering, a bit yellowish and definitely not "pentax".
HSM. I don't know how in other lenses, but my copy is super fast and very accurate. Throw is short, almost no annoying hunting even in the dark . I wish all Pentax zoom lenses had that kind of auto-focus. Because of this I rate it a 10.
If you want a good all-around vario-focal lens try Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro HSM C and maybe it will fit you as well as it did for me.
All attached photos are post-processed.
70mm f/4
 [/url]
26mm f/3.5
 [/url]
28mm f/3.5
 [/url]
17mm f/7.1
 [/url]
Close focus at 70mm f/4
 [/url]
17mm f/4.5
 [/url]
All of the photos with full size available - https://fotki.yandex.ru/users/sunfog/tags/sigma%2017-70mm%20f2.8-4%20dc%20macro%20hsm%20c
Thank you for reading!
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: September, 2012 Posts: 1,728 | | Review Date: December 17, 2014 | Not Recommended | Price: $380.00
| Rating: 3 |
| Pros: | Quite sharp mid to long focal lenghts | | Cons: | Very low resolution at wide end | | Sharpness: 4
Handling: 10
Value: 3
Camera Used: K-3
Autofocus: 9
New Or Used: New
| |
This was a refurb lens bought directly from Sigma but I had to send it back. I would have certainly kept it if not for terrible resolution at the wide end. Down around 18 mm, it made my DA 18-135 look like a $1000 lens. It wasn't a front/back focus issue, either, as I checked it using CDAF as well. Built quality is top-notch.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: March, 2014 Location: Bolivia, NC Posts: 59 | | Review Date: July 1, 2014 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Build, sharpness, quality | | Cons: | None so far | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 9
Camera Used: K-3
Autofocus: 10
New Or Used: New
| |
Lens is a huge upgrade from the kit lens. The quality of this lens is great and has a nice solid feel to it. I would recommend this lens!!!
| | | | | Otis Memorial Pentaxian Registered: March, 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Posts: 42,007
14 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 9, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $499.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Sharp, good contrast, build, price | | Cons: | Weight, FOV at long end, no red dot | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-3
Autofocus: 9
New Or Used: New
| |
This lens is positioned as a moderately-priced option for users needing a better performing alternative to the Pentax DA 18-55/3.5-5.6 kit lens. Formal reviews have been consistent in their praise in regards to build and optical performance, so it was with a high level of anticipation that I ordered my copy at the same time as my K-3.
Build
Despite being a moderately-priced lens, I would rate the build quality of the 17-70 (C) as being very good to excellent. The lens body is mostly plastic, but it is dang nice plastic. There is nothing cheap feeling about this lens. All controls operate very smoothly and are pleasure to use. I might also mention that there is no wobble, even at full extension. My only reservation regarding build is in regards to the lens hood. The hood has a fairly flimsy feel.
Note: I was recently asked about the serial number location. Hmmm...that is a good question. After a diligent search I found a series of very tiny engraved numbers on the barrel above the "Sigma" label just below the zoom ring. The serial number is also flashed onto the lens' "chip" and is available to the Sigma USB Dock appliance.
In The Field
Over all, real world usage of the Sigma 17-70 (C) is a very pleasant experience.
It is a little on the bulky side, but balances nicely on both the K-3 and on the K10D. Auto-focus is very quiet, fast, and accurate on both cameras and is one of the big pleasure factors when using this lens. Both focus and zoom rings operate opposite that of Pentax lenses. At first I thought this was no big deal, but in practice, I often find myself turning the "wrong" way. Manual focus is quite doable despite there being only about 45 degrees of throw (great dampening helps), but finding the focus ring is a little tough at times. This is a problem with most AF zooms and certainly not a deal breaker.
While we are on the subject of focus, it should be noted that the Pentax Forums in-depth review of this lens (26 July 2013) incorrectly states that it supports "Quick Shift" type focus where manual focus is possible when the lens is set for auto focus. This is not true. Quick-shift focus is not available on the Sigma 17-70 (C) and attempting to perform manual focus with the AF system engaged may result in damage to the AF mechanism.
One area in which the Sigma 17-70 (C) really shines is at close focus. I know it is advertised as "Macro" and it does provide 1:2.8 @ 0.72 feet. In fact, I would estimate the maximum magnification at about 1:2 with the front element about an inch from the subject, but greatest utility is found at more moderate distances.
Mounting the Sigma 17-70 (C) turns out to be a little more involved than with my other K-mount lenses. The reason being that Sigma appears to have run out of red paint. There is no red index dot on the lens mount to match to the red dot on the body. This is a significant departure from K-mount convention and a pain in the field. Instead of the red dot on the mount, there is a small raised white dot at the rear edge of the lens barrel that is intended to fulfill the same purpose.
Hmmm...could we perhaps have both at some point? Please? The white dot is nice because it is tactile and also because the focus/zoom index mark is also white and not very prominent. The combination of the two is almost adequate. Note: The lens pictured with the general specifications (page 1), is not the K-mount version of the lens. The white dot is in the wrong place.
Religious use of the supplied hood is strongly recommended due to the prominence of the front element and its exposure. Unfortunately, the lens hood also suffers from mounting issues. Most bayonet-type hoods are fairly easy to mount and require only a moderate level of care to line up correctly. The hood for the 17-70 (C), on the other hand is fiddly and must be aligned carefully with its index in order to mount cleanly. While on the subject of fiddly I must mention that the supplied lens cap ties for last place in terms of usability and attachment with that for my Zenitar fisheye. With the hood off the lens, the cap can be attached with some care. With the hood on, cap attachment may or may not be successful on the first, second, or even third attempt. As might be expected (and much like the Zenitar) the cap is prone to popping off at the least provocation. Purchasers should expect to buy a replacement 72mm cap at some point. Happily Sigma has a new, dedicated K-mount rear cap to replace the combo SA/K-mount cap used in past models. Way to go Sigma!
Yes, the cap is 72mm. So are the filter threads. This is to be expected with any wide maximum aperture zoom. That f/2.8 comes at a price. As noted in the more technical reviews on the Web, the f/2.8 maximum is only available from 17mm to about 22mm focal length, at which point the lens signals a 1/2 stop step down (f/3.5) to the body. The step down to f/4 occurs at about 45mm.
In regards to focal length, one of the main draws of the 17-70 (C) is the prospect of the additional reach to 70mm. When shooting with the 18-55 kit, I often find myself wishing for a little additional length. It is there, but not quite as nice as I would have wished. I know this review is taking on the tone of being fairly negative, but there is on additional attribute of the 17-70 (C) that I cannot ignore.
The Sigma 17-70 (C) features an internal focus design. This is usually a good thing in that the lens does not "grow" longer when focusing closer. Nobody wants a Pinocchio lens. This feature comes at a price however, one that is common to many internal focus designs. That price is a wider FOV for closer subjects. The lens is functionally and predictably 70mm at infinity focus, but at moderately close distances the lens behaves much "shorter" than you would expect in terms of FOV. My rough comparisons indicate a FOV equivalent to that of a 55mm prime at 1.5 meters subject distance. So, at normal portrait distance, the lens behaves more like a 17-55mm zoom than its expected range.
One last field-relevant point...Some reviews have stated that the 17-70 has no zoom creep. That is only partially true. When the lens is firmly nested in at its 17mm zoom position, it generally stays put even when pointed straight down. Move the zoom off the 17mm position and it follows the mandate of gravity and is not particularly slow about it. Ditto for when it is pointed upward. Tape is a recommendation for long, downward/upward pointed exposures.
Optical Performance
Did I mention that I like this lens? Well, here is the main reason why. Through most of its range, the Sigma 17-70 (C) performs admirably.- Sharp? Yep, except as noted below.
- Good contrast? Yep.
- Nasty CA? Nope. (Some LaCA at the wide end, but easily dealt with.)
- Nasty PF? Nope.
- Flare? Not bad, consistent with lens class.
- Distortion? Better than average for lens class.
There has been much discussion regarding soft results at the wide end for this lens. I have generally been happy with its wide angle performance, but have noticed that the corners are noticeably soft when shooting the combination of close and wide. The softness shows as a sort of radial smearing as opposed to looking out of focus. At the long end the 17-70 (C) is still plenty sharp, just not as sharp as at midpoint 35mm focal length.
Summary
Despite the long list of nit-pickings above, the Sigma 17-70 (C) garners a strong recommendation from this user. It features performance far above its price point and is a great option for all but the most demanding users. As noted in other reviews, this would be the ultimate Pentax-compatible normal zoom if it only had WR.
Pros:- Relative fast maximum aperture range
- Optical performance
- Relatively compact
- Build quality
- High value (performance : price)
- Extended zoom range
- Close focus capabilities
Cons:- Bulk
- No WR
- No red dot
- Zoom creep
- Wider than expected FOV at moderate and close subject distance
- Included lens cap is fiddly
- 72mm filter thread
Alternatives
The Sigma 17-70 (C) is often offered as a reasonable alternative to the Pentax DA 18-135/3.5-5.6 WR and Pentax DA 17-70/4. The converse is also true, though the combination of optical performance and price should weigh heavy against the DA 17-70/4. The DA 18-135/3.5-5.6 is a more complicated choice. I would suggest that potential purchasers handle both lenses before committing to purchase.
After having lived with the 17-70 (C) for a little over a month at this point and having grown very fond of the lens, I still have a nagging sense that I should have spent the additional $20 for the Sigma 17-50/2.8. Just a little something to think about, eh?  | | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2014 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 5 | | Review Date: February 18, 2014 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | f/2.8, Sharpness, super Quite, Macro | | Cons: | none | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K5IIs
Autofocus: 10
New Or Used: New
| |
This lens is Outstanding on the K5IIs and also i use it on my K3 i am really happy with this lens ..i am think to buy one more just for my wife K3 cause she always want to use it | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: December, 2013 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 1,717
5 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 21, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $499.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharpness, Versatility | | Cons: | Filter size | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Autofocus: 10
New Or Used: New
| |
This is my everyday walkaround lens for my K-5 IIs. For that task, it is wonderfully adept, although this lens tends to be more for "picture-taking" than artsy photography, as I describe in the bokeh section.
First, the breakdown of the minimum f stops is:
f/2.8: 17-21mm
f/3.5: 22-45mm
f/4.0: 46-70mm
Sharpness: Fantastic at f/5.6 onward, quite good wide open. You won't be disappointed here. The lens hits its peak at 35mm, where it is stunningly sharp. Keep this lens in the 30-40 range and you'll be very pleased with the results.
Aberrations: There is visible barrel distortion at 17mm that vanishes quickly past the minimum focal length. The issues can be corrected in processing easily but 17mm is definitely more than usable. I recommend staying north of 20mm for the best results, however. Haven't observed CA but I'm not good at looking for them. I haven't personally observed pincushion distortion at high focal lengths, but I don't usually use this lens past 50mm. When I do, it's usually of an object that won't display the distortion.
Bokeh: The bokeh is pleasing when you can get it, but the lens is just not fast enough to allow for those cool creamy bokeh shots in general. You just won't get super blurry backgrounds unless you can make use of its limited macro capability (focus close). You can do bokeh shots for small objects. Anything larger than a stack of books, though, won't be the subject of a super blurry background shot with this lens. But this is not why you buy this lens: it's versatility you want in a zoom. If you want creamy and superb bokeh, find a good prime for that task.
Autofocus: Smooth and super accurate. It's rare that the lens will be thrown every now and then, but it doesn't wander too far. Setting the focus point to center and recomposing usually solves any issue you might have. The HSM motor is so silent that in low light situations when it's hard to see the focus in the viewfinder, I find myself unfocusing the lens in MF mode and then going back to AF to make sure it got it right. It always does! I trust it and the K-5IIs in low light situations. I can't remember coming home disappointed with blurry images!
Handling: The lens is solid and modestly heavy, if you're used to a kit lens or Pentax primes. The weight balances superbly, though, and it's not a burden to carry around. My only complaint here is that the zoom ring has no lock, so if you're standing over something, you need to hang on onto the front of the lens or else gravity will pull the zoom out. If you use a holster bag, the lens can sometimes unwind itself as you take it out of the bag. With that last point, the only thing I worry about is damaging the lens as I do so, but I think I'm being paranoid there.
Value: At $500, this lens is not cheap. But it is not overly expensive either, given that it is $100 less than the issue-prone Pentax 17-70 (which is f/4 throughout its range) and has more reach as the twice as expensive DA*16-50 (f/2.8 across its range, though). In short, this is a great value for its target and blows away its main competition.
The only negative point in its value is that is uses 72mm filters and these can get expensive fast. Pentax prizes compactness (and most lenses have filter sizes 58mm or smaller), so if you're stepping up from a kit lens with a collection of filters, your old filters are probably too small, necessitating replacement. The good point there, though, is that since this is the largest lens you will likely attach most filters to, you can use them on your primes with step-down rings.
| | |
;)
;)
