Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC

[PhilT]

Hi folks,
I would like to replace my Tamron 17-50 (on Nikon D7100) that made some problems lately, with an equivalent not too expensive.
I made a search and found the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM | C, but the reviews are somewhat confusing and mostly 4-5 years old. I do a search on CiC about it and found some good reports and some less, also not recent.
So it will be a great help if some of you would give an advice about it:
1- Is it worth or not?
2- Is there a more recent 17-70 (or around that) in the market? I did not find any, but perhaps I missed something?
3- Is there a better option within the same price's range?

Thanks a lot for your help.
PhilT

[Shadowman]

Only you can determine what makes for a good lens, for instance and a bit off topic, I have the 55-200mm kit lens and never liked it as it was too soft for my liking. As someone who has a problem accepting that I could possibly make a wrong purchasing decision I kept it, hoping something could be done or something I could change about my technique that would make the lens worth keeping and I found it, I started using it with flash and it produces some more than decent shots.

Regarding your dilemma, I would perhaps utilize DxO and compare a few lenses that have been tested with your camera, perhaps the scores tabulated by DxO will help make the decision a bit easier for you.

[Manfred M]

Nikon makes an f/2.8 - f/4 16-80mm and an f/3.5 - f/5.6 16-85mm. If you want to go super cheap, the kit 18-55mm is remarkably good for the money, although I am not a fan of the plastic lens mount.

They make so many kit lenses that they are remarkably advanced with aspherical injection moulded elements that are often only found in very high end lenses. Unlike John, I find the optical quality of the kit lenses quite good. Where they suffer is in speed (maximum aperture) and durability (plastic lens mount). They are not great to focus manually either.

[Shadowman]

Nikon makes an f/2.8 - f/4 16-80mm and an f/3.5 - f/5.6 16-85mm. If you want to go super cheap, the kit 18-55mm is remarkably good for the money, although I am not a fan of the plastic lens mount.

They make so many kit lenses that they are remarkably advanced with aspherical injection moulded elements that are often only found in very high end lenses. Unlike John, I find the optical quality of the kit lenses quite good. Where they suffer is in speed (maximum aperture) and durability (plastic lens mount). They are not great to focus manually either.

I like the 18-55 kit lens, it's the 55-200mm I find lacks good contrast, sharpness under normal daylight conditions.

[Manfred M]

I like the 18-55 kit lens, it's the 55-200mm I find lacks good contrast, sharpness under normal daylight conditions.

It could be your lens as I own it as well and have never had any issues with the 55-200mm. Lack of sharpness is often camera movement at longer focal lengths. Test it on a solid tripod to see if you have the same issues. Some people complain that the 55-300mm is a bit soft at the long end, but I have not used it so can't compare. It is definitely sharper than my wife's 18-200mm lens.

[dje]

Hi Philippe

I used to own the Sigma model lens you mention when I had a Canon 600D a few years ago. I was very happy with it and it was my go to lens most of the time. It had good sharpness and AF was fast. It's been around quite a while now and it is good value for money in my view. I have no experience with it on a Nikon camera though.

Dave

[PhilT]

Thanks as lot. it helps me.
Is there a significant difference of quality for a lens if it is mounted on Canon or Nikon?

[dje]

No I don't think there would any significant difference in the optical performance of the lens but the Auto Focus (AF) may behave a little differently.

Dave

[Acorn]

I, too, find Nikon kit lenses remarkably good. I have an 18-105 f3.5 and have found it to be a surprisingly sharp lens. It is even more so when used in conjunction with a flash for fill-in.

[rpcrowe]

I find my 17-55mm (very close in focal range to 18-55mm) as a very restrictive focal length but, I do like its image quality and fast accurate AF. That focal range is fine for shooting in tandem with my 70-200mm but the 88mm equivalent is just not long enough for me in a one lens setup. Of course, I do like my long focal lengths, perhaps more than many other photographers do and probably use wide focal lengths more seldom than most.

Except for the image quality (mostly lack of contrast) I can live with the 28mm side of the 28-135mm IS lens - even on a crop camera and it is great for a full frame camera...

[xpatUSA]

Hi folks,
I would like to replace my Tamron 17-50 (on Nikon D7100) that made some problems lately, with an equivalent not too expensive.
I made a search and found the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM | C, but the reviews are somewhat confusing and mostly 4-5 years old. I do a search on CiC about it and found some good reports and some less, also not recent.

I used the subject lens on a Sigma SD1 Merrill DSLR for about a year. An excellent all-round lens - good close-ups at 70mm and no hotspots if used for IR work. Sigma makes a USB adapter for adjusting the lens AF at various focal lengths - it is independent of the camera, I believe.

Good review here with a great blur measurement widget:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/len...-hsm-c/review/

The 'C' denotes that the lens is part of Sigma's recent 'Global Vision' series - much improved materials and quality than in the past. It's not really a Macro - it can't focus 1:1 magnification.

https://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/ma...macro-os-hsm-c

.

[shreds]

A long time ago, a camera shop advised quite correctly in my retrospective view, to go for the Nikon 17-55mm rather than the 18-55. Like a lot of things in those days, I took the cheaper kit option but within a year recognised the advice was right and part ex'd the 18-55mm for a 17-55mm. Nice lens, did the job etc. Sometimes it is worth the extra saving up for.

Then I went FF and found the 17-55mm was specifically designed for the crop sensor cameras and I reluctantly let it go and obtained the 'holy trinity' of the three main zoom focal lengths for the Nikon FF.

Of these I strangely found the 14-24mm the one that I used most and still do. Its a marvellous lens although a lot more pricey than it was in those days. Its lack of distortion and inclusion of everything make this my go to lens.

(Except for portraits or the longer distance stuff. Actually I love the 70-200mm for portraits too, it gives so much flexibility, but unless you know your subject, they can be put off by the size of such a lens pointing at them. (the Nikon 105mm f2 DC is much more acceptable and sooooo sharp too).

[xpatUSA]

A long time ago, a camera shop advised quite correctly in my retrospective view, to go for the Nikon 17-55mm rather than the 18-55. Like a lot of things in those days, I took the cheaper kit option but within a year recognised the advice was right

My experience is similar, also a while ago.

I bought a Sigma DSLR for more sharpness in my watch shots because the Nikon D50 was always a bit soft, even with the well-respected 60mm f/2.8 macro (G?) lens. Sold that lens and bought an 18-55mm kit lens for general photography with the D50, at which point I discovered 'veiling flare' - which I had never heard of hitherto. That lens got sold within a month, closely followed by the D50.

[PhilT]

Many thanks to everyone who helps to have a better understanding.
My search did not reveal any really new lens in this range, all are from 5 or more years old.
Not being very good for interpreting the various and many times conflicting reviews, I would appreciate if the ones here who knows about it can give an enlighten opinion about the best choice (without considering the price) between the lenses cited in this thread (for Nikon D7100 camera in my case):
1- Sigma 17-70mm - f/2.8-4 DC/"c"
2- Nikon 16-80mm - f/2.8-4
3- Nikon 16-85mm - f/3.5-5.6
4- is there another bird I missed????
PhilT