Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro: I am thinking of buying this lens, mainly for indoor basketball. I could be too closed-minded but I already have three other Sigma's and am very pleased...

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I am thinking of buying this lens, mainly for indoor basketball. I could be too closed-minded but I already have three other Sigma's and am very pleased with them. What do folks think of this lens?

Chefneil

I have a SIGMA, or had 2, one a 17-35, which I did not like. Nut now I have to 100-400 zoom and love it!

I just wonder will 70mm give you enough reach. And is it fast enough for inside conditions?

olc

rcorne001 Loc: Cary, NC

I have this lens and use it for indoor sports photos. I am usually pretty close to the action and don't need the reach of a long zoom and enjoy the wider shots I get at 17mm. What camera are you going to use with it? I use mine on a Nikon D500. It has one "quirk", while not affecting the image, does take a little getting used to. I have a relatively short duration for playback after taking a shot set (10 seconds). However, this lens will not AUTOMATICALLY turn off the display for 1 minute. I have to lightly touch some other button on the D500 to turn off the playback. In NO WAY does it affect the quality of the image, but it did kind of spook me a bit at first until I figured out what happens. I use back button focus, so just lightly touch the shutter button turns it off. Like I said I do really like the lens and usually have it on one D500 while keeping my 70-200 f2.8 on the other. That combo gives me the coverage I need for almost all shots.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Chefneil wrote:

I have a SIGMA, or had 2, one a 17-35, which I did not like. Nut now I have to 100-400 zoom and love it!

I just wonder will 70mm give you enough reach. And is it fast enough for inside conditions?

olc

My main lens is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. It is great for shooting the far basket but the 70 is way too long for the closer action. I actually have to leave the floor and stand in bleachers. The good thing about that is the elevation. No way I can use this lens near the basket. I am in a dim gym but the lens is fast enough. Most of my exposures are shutter priority at 1/500, f/2.8 and ISO 4000-6400. The body is a Canon 80D. Noise is acceptable.

For comparison, I used my Sigma 18-300 f/3.5-6.3. Consistently underexposed by one or two stops. I could push the ISO but the noise becomes too much.

Why did you not like the 17-35? How old was it?

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

rcorne001 wrote:

I have this lens and use it for indoor sports phot... (show quote)

I am using it a Canon 80D. In the world of Canon, that quirk would be entirely due to setting the display to "hold". In other words, the image stays up until you hit any key. You might want to poke around. That 70-200 is a honey of a lens. And so is the 150-600 C. Even if Sigma did not make the best lenses, they still are pretty nice.

rcorne001 Loc: Cary, NC

abc1234 wrote:

I am using it a Canon 80D. In the world of Canon, that quirk would be entirely due to setting the display to "hold". In other words, the image stays up until you hit any key. You might want to poke around. That 70-200 is a honey of a lens. And so is the 150-600 C. Even if Sigma did not make the best lenses, they still are pretty nice.

I did quite a bit of research and eventually found I was not the only one to run into this. (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57890011 and https://www.nikonians.org/forums/?az=show_topic&forum=157&topic_id=50730&mesg_id=50730) Even with the quirk, I like the results and coverage with this lens to overlook it. Especially once I understood what was going on. I find it is a great lens for me and accompanies me on almost every shoot.

Chefneil

abc1234 wrote:

My main lens is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. It is gre... (show quote)

Perhaps I am a little new to wide angle lenses, but the distortion was a problem, Mostly though, it was much softer than I thought it should be. I traded it for a used Canon 17-40, and right off the bat I saw a tremendous difference in IQ.

leftj Loc: Texas

Chefneil wrote:

I have a SIGMA, or had 2, one a 17-35, which I did not like. Nut now I have to 100-400 zoom and love it!

I just wonder will 70mm give you enough reach. And is it fast enough for inside conditions?

olc

Actually, for indoor basketball in a high school gym a 50mm prime is probably the best. For College or pro ball in the nose bleed section I'm not sure.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Chefneil wrote:

Perhaps I am a little new to wide angle lenses, but the distortion was a problem, Mostly though, it was much softer than I thought it should be. I traded it for a used Canon 17-40, and right off the bat I saw a tremendous difference in IQ.

The distortion and sharpness both depend upon the quality of the lens. The clue is whether a lens says something like f/3.5-5.6 or f/3.5. I will not go into details but cheaper lenses have a range of maximum apertures. More expensive and better lenses have the same maximum aperture throughout the zoom range. Since I am looking at the latter, I expect to have satisfactory distortion and sharpness. In any event, I test the lens with a target before deciding to keep.

Sounds like this is what you experienced. You might want to provide more information about the lenses. From what people and reviews say and if you can remove the brand-loyalty issue, the OEM and third-party lenses can be pretty close in quality.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

leftj wrote:

Actually, for indoor basketball in a high school gym a 50mm prime is probably the best. For College or pro ball in the nose bleed section I'm not sure.

I would not use a prime lens in this situation. The shooting distance is all up and down the place so I would miss a lot of shots. Based upon my limited experience, 50 would be too long for the action near the basket.

leftj Loc: Texas

abc1234 wrote:

I would not use a prime lens in this situation. The shooting distance is all up and down the place so I would miss a lot of shots. Based upon my limited experience, 50 would be too long for the action near the basket.

50mm works fine for me. You don't have time to be zooming back and forth on your lens and get action shots when they happen.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

leftj wrote:

50mm works fine for me. You don't have time to be zooming back and forth on your lens and get action shots when they happen.

Never been a problem for me. My bigger problem is cutting off feet, hands and heads because my 70-200 is way too long for the close action. That is why I spend half the game on the floor to get the action away from the near basket and the other half in the bleachers to get the action under the basket.

I would like to try a prime for my other photography but that is still a low priority. If you want to see sharpness, look at Lecia lenses.

leftj Loc: Texas

abc1234 wrote:

Never been a problem for me. My bigger problem is cutting off feet, hands and heads because my 70-200 is way too long for the close action. That is why I spend half the game on the floor to get the action away from the near basket and the other half in the bleachers to get the action under the basket.

I would like to try a prime for my other photography but that is still a low priority. If you want to see sharpness, look at Lecia lenses.

Which camera body are you using Leica lenses on?

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

leftj wrote:

Which camera body are you using Leica lenses on?

Never have but I have seen a comparison with Canon and Nikon. These two lenses were comparably sharp but noticeably inferior to the Leica. A guy by the name of Graham uses Leica a lot. You might want to look for him elsewhere here. PS Leica is also not in the same price range of the others.

Indi Loc: L. I., NY, Palm Beach Cty when it's cold.

abc1234 wrote:

I am thinking of buying this lens, mainly for indoor basketball. I could be too closed-minded but I already have three other Sigma's and am very pleased with them. What do folks think of this lens?

I have this lens. It's my favorite. It's great for car shows, close interiors (f2.8), and wide angles. It will give you that extra light you need for interiors BUT, as has been pointed out, if you're in the stands you really won't have enough reach unless you are 1st row courtside.