sigma 17-70 for canon, new version: This week, I tripped and fell on my camera. Fortunately, my 18-55 lens took the brunt of it and died. The camera survived with no injuries. I'm...

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

This week, I tripped and fell on my camera. Fortunately, my 18-55 lens took the brunt of it and died. The camera survived with no injuries. I'm thinking of getting a sigma 17-70 to replace it. I do like landscapes, as you likely know, and it would do very well for that. I also like that the zoom takes my up to my 70-250 kit lens that I have. What do you think? I read a bunch of feedback, but I would like to hear from any of you that have one or know about them.

Joe F.N. Loc: Oshawa, Ontario

That Sigma sells for $469.00 at Adorama.
The Canon 17-40, f/4 'L' sells for $739.00 and cheaper at other places. Used about $500.00
Then you have a true 'L' lens and the results are fantastic.
Treat yourself, Amy.

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

Joe F.N. wrote:

That Sigma sells for $469.00 at Adorama.
The Canon 17-40, f/4 'L' sells for $739.00 and cheaper at other places. Used about $500.00
Then you have a true 'L' lens and the results are fantastic.
Treat yourself, Amy.

Thank you, Joe. My biggest problem is that I really need IS, as I'm not young anymore and I really don't want to use a monopod or tripod ever time I walk out the door.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

In the buy & sell area, there's a 24-105mm f/4L IS that might be out of your budget (or gone) but a great lens with IS. I only know Canon and a few Nikon lenses. You might look at a used copy of the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS. I used this lens until the 18-105L took it's spot for a just walk out the door IS lens ...

olcoach Loc: Oregon

The Canon 24-105L is hard to beat as a walk around lens.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

olcoach wrote:

The Canon 24-105L is hard to beat as a walk around lens.

I'm sure it is, but it's not very wide on an APS-C body. Still, it would be a killer lens for a full-frame body when the time comes to move up.

Mr Clickie Loc: Twin Cities, MN

I have the 17-70 2.8-4.0 OS Nikon mount. I've had it for 3 years now and love it. Paired with my Sigma 70-200 2.8 they're a great combo. Can't give you any cons at all.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

amyinsparta wrote:

This week, I tripped and fell on my camera. Fortunately, my 18-55 lens took the brunt of it and died. The camera survived with no injuries. I'm thinking of getting a sigma 17-70 to replace it. I do like landscapes, as you likely know, and it would do very well for that. I also like that the zoom takes my up to my 70-250 kit lens that I have. What do you think? I read a bunch of feedback, but I would like to hear from any of you that have one or know about them.

I have the lens and use it a lot, trip to Maine last month it never came off, it is heavier and bigger than the 18-55 from Canon, faster also, favorite outdoor lens, really getting into the 40mm for indoors but that's off topic, I vote for the Sigma, perhaps you might rent one if you are unsure ,
Bob.

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

Thanks to you all for the input. I've about decided that it will be mine. I'm glad to hear that some of you have one and like it.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

:roll: :roll: :roll: Canon refurb lists this lens @ $671.99. I use mine frequently for landscape and "harbor cruising". The 17mm give nice vista-type shots, which can allow different perspectives of water-level photos. A nice lens, very versatile. GL