ricardolegraham

So I have a Canon 60D, which I love, the EF 50mm 1.8 II, which I also love, and the EF-S18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS II, which I don't really love. It's just so fuzzy, the CA is everywhere, and it's really slow to focus. Maybe I just ended up with a bad copy, but this lens just needs an upgrade. I've heard some great things about the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 DC Macro OS HSM, and its new Contemporary cousin; and it seems like a sensible place to go for a better standard zoom (I don't care that much for a super zoom, unless something like the Sigma 18-200 or 18-250 has better optics: I just don't need that much of a telephoto range. 70mm would be long enough.)

If anyone has experience with either the older 17-70 or the 17-70 Contemporary, or could compare the two, any advice would be much appreciated! Is it worth it to spring the extra $$ for the Contemporary, or get the older one?

P.S. I've also looked at the Tamron equivalents, but they seem to be more expensive, less well designed, and not that much better optically. But feel free to contradict me on that, I don't have much experience with Tamron glass.

Thanks! And happy holidays!

craggycrossers Loc: Robin Hood Country, UK

Ricardo - Merry Christmas and welcome !

I'm a Nikon user - no experience of the lens you mention - but have the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS - magnificent lens, sharp as a needle with my D300 - I am totally satisfied !

I also have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 (non OS) which is just as good. Do I miss the 20mm from 50 to 70 ? Not on your nelly !! See examples .....

Kit Car


Golden Hour - Lincoln


Lincoln Cathedral

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I have the 17-70 not conteporary .....It is a good lens. from what I am able to discern, there is no optical difference in them. Bought mine used for $350. I will tell you that it does have focus breathing - that is, as you focus closer than about 5 feet, the 70mm slowly recedes to 50mm at it's closest focus.

ricardolegraham

Wow; that's pretty significant. Is it that bad at all focal lengths, or just the tele end?

ricardolegraham

@craggycrossers Great photographs there. Thanks for the recommendation of the the 17-50. Looks like it's actually a bit pricier than the 17-70, not by much, but enough to make a difference on my budget.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Mostly just the tele end - most consumer grade zooms do this - though it is not often mentioned ! It is called "focus breathing".

UncleBuck Loc: Malvern, Arkansas

I have the contemporary version of the Sigma 17-70 f/ 2.8-4 for Nikon. It's an excellent lens, sweet spot for it is 20-50 mm and it's softest at 17. DxO does rate the 17-50 2.8 more highly than the 17-70. but if budget is a concern I wouldn't hesitate for the 17-70

steveo52 Loc: Rhode Island and Ocala Florida

I have a Canon 60d and I use the Sigma 17-70 Contemporary, although I have no experience with the older model I do love the 17-70 2.8 contemporary. Nice lens decent price.

As some else commented sharp as a pin or was it a needle, you won't be sorry. Although from what I've heard the Sigma 18-35 1.8 is quite the nice lens too.

crimesc324 Loc: West Palm Beach, Florida

I have the Sigma 10-20mm and 50-500, and a Tamron 18-270 for my Nikon D7000. I love all 3 and see no quality difference in brands

sportyman140 Loc: Juliette, GA

HI ricardolegraham, So tell us first what is your budget and what all do you shoot? I have 4 Sigma Lenses all 3 of them f/2.8 Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8, Sigma 105 mm f/2.8 and the newest one is Sigma 50mm f/1.4...... I really enjoy my Sigma Lenses I am sure you will too, If you are just using it your camera as just snap shot photography I would stick with the Sigma DC EX but if you are shooting seriously projects that could lead to professional work then go with the DG EX labels (more expensive) but worth it all the way round.

ricardolegraham

I've encountered the phenomenon before, through a friend who shoots video on DSLRs, where focus breathing is really distracting if you want to change focus mid-shot. But from 70mm out to 50mm seems like a really big difference.

ricardolegraham

My budget consists of spending as little money as possible in all circumstances. :| So while the 18-35 and 17-50 are both really enticing, they're just not really an option, unless I could find something really cheap used…
Much as I wish I were doing projects that could end up in professional work, that just doesn't happen, and because I'm not seeing a full-frame upgrade anytime in the future I've been looking mainly at the DC line.

Merry Christmas all!

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Ricardo:
-
Recommend you take a good look at the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.
-
Might cost a little more than you had in mind - but I think you would be very happy with it - especially compared to the 18-55 you have now.
-
Sometimes - you get what you pay for.

JohnInBaltimore Loc: Greater Balto/DC area

Haven't tried those Sigmas (though I really like their long ones). Tamron's 18-270 VC is definitely worth your look if you want more range. It does some really sweet looking shots; I use if for 80% of my shooting.

ricardolegraham

Well, I ended up going with the 17-50 OS HSM - I found a great deal on it used at Adorama, and I don't expect to need the extra tele range that much. When it arrives I'll let you know my thoughts, in the meantime thanks for all the input!