PDA

View Full Version : Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC HSM



fionndruinne
08-28-2007, 02:36 PM
Here's an interesting new lens from Sigma, which is apparently only being made for the Nikon mount. From Sigma's website:

"This lens has a minimum focusing distance of 20cm (7.9") throughout the entire zoom range. Maximum magnification of 1:2.3 enables close-up photography like a macro lens. It has a 3cm (1.2") working distance between the lens and subject and it is very convenient for taking close-up pictures."

This is a nice almost-macro lens with a good aperture range, and has that useful focal range of the 18-70mm Nikkor kit lens. I wonder how it performs. Anyone seen or heard tell of this lens?

Rooz
08-28-2007, 02:41 PM
i imagine its optically identical to the existing sigma 17-70mm with a HSM motor so it can AF on the d40. its a pretty good lens, prospero, stoller(?) and gaza use it and are seem pretty happy.

Prospero
08-28-2007, 03:54 PM
The 17-70 without HSM is a great lens. Pretty good apperture, combined with a very convenient focal length and a very close focussing distance, make this a very nice walk-around lens.

If this lens is as good as the version without HSM and the HSM is of the same type as that used in for instance my 10-20, I may consider trading my 17-70 for one with a HSM motor.
Quicker autofocus would make the lens perfect for me.

By the way, it is great to see that Sigma is now producing HSM lenses in the standard range.

Oph
08-28-2007, 05:38 PM
I'm looking forward to hearing other peoples' experiences with this lens as well; I'm on the brink of deciding between it and the Nikon 18-70.

Question is, is the lens good enough over all to warrant the extra money for 1 more mm, and the better aperture?

fionndruinne
08-28-2007, 05:44 PM
And the close focusing distance, that's an important feature.

How much is this lens supposed to go for, anyway? I didn't see an MSRP on the Sigma site.

Oph
08-28-2007, 05:47 PM
Not sure about other countries, but it's around $570 in Australian dollars from camerasdirect.com.au. Great site that one, cheap prices and fantastic reputation. :)

Yes I agree, the close focusing distance is a definite plus. I think I'm selling myself on this one already!

fionndruinne
08-28-2007, 06:03 PM
$400 USD on Amazon. That's a little pricey... it would have to perform pretty well for me to consider it, when I'm already looking at the 30mm f/1.4 HSM in that price range, and the 50-150mm f/2.8 for $600. Both of which are EX lenses. But we'll see.

Oph
08-28-2007, 06:26 PM
What's the price difference between the N18-70 and the S17-50 for you? For me it's only $120, which is why it's looking so attractive.

Off to do some more research into reviews, etc.. (does this ever end! :rolleyes: )

K1W1
08-28-2007, 06:28 PM
Not sure about other countries, but it's around $570 in Australian dollars from camerasdirect.com.au. Great site that one, cheap prices and fantastic reputation.

I couldn't find this lens there. All I could see was the older non HSM version @ Aus$539.00.
Remember that Cameras Direct are a grey market outlet - there is no warranty from C.R. Kennedy the official Sigma distributor.
One thing I never likes about the original version is that it was only f2.8 at 17mm. As soon as you zoomed to even 19mm you lost the f2.8.

Oph
08-28-2007, 06:36 PM
:eek:

I had no idea they were grey market! Please enlighten me as to how I can tell what is and is not, in future?

This blows my budgeting RIGHT out of the water - boo hoo! And I thought that was the HSM lens - my bad once again.

Ok, back to the drawing board..

K1W1
08-28-2007, 06:52 PM
Read this page (http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=315&pageRef=210&) on C.R. Kennedy's web site.

There is nothing wrong with grey market as long as you understand the implications regarding warranty and support. IMO though if you are going to go grey market you may as well go the whole way and import the lens direct from Hong Kong or somewhere and save even more.

Oph
08-28-2007, 07:23 PM
Thank you, that was a very informative link. While I am sad that I won't be able to get the items on my wishlist as soon as I'd hoped, I am very very glad to have been made aware of the grey import warranty issue.

Honest Gaza
08-28-2007, 11:21 PM
Read this page (http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=315&pageRef=210&) on C.R. Kennedy's web site.

There is nothing wrong with grey market as long as you understand the implications regarding warranty and support. IMO though if you are going to go grey market you may as well go the whole way and import the lens direct from Hong Kong or somewhere and save even more.

An interesting point that is made on the CR Kennedy Website is :

"We will match, through our authorised Sigma dealer network, any legitimate advertised internet price on Sigma lenses by these grey importers".

That being the case, I guess this means that you can get the price from one of the Grey Importers (eg d-d-photographics) and Sigma will match this price through one of their normal retailers.

This is certainly not the case where Canon Distributors are concerned. D-D-Photographics have the Canon 10-22mm for $899....Fletchers have it for $1299. When I mentioned this to Fletchers....they told me to "go take a hike"....so I did.

If Sigma are prepared to match the Grey Importer's price....that's a pretty good deal.

K1W1
08-28-2007, 11:31 PM
I noticed that bit about the matching prices as well. I've also heard that Sigma prices have dropped lately so I just looked at Camera Actions web site (http://www.cameraaction.com.au/products4b.asp?sku=189818). Low and behold the legit correctly imported fully warranted price is Aus$449.00 against the grey market Aus$539.00.
Where should one buy? :confused::)

GaryS
08-29-2007, 01:28 PM
Has anyone in North America gotten their grubby paws on one of these new Sigma HSM for Nikon lenses (either the 18-50 f2.8 or the 17-70)?

And if yes, where?

mugsisme
08-29-2007, 02:10 PM
Has anyone in North America gotten their grubby paws on one of these new Sigma HSM for Nikon lenses (either the 18-50 f2.8 or the 17-70)?

And if yes, where?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=518483&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

B & H is taking orders. I can't decide if I should pre-order or wait and see if it will be great. I might get it from Amazon since I have some gift certs on there.

fionndruinne
08-29-2007, 04:37 PM
Is there an 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM? I've seen an 18-50mm f/2.8 non-HSM, and an 18-50mm HSM with a slower aperture, but not a f/2.8 + HSM.

Especially waiting to hear about the 50-150mm f/2.8 HSM, that one has me excited.

GaryS
08-29-2007, 04:42 PM
This is supposed to be a Nikon-only Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM.

http://sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3328&navigator=6

fionndruinne
08-29-2007, 04:58 PM
Must have missed that one. 18-50mm 2.8 + 50-150mm 2.8... killer combo there, methinks. Now where's that eleven hundred bucks I use for scratch paper?:rolleyes:

... not to mention a teleconverter, for both the telephoto lens and for adding magnification to the macro(ish) 18-50mm... Oh boy!

Rooz
08-29-2007, 10:49 PM
Is there an 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM?

come on mate, that news has been around for AGES !! lol
as i said in my first post, typically these lens are identical optically to the non HSM versions. the HSM will if anything, be slightly faster AF.

tim11
08-29-2007, 11:03 PM
Can someone tell me what HSM stands for?
I think I read somewhere that the Sigma 17-70 (without HSM) has F/2.8 only for the shortest range then it jumps up very quick; is this new version better?

fionndruinne
08-29-2007, 11:06 PM
I had heard people mention it, I just didn't see it on the Sigma site. Something along the lines of thinking it too good to be true.:p

No doubt the 17-70mm is a great all-purpose lens, but I think I'll hold off and invest in the other two mentioned, mainly for the constant f/2.8 aperture.

Has anyone found these Sigma HSM lenses to be slower/less reliable auto-focusing than a Nikkor AF-S? I know I've come across something like that, but one never knows with Mr. John Q. Reviewer-on-Amazon, who may well like to complain for complaining's sake.

Edit: Oh, and Tim, it's 'Hyper Sonic Motor'.

tim11
08-29-2007, 11:12 PM
Thanks fionndruinne. Co-incidently the 2 Sigma on your list are what I have in mind too; though nothing is decided. And just to let you know 50-150 is very heavy lens.

Rooz
08-29-2007, 11:12 PM
I had heard people mention it, I just didn't see it on the Sigma site. Something along the lines of thinking it too good to be true.:p

No doubt the 17-70mm is a great all-purpose lens, but I think I'll hold off and invest in the other two mentioned, mainly for the constant f/2.8 aperture.

Has anyone found these Sigma HSM lenses to be slower/less reliable auto-focusing than a Nikkor AF-S? I know I've come across something like that, but one never knows with Mr. John Q. Reviewer-on-Amazon, who may well like to complain for complaining's sake.

Edit: Oh, and Tim, it's 'Hyper Sonic Motor'.

non HSM is very slow compared to af-s. i found the hsm to be much better but still not quite up to the same standard as af-s in accuracy or speed. and certianly not in the ballpark of "quietness" compared to SWM.

thats not to say that they are no good; but they aren't quite as good in that regard. i remember my 18-135mm and 18-200mmVR were hell fast in comparison.

fionndruinne
08-29-2007, 11:18 PM
I see.

Tim, yeah, it is heavy, but compared to a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8, it's featherweight.:D

mugsisme
08-30-2007, 05:42 PM
B&H has it in stock now. Amazon says it will take 1-2 months to get it. I have $96 in Amazon gift certificates. What should I do?

r3g
08-30-2007, 06:57 PM
Im with fionndruinne Im going to add that 18-50 f/2.8 to my list. Already plan on getting the 50-150 f/2.8. Put this 2 with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 some ISO800 or ISO1600.. Available light photography anyone? :]

tim11
09-06-2007, 04:11 AM
I had heard people mention it, I just didn't see it on the Sigma site. Something along the lines of thinking it too good to be true.:p

....
I just read bout this Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC HSM here (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3327&navigator=6). Like the previous version it only has F/2.8 on the widest 17 mm. I wish there is a 17-70mm F2.8.

F2.8mm (at 17mm focal length)
This lens offers a large aperture of F2.8 at 17mm wide angle and performs superbly even in relatively low light conditions indoors or at dusk.

fionndruinne
09-09-2007, 06:44 PM
Does anyone know if the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 is specifically sharper than the 17-70mm? I suppose a not-even 3x zoom lens would tend to be sharper than a ~4x lens, but I'm curious.

e_dawg
09-10-2007, 06:32 AM
Both lenses are tested at Photozone.de:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1770_2845_nikon/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1850_28m_nikon/index.htm

Basically, the differences are:

- the 18-50 is sharper at the centre and border at 18 mm than the 17-70 is at 17 mm at f/2.8, and a little sharper at f/4

- the 17-70 is sharper at the border than the 18-50 is at 35 mm

- the 18-50 has a little more CA from 18-24 mm than the 17-70

- the 18-50/2.8 retains its f/2.8 aperture all the way to 50 mm, while the 17-70 is f/3.8 at 35 mm and f/4 or so at 50 mm

Basically, they are quite similar optically. The main difference is that you gain almost a stop at the "long" end.

fionndruinne
09-10-2007, 01:16 PM
Interesting. Since they're that similar, that doesn't make the choice much easier, but I'd still be inclined to go with the 18-50mm, I think. How about build quality? I see the 17-70mm is not EX; does this mean the lens is any less rugged?

No Control
09-10-2007, 02:09 PM
Interesting. Since they're that similar, that doesn't make the choice much easier, but I'd still be inclined to go with the 18-50mm, I think. How about build quality? I see the 17-70mm is not EX; does this mean the lens is any less rugged?

It's not a pro build by any means but it definitely holds its own. It's plastic, yeah, but it's got a nice heft to it and when extended there's no "play" in the front element. I think the thing is with this lens is that for the money it's a huge value. I just couldn't afford an 18-50mm at the moment and wanted to start taking pictures (a camera with a slightly worse lens is better than no camera at all ;) ).

r3g
09-10-2007, 02:14 PM
Interesting. Since they're that similar, that doesn't make the choice much easier



Does for me, just for the simple fact that the 18-50 has f/2.8 constant. Not to mention its a good fit with the VR 55-200mm in focal length. Would be an even better team with the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8.

fionndruinne
09-10-2007, 03:38 PM
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the 18-50mm is the one for me. It's just that a lens of the same range I'm currently using doesn't appeal as much to me. The f/2.8 does - maybe I'll just save for the 50-150mm. Or break down and buy a 55-200mm VR and enjoy that for a while.:)

r3g
09-10-2007, 06:57 PM
Yeah see Im actually replacing my kitlens with the 18-50 and the 55-200 VR with the 50-150. I may end up holding on to the VR for sentimental reasons lol..

fionndruinne
11-15-2007, 09:35 PM
Alright, folks, the holiday buying season is almost here, and when it gets here my part time retail job will actually start to give me some money... so I'm thinking a new lens is in the nearish future. And I'm actually thinking this 17-70mm HSM. I had been set on the 18-50mm f/2.8, but there are a few reasons why the 17-70mm is appealing to me:

- 20mm more reach. Yeah, we all know ~50mm can be awful short for a walkaround lens sometimes. 20mm is not that much more, but it's at the right place, so it does make a difference.

- it's $70 cheaper.

- better macro ability. My 18-55mm kit lens is 1:3.2. The 18-50mm is only 1:3. The 17-70mm is 1:2.3, which sounds significantly better. Yeah, I know I'd get more from the 18-50mm with a close-up kit, but for that I'll likely just get a 50mm f/1.8 and manually focus. I don't want to get into extreme macro range right now (leave that to you Rooz, farmers like me don't like bugs anyway:p), but more ability would be a nice option.

As long as the image quality is comparable (which I've heard it is), I think I may hold off on the 18-50mm f/2.8. I'll still have f/2.8 for interiors and landscapes when I feel I need it, and have more reach for general purposes. I know I'll still want f/2.8 at the longer focal lengths, but I may just hold off for that till I can afford the 50-150mm f/2.8. How does this sound, guys? A good idea?