Questions on a Sigma f2.8 17-70mm

[sportsman]

Does anyone have one? If so, what are your thoughts on this lens?

[Hawkpuppy 1]

Haven't had that one, but I've sworn off Sigma after two lenses of theirs (120-400mm) that were not focusing for sharp images. I do have a Tokina 16-35mm 2.8 that I absolutely love though...

[Snakelover]

First, I don't have the lens. That's a relatively wide range of focal length and that convenience can come with some trade offs. B&H lists the aperture at f/2.8-4. The range means it's a variable aperture zoom lens. It's going to be max f/2.8 at 17mm, but as you zoom closer to 70mm, your biggest aperture is going to be f/4.0. I guess it depends on what you want to use it for, but at 70mm, f/4 is not particularly fast.

[sportsman]

First, I don't have the lens. That's a relatively wide range of focal length and that convenience can come with some trade offs. B&H lists the aperture at f/2.8-4. The range means it's a variable aperture zoom lens. It's going to be max f/2.8 at 17mm, but as you zoom closer to 70mm, your biggest aperture is going to be f/4.0. I guess it depends on what you want to use it for, but at 70mm, f/4 is not particularly fast.

I think I am fine with the variable aperture. It's uses will be for long exposure and day time portraits. I have tried to like my 18-55 kit lens. But after multiple failed attempts of the lightening and trying to get milky way photos the last couple of weeks, I am done with it. The sharpness is just not there.

https://flic.kr/p/FuRgFx

https://flic.kr/p/EFEjHF

[sportsman]

Oops

[Snakelover]

I think I am fine with the variable aperture. It's uses will be for long exposure and day time portraits. I have tried to like my 18-55 kit lens. But after multiple failed attempts of the lightening and trying to get milky way photos the last couple of weeks, I am done with it. The sharpness is just not there.

I see. Might work well for you then. One thing you can do (if you haven't already) is do a Flickr search for "Sigma 17-70mm" and look at some photos people have taken with that lens.

If I linked it right... https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sigma%2017-70mm

[Snakelover]

You can also do more specific searches like, "sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 portrait"...

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=...8-4%20portrait

Just a good way to get an idea if the lens will meet your expectations for sharpness, bokeh, etc.

Good luck!

[sportsman]

You can also do more specific searches like, "sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 portrait"...

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=sigma%2017-70mm%20f%2F2.8-4%20portrait

Just a good way to get an idea if the lens will meet your expectations for sharpness, bokeh, etc.

Good luck!

Thanks, some of those are pretty sharp. Maybe I will keep looking. Do you have a lens in mind knowing what I plan to use it for now?

Ideally, I would like it to go close to 70mm on the top end as that is where my Canon f4L IS 70-200 starts. But primarily I want the low side to be 17 or lower but also have a good lens for portraits.

[Snakelover]

Thanks, some of those are pretty sharp. Maybe I will keep looking. Do you have a lens in mind knowing what I plan to use it for now?

Ideally, I would like it to go close to 70mm on the top end as that is where my Canon f4L IS 70-200 starts. But primarily I want the low side to be 17 or lower but also have a good lens for portraits.

I don't really have anything in mind for you. I love the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, but it's more expensive. I'm shooting a full frame camera and haven't been bitten by the wide angle bug. So 24mm is the shortest focal length I normally use.