A Better Kit Lens?
[ Our "User Reports" are observations by the user of an actual production unit in what can be considered normal use by a "serious user". We avoid the term "review", since the product is not put through the rigorous repeatable test systems and conditions of a product review. We do make pains to ensure, by offering as detailed a report as possible, that these are no less informative than a formal review. ]
Sigma has once again thrown a challenge down for DSLR camera manufacturers with their new 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 variable aperture digital-only zoom lens, which tries to outdo the "kit lens", the ubiquitous 18-55/3.5-5.6 lenses often bundled as kits with Canon, Nikon and Minolta/Sony DSLRs that share similar APS-C crop factors. Sigma's offering outdoes the kit lens on a number of fronts: the focal lengths on tap go wider (up to 17mm) and longer (up to 70mm), the apertures larger (2.8-4.5 versus 3.5-5.6), and the focusing close enough to nearly deserve the "Macro" badge.
Where it runs into some stiff competition is when it is compared to the Nikon 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX and another of Sigma's own offerings, the Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC.
Build Quality
Put side by side, you would not easily be able to distingush the 17-70 from the 18-50/2.8, as they are similarly proportioned. The Sigma 17-70 is made of tough plastics and coated in an EX-like crinkle finish. Focal length and other markings are printed on, as with the 18-50/2.8, and the zoom and focus ring are wrapped in textured rubber similar to the 18-50/2.8. Likewise, the lens thread and mount are also made of metal and not plastic.
The lens thread, though, is bigger at 72mm, and the lens barrel extends a fair bit more than the 18-50mm/2.8, owing to the greater range of focal length and the wider wide end. There are printed-on reproduction ratio markings denoting the macro ability of this lens. So far there is no sign of lens creep, but it has a locking mechanism anyway, that keeps it at the widest setting for storage.
Leaving comparisons with its sister lens for a moment, the Nikon 18-70 DX, the nearest Nikon equivalent, comes in similarly proportioned and with similar but different build. The 18-70 arguably feels less sturdy, not surprisingly because the 17-70 seems to be built so much like an EX lens.
The Sigma 17-70 comes with a plastic lens hood in the same EX-like finish, Sigma front and rear end caps, and a padded lens bag that looks like a dead ringer for the 18-50/2.8 lens bag except for the non-EX Sigma badge.
Handling
In terms of handling, the Sigma 17-70 offers just a little more than is needed to stack up well against the kit lenses. There is no M/A focusing mode to allow quick focus corrections, and the focus ring rotates as the lens autofocuses. It does not have silent motors (HSM in Sigma terms), so the lens is a little noisy and the focusing only just fast enough not to be a hindrance for fast focusing. There is no aperture ring, but this will not be missed by most digital photographers.
The Sigma 17-70 is a variable aperture lens, so the available maximum apertures change at different focal lengths as you can see below:
| Focal Length | Magnification (1:x) | Max Aperture |
|---|---|---|
| 17mm | 4.7 | f/2.8 |
| f/3 | ||
| f/3.2 | ||
| 24mm | 4.2 | f/3.3 |
| f/3.5 | ||
| 35mm | 3.5 | f/3.8 |
| f/4 | ||
| 50mm | 2.8 | f/4.2 |
| 70mm | 2.3 | f/4.5 |
Image Quality
The Sigma 17-70 shares the same characteristics as the 18-50/2.8: it is sharp at all apertures at the center, then decreases in sharpness in the corners. Moving into the longer end of the focal lengths, the difference between corner and center sharpness decreases. As is the case with some macro zooms, sharpness at infinity focus tends to be soft. Here it is not bad but not great either. Bokeh is not very smooth but not that distracting. These traits make it a serviceable enough macro lens, as long as you do not need 1:1 reproduction, and a very flexible lens able to deliver sharp photos in general use.

[ Nikon D50 and Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro ]
[ 1/100s f/11 70mm ISO400 ]

[ Nikon D50 and Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro ]
[ 1/250s f/2.8 17mm ISO400 ]

[ Nikon D50 and Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro ]
[ 1/100s f/8 70mm ISO400 ]
Some flaws in this lens can be found if you look hard enough. Vignetting shows up at the wide apertures, and at the same time contrast suffers noticeably. Also, chromatic aberration is obvious at wide open apertures, and still noticeable even stopping down to as much as f/11 if the conditions are bad enough.
Compatibility
The Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro is available in Nikon, Canon EF-S, Pentax and Minolta/Sony mount, as well as in its "native" Sigma mount. Being a DC lens it is not recommended for use on full frame DSLRs since it is built for cameras with APS-C sized sensors.
Conclusion
The Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro seems to have been made to a simple blueprint: take the common digital kit lens, and make it better. For the most part, it is. It only suffers for being compared to its sister lens, the Sigma 18-50/2.8, and the Nikon 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX. In light of it being so similarly priced to a constant aperture lens and a similar offering from Nikon, this super-kit lens becomes a hard sell as an upgrade to the bundled lens. In truth, we would be more forgiving if it approached the prices of the digital kit lenses that it trumps so comprehensively.
For more concise technical reviews, check out:
PhotoZone reviews the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro
[ Sample photos were shot with the lens being reviewed, attached to a Nikon D50 digital SLR. Photos of the product were shot with a Sony V3. ]




Posted in:
9 comments:
Hello! I was unable to find your email address. I am in the middle of deciding whether to go Sigma f/2.8 EX DC or Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5.
It seems you have experience with both lenses. I'm leaning towards the 17-70mm because of the very high CA reported on the photozone.de review.
alexellis22 AT hotmail.com
I am guessing you mean you're choosing between the Sigma 18-50/2.8 versus the 17-70.
I would not decide on a lens just on CA performance alone. CA is a concern in high contrast situations (i.e. if you shoot into direct light at wide open). Pretty much all large aperture lenses suffer from this unavoidably wide open, and probably the 18-50 is unfavorably compared to the 17-70 merely because the 18-50 is wide open at 2.8 through the range, while the 17-70 stops down at different focal lengths.
I got the 18-50/2.8 before the 17-70 came out, but if I had to go back and choose between the two I would still pick the 18-50/2.8. Personally I like to have 2.8 at the long end (50mm) for out of focus backgrounds in portraits to get just the face of the subject in focus. I don't need 2.8 on the wide end (17-18mm) at which i would likely want to stop down to get an entire scene sharp in focus.
Hope this helps.
Hello I have been stuck between this sigma len and the Nikon 24-85mm 2.8/4. I'm using a D200 and a
D100. I'm not sure if it is better to have the 17mm or go with a known len.
Hi Zach, if you haven't yet seen for yourself the difference between 17 and 24mm as your widest setting, I recommend you grab a lens with those two settings available and try to see how much of the frame you give up. This should help you decide if you can live with less with the 24-85. 17 and 24 are considerably different.
Gerry,
Do you know much about the sigma 24-70mm 2.8? How does it compare to this listed len? Thanks
zmarlowe@gmail.com
Zach, the Sigma 24-70/2.8 is an entirely different beast and is far better optically because it is a constant aperture lens. On the other hand it is literally a beast in terms of size. It's likely to be slightly more expensive than the 17-70.
I actually bought a d300 and have this lens on it atm, it's the most soft lens I've seen although focus is relatively fast it is noisy due to the focus ring motions, also I noted the images contrast is crap and it does look like the images are flushed and unsharp although the centre is sharp moving towards outter edges of the shot it's really soft all around.
Hi, I am going to get my first DSLR very soon - the D90. I do not think I will want the 18-105mm DX kit lens that comes with it, so this Sigma 17-70mm is one of my options. Now you've given me yet another consideration - 18-50mm. Thanks.
@Darkspore What did you end up getting?
@Zach I'm thinking about getting the 17mm but I'm comparing it to the Tamron 17-55 2.8, do you know anything about that lens and or the brand?
joi@joipearson.com
Thanks!
Post a Comment