I bought this contemporary len this year, it is just great, way better than 15-85mm USM, and saves my pocket so much with awesome quality. rated 9.1 out of 10 for this len
Hi Stephen, Thanks for the comment. The nikon 18-55 can focus at 11cm, Sigma is 20cm - I just double checked to make sure I didn't miss anything. It is a lovely lens though.
I've recently purchased this new Sigma lens. Just a note regarding the Lens Hood being easily knocked out of place, I've read this elsewhere as well. Mine is very solid. I'm wondering if it's been noted the IN - OUT marked on it. It needs to be inserted from there onto your lens mark of - . Then turn it clockwise until the next lines - one on the lens hood the other - on the lens line up and you hear it click into place. It is then locked in place and very secure. I've had no issues with at all.
The value of the 35 is excellent. The 40 gives you stunning macro capabilities at a good price and the Sigma gives you the best low light capabilities. helpful?
Just purchased this lens yesterday. Everything is fine except two things. 1. No manual override in autofocus mode 2. Focusing ring rotates externally, so one has to be careful while hand handling the camera. Otherwise it's a very good lens with sharp, beautiful photos at all focal lengths. Dynamic range is also good.
I've watched this 3 times, maybe more, since I got my D5200 last June. I finally could spring for this lens to break away from the 18-55 kit. I've also heard you say so many other times how good this lens is, especially to the 18-55 kit. Wow, were you right. My pictures are so, so much sharper and nicer with the Sigma. Between the sharpness + the 24MP NEFs I find I can crop in quite a bit and still have a very sharp image. Thanks for your channel, this video and all.
I haven't tested the old and new side by side so I can't say for sure. From the comments below I hear varying reports so it sounds like it may not be THAT much different. You could always rent one for a weekend and try it out. Or order from Amazon and return within 30 days if it isn't worth keeping.
This is a great lens. Color saturation comes through beautifully. Speed, sharpness just about everything aces the kit lens and a nice zoom range to boot. A steal at $500, it has hardly been off of my d5100 since purchase.
Canon 70-300 is a vry good lens but the Sigma offers f/2.8 across the range - all depends on the type of work you are doing? lots of lower light? Sigma. Lots of wildlife/sports? get the 70-300.
Those two lenses are very different. If you are looking for just one lens to walk around with the 18-135 is great. The 85 f/1.8 is very good for nice portraits.
The Sigma 18-35 f1/.8- which I have tested and reviewed in another video is REALLY good. Its resale value is likely to stay higher than the Sigma 17-70 which is certainly a good lens and a decent value but it is no 18-35. Unless you spend lots of time taking portraits then the extra reach of the 17-70 would be useful.
I have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and can tell you that it is excellent - some really nice center sharpness across the range. I haven't tested the wider Tamron.
Peter, I think you will be best off with the 18-135 STM. This sigma is not really sharper but does offer better apertures across the range but the 18-135 is so convenient and when purchased with the camera it is an excellent price/value.
Lens stabilization is usually better than in body stabilization but you might consider the 28-75 f/2.8, no stabilization but constant f/2.8 and lovely sharpness for the money.
Great - always love to hear from folks using the lens. It really is a nice lens. Feel free to post a picture or two n my facebook wall or in my flickr group - I will be picking reader submitted photos for my newsletter and facebook cover soon. Thanks!
Indoors and school functions mean more low light events which does cause me to lean toward the Nikon but I really can't recommend the Nikon with the 18-55 lens. The 18-105 is a little better but that camera doesn't really shine until you get different lenses on it. T4i on the other hand with the 18-135 is a very nice package straight out of the box. Links to the best prices for these camera are under the video, I did deliberately not answer your question about $1000 bucks. . . :)
I agree with everything you say. I think the newer is better, quality control seems to be more consistent and value of this lens is quite good. No fair to compare this or really any zoom lens against a prime.
MrsM - It is a very good general purpose lens but it is not an impressive macro lens - it can close focus decently well but nothing like a real macro especially the 100mm which is an awesome macro. I really like the Sigma 30, the 50 is nice too but a bit more narrow - mostly useful for people portraits.
Haven't spent enough time with the GH series to say for sure but he D7100 is a sweet camera, near perfect unless you really need serious high speed burst - which it doesn't really offer.
Sigma 17-50 is good too, the older sigma lenses 17-50 and the older 17-70 suffered from quality control issues - with the new you are better guaranteed of getting a "good copy" I didn't experience any focus issue but I only used it for two weeks. I personally would be inclined to pick the bit more range of the 17-70 over the 17-50.
I have not tested these two side by side - I suspect the results are VERY similar based on other reviews and you would find the gap to be minimal to non existent. I would likely take the 17-70 most days for the increased range.
I'd take the range and the more consistently quality of the newer 17-70 f/2.8-4 lens. That gives you complete range of 17 - 70 + 70-300, no gaps which is a nice bonus. The 17-50 f/2.8 is good too but the 17-70 stays at f/2.8 to 50 also, so offers same range and focal length plus the extra out to 70. the 35 f/1.8 is excellent.
The Pentax mount does not have the lens built in shake reduction. Its only the canon, nikon and sigma mounts that have the in lens stabilization for this sigma
The STM lenses are silent, they are the only lenses that are completely silent during video when autofocusing. All other lenses make noise including this Sigma.
The Canon kit lens is much better than the Nikon kit lens so I agree it is harder to upgrade. I'd keep the Canon and consider a prime lens like the 40 or the 50 or just start saving for an even better lens :)
Hi - I actually just checked to make sure I wasn't talking out of my hat. And they're a lot closer than I thought, although the sigma actually wins, it can focus about an inch closer, both lenses wide open. The sigma wins (slightly) because it can still focus that close when you zoom in, the nikon won't. So the sigma seems to focus closer, although really it's about the same. Those 11 and 20 numbers are skewed - not really right - focal plane vs. distance from end of lens perhaps?
I would go with this lens, the sigma 17-70, if you bought the 60D. The sigma offers wider aperture across the range and with the 60D you don't get the benefit of the continuous/smooth auto focus from the T4i/T5i. If you bought T4i/t5i I would go with one of the STM lenses. I have heard mostly good things about digitalrev. I have a post about T4i vs 60D - happy to share it if you message me on Facebook, my page is linked under the video.
I've had one of these for a few months, and just love it. Use it with a nikon d7000. Also have the 18-55 - I don't think you really tested the macro capabilities of the sigma, because its tons better than the nikon lens - you can focus many inches closer.
Yeah, I have an old 18-55 kit lens (non-VR), and I don't see much difference between the two, other than OS on the Sigma which allows you to avoid blur even at fairly slow shutter speeds. I just don't know what else I can buy that will be better in this price range...
I like this lens, I value image quality, lower f-stop of course, portability, image stabilization for handheld photography, and price in that order. Debating on this lens, wondering what the maximum focal length at 2.8? Also comparing to sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS (although this is getting a bit old). And sigma 18-35 f1.8! ( but wish it was smaller and had OS) Any suggestions or other ideas to a good match?
Thanks for the response. The D5200 appears to start coming down in price in my country, so I'll be able to afford it with the 2 lenses I mentioned. A fast prime would probably be next` might snatch the Art-series Sigma 30mm f1.4 if I have the money for it when time comes... In the meantime, thanks again. Hopefully the combination will serve me well for the years to come.
Wow, not sure if you just got lucky with your copy or I got unlucky with mine, but your photos appear a lot sharper than mine using the same lens and camera.
this lens seems like a great option for the price. I have seen it for around 300-350 used in excellent condition. I was considering the canon 15-85 but that starts at around 600 used.
Toby great content as usual and thank you for the wonderful reviews. I shoot DIY videos on home plumbing repair.99% of the shooting is table top demonstrations. In addition, I'll do head shots and upper torso shots of myself. I have a Canon 70D Crop DSLR. These are the lens I'm currently looking at. Tamron 17-50mm 8-4 DC Macro 2.8, Sigma 18-35mm 1.8, Sigma 17-50mm 2.8, Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 Macro. WHICH ONE?
I will- early reviews are excellent, REALLY good but at $799 it is getting pricey and I wish it went further than 35 at the long end. What type of photography do you do?
Nice review. I am thinking of buying one soon, to replace the kit lens on my Nikon D3300. I get rather annoyed when people compare these budget lenses with those costing three times as much.
Never thought I'd run into my high school web design teacher while looking at lens reviews. How's Life Mr. G? Video is great too, exactly what I wanted to hear. I went with the 17-50 2.8 instead though. -Pedro F.
It seems like Sigma's quality control issues are a thing of the past - one of their lenses in this new batch, the new Sigma 35 f/1.4 was voted lens of the year by photographers association. You don't get that endorsement unless you have quality control mostly under. .control :) nothing wrong with the Nikon but I do think the Sigma offers a better value.
Yes, I can see low light being the primary use. So that brings me to the Nikon D5200 Body w/Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens. Canon T4i w/18-135mm and the EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto bundle. Is the Nikon's low light performance that much better that it would be worth giving up the telephoto lens I can get with the T4i? I am just afraid that I will be limited with just one lens on the Nikon, which is causing me to seriously consider the T4i. Thanks for your help.
Wow- that is disappointing. I was mostly comparing it to the 18-55 kit lens and it was improved over that and about where I would expect a $500 lens to be, but the fact that you have had three copies all with those results is worrying.
Hi there Toby. Just watched your review (great one, thanks :-)) but the 17-70 doesn't stay at f/2.8 to up to 50mm. Starting at 28mm its f/3.5 and at 50mm it's f/4.0. Just checked again because I really consider this lens as well as a 17.50 f/2.8...
I am really torn on what to buy as a first DSLR. My main use is going to be indoors and school functions, plays, etc. So I am leaning towards the Nikon. If you had $1000 to spend on your first DSLR what would you buy? I am stuck between the following: Canon T4i w/18-135mm and the EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto bundle Nikon D5200 w/18-55mm kit lens and the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens.
Hi toby, i just wanted to ask if what lens will you choose between nikkor 35mm vs sigma 17-50mm.. Ive been searching for these two lenses and im not quite decided yet.. Sigma 17-50 - kinda like having both 35mm and 50mm but only 2.8 aperture... So with this lens im having a wide angle and also 50mm for portrature.. Nikkor 35mm - great prime as they say but only 35mm fl.. HELLLPP! Please shed some light on me!! Thank you! Always been a fan of your channel..
Toby, your videos are GREAT! I'm planning on buying the Nikon D5200. I'm considering the Nikon 16-85mm, 18-105, and the Sigma 17-70mm (contemporary). Which lens do you recommend? I'll be using the camera for travel and special events (birthdays, family gatherings, weddings, graduations).
It is not that much better and in average day to day use you are not likely to see noticeable differences. Go for the T4i package. I'd appreciate it if you used my links under the video for buying. I have loads more T4i tutorials here so take some time and watch those - knowing how your camera works is going to give you the best results :)
Greetings, Toby! Preliminarily, thanks for the very informative video! Anyhow, I own a Canon 650D, also known as a Rebell T4i. I chose to bundle it with the 18-135 mm STM lens when I purchased it. My question is, if you had to choose between the Sigma 17-70 or the Canon EF-S 18-135 STM as a walkaround lens, which would you choose? Or would you suggest another more suitable walkaround lens for my T4i? I'm still fully exhausting the capabilities of the STM, but I'm open to ideas, since I am not too familiar with third-party brands. Thanks so very much and all the best to you and your awesome photography!
If I wasn't doing any video I would seriously consider the 17-70, I like the wider apertures. But if you already have the 18-135 I might suggest you continue to use an dpick up a nice prime lens recommended Canon Prime Lenses Recommended Canon Prime Lenses to compliment.
Awesome review. i was thinking about getting that lens or the sigma 17-50 os and just cant make up my mind. Now that the sigma 18-35 1.8 just been announced to be release this end of july just made my decision even tougher. do you think you will be testing that lens when it comes out?
just got this today, tested it against 3 lenses, canon 28 f1.8 USM, 50 f1.8 prime and 18-135 STM basically the canon lenses are better at the corners, both lenses are soft a corners, but the sigma is much worse. The sigma 17-70mm C in the center was sharper then the STM and even the 28mm f1.8 USM (think i got a bad refurb) but the 50mm at f1.8 - f2.2 was tack sharp incredible, however from 2.5-4 its dull and good again at f4.5 the STM is very good for a kit lens, but not as sharp as sigma.
Hi there, If you're going to choose between this two lenses. What would you choose, Sigma 17-70 mm F/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens Or Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR Lens? I' am planning to use the lens that I'am going to buy for travel, birthday party's wedding etc.. I hope that you can help me to choose what is the right/correct lens for me, by the way I've been using Nikon d5600. Thanks in advance, god bless
Thanks for quick response. I watched your nikkor 40mm 2.8 Micro review and was impressed with lens so I was thinking to buy it together with my first dslr: d5200+tamron 17-50 2.8+nikkor 55-300, but then I saw your review of sigma 17-70 Macro, and thought that I could take this lens instead of Tamron 17-50+40mm Micro and still have macro capabilities. What do you think on this? I am not taking kit lens 18-55 since you mentioned couple of times that d5200 could really use better lenses. thanks
Well, I'm on my third one already. They're all the same. Corner sharpness at 17mm is abysmal. And at the center, the only time I can get good sharpness is if I step down the aperture to F/7.1.
I'm thinking of buying the Canon 700d. It 'feels' a bet better than de Nikon 5200 (i'm a beginner). I will be taking pictures of people (from groups to portraits) landscapes and some wildlife. What's better: 18-135 stm, or 18-55 stm and 70-300, or should i choose the sigma 17-70 and what kind of super tele zoom? I can spend some extra money, but what is wise? Sorry for the previous question, which was a bit short. Thanks
Toby, thanks for this review> I've considered this lens to add to my D7100. I'm additionally looking at the Tamron equivalent. Have you tested the Tamron or has anyone else reading this used the Tamron on the more advanced Nikons? My only two lenses right now are the Nikon 18-200 Kit lens and the 50mm 1.8G.
Great work as always . Anyway I have a question for you . Do you think Sigma 17-50 f 2.8 could be a good lens for a Nikon D7100 instead the Nikon 35 1.8 ? Thank you
Another comparison question. Is the updated version optically better than the previous version or are the improvements mostly build and cosmetics? The old verson got some very strong reviews also.
Great review mate! I am going to buy a canon eos 60d and i am thinking to combine it with this lens! what about the autofocus speed of the lens? Your opinion!? Thanks!
Hi, thanks for the nice review! I own the D5200 and I love the camera but I am looking forward to upgrading from my 18-55 zoom. I am stuck between Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and 17-70 f2.8-4.0. Have you tested the 17-50? Any thoughts which would be better? What about the focusing? I heard many people complain about sigmas with faulty focusing : / Have you experienced any problems with the D5200 + sigma combo? What's the real difference between the old 17-70 and the newest (balck) one 17-70?
My Asus is crap - I do most of my editing on the mac laptop screen it is attached to. I am not sure I have enough to say about IPS displays other than they are good :) Find a site that does a good review :) I will let you know if I decide otherwise.
hi im making decision between this lens and the sigma 17-50 2.8. just wondering which lens is sharper, and how big is the gap between them? please let me know if you have the answer. thanks a lot
Would you recommend this lens when you're looking for a good general purpose zoom lens for the Canon 60D? I also will be buying a prime lens (I'm considering the Sigma 30mm or the Canon 50mm), so I need a zoom lens. I was thinking about getting the 100mm Macro Lens from Canon until I noticed this one. Is it comparable with a good Macro Lens?
