Sigma DC 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 Test Report Photo Gallery by jimcreek at pbase.com

Sigma DC 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 Test Report

The Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 is quite a nice lens for a very reasonable price. This is the kit lens that Canon SHOULD have made. I can’t think of another Zoom lens with the same range, speed and optical quality for the same money. Build quality is also very good, light years ahead of the Canon 18-55 kit lens. Autofocus is as quick as my EF 24/2.8 and 50/1.8 and with a slightly lower noise level. This is surprising since this not a Sigma HSM lens. The Sigma actually hunts less than the 50/1.8. The zoom action has a fairly nice feel with a wide rubber grip plus a zoom lock button. The manual focus ring is smooth. The optical performance and build quality exceeded my expectations. One negative point is that the focus ring turns when autofocusing. It's too easy for your fingers to interfere with the focusing ring which will ruin the focus of your shot. The lens has 2 Aspherical elements and a SLD (low dispersion) element.

This shoot-out compares the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 with 2 Canon primes, the EF 24/2.8 and EF 50/1.8. This is a very tough comparison for a wide to moderate telephoto Zoom like the Sigma. However, as you will see the Sigma does quite well.

The Sigma 17-70 aperture varies with focal length:
17-20mm f/2.8
21-24mm f/3.2
24-34mm f/3.5
35-54mm f/4.0
55-70mm f/4.5

50mm TEST NOT DONE YET: My 50/1.8 started acting flaky with Err99 and is in for repairs under warranty. Test shots will be done at 50mm when I get my EF 50/1.8 back from the shop. UPDATE: I got the 50/1.8 back from the repair shop on 4/3. Guess what? It worked for a few shots then the center lens group loosened up and is nearly falling out of the housing! I have to send it back.

CONCLUSION: The Sigma 17-70 is an outstanding performer, far better than the Canon 18-55/4.5-5.6 kit lens. On an APS-C digital (1.6X Crop factor) camera, the Sigma performed very similar to my Canon 24mm prime. The only negative that I found was that the focusing ring turned while autofocusing. If your fingers interfere with the focus ring you could ruin the focus for that one shot.
UPDATE: This is a SERIOUSLY good lens. I had the oportunity to compare a few shots with a Canon EF 17-40/4. There was no difference on a 1.6 crop DSLR betweeen these two lenses. None! I am just so impressed with this Sigma 17-70!!!

Sigma 17-70 Shoot-Out	Sigma 17-70 Close-up Shot	The Center Test Shot	24mm Center Crops
Chromatic Aberration Test Shot @ 70mm	C.A. Close Up 70mm @ f/4.5	The Edge Test Shot	24mm Edge Crops
Chromatic Aberration Test Shot @ 19mm	C.A. Closeup 19mm @ f/8	Jim's Creek (C.A. Test) 26mm @ f/8	Hyacinths
Crabapples	A Superb Museum Lens

post a comment

pawn_sr		02-Dec-2008 07:52
ghg

pawn_sr		02-Dec-2008 07:50
My friend bought a 17-70 as it seemed good value for money but after buying it, we discovered it was back focused, had poor contrast and center detail at F4.5 or larger and sharpness as a result was very poor. We went back to the shop and tested 8 other lenses in stock. After 2 hours, we picked the best one but after more testing, it was still 10mm back focused and again, contrast at F4.5 or larger was terrible. Having no idea what to do about this bad purchase, we went to our local Sigma service center in Hong Kong to have the lense re-calibrated thinking this would fix everything. After two days, we got the lens back and it was still 3mm back focused causing 80% of photos to be out of focus shot in AF mode. We spoke to Sigma and what advice did they give "You must use ths lens only in manual focus mode and at f5.6 to get good shots. These lenses are like this, there is nothing more we can do". After given that advice, we swiftly refunded the lens and changed it for a canon 17-40.

pawn_sr		02-Dec-2008 07:50
My friend bought a 17-70 as it seemed good value for money but after buying it, we discovered it was back focused, had poor contrast and center detail at F4.5 or larger and sharpness as a result was very poor. We went back to the shop and tested 8 other lenses in stock. After 2 hours, we picked the best one but after more testing, it was still 10mm back focused and again, contrast at F4.5 or larger was terrible. Having no idea what to do about this bad purchase, we went to our local Sigma service center in Hong Kong to have the lense re-calibrated thinking this would fix everything. After two days, we got the lens back and it was still 3mm back focused causing 80% of photos to be out of focus shot in AF mode. We spoke to Sigma and what advice did they give "You must use ths lens only in manual focus mode and at f5.6 to get good shots. These lenses are like this, there is nothing more we can do". After given that advice, we swiftly refunded the lens and changed it for a canon 17-40. I don't like to put down any brands as I appreciate that not everyone has bundles of cash to spend but after my friend's experience, I really feel I ought to share it as I think Sigma are getting away with murder selling the products they do for our hard earned money and yet have the cheek to patronise the consumers. I have only ever bought L lenses but on this occasion, reccommended Sigma to my friend as she has a low budget. What a mistake... To those of you who want a good lens, please stick to Canon. I strongly believe some reviewers who claim they have excellent Sigma lenses are not testing properly or ther benchmarks are lower. It's a bit like writing a car review having never tested a Ferrari. How do you know what is good if you have never tested the best on the market ?... One more thing, even the shop keeper was not surprised when we went back for an exchange. In fact, I think he expected us to come back. That just says it all. In regards to Canon, they are an expensive brand but they get it right more of the time. There are bad lenses reaching the shop shelves but far fewer than sigma. I have used canon L's for a while and do some pretty geeky tests before I buy. 80% of lenses are very good to excellent. In the case of Sigma, 80% was unacceptable, 10% was passable, 10% was OK but "OK" Sigmas are cheap but I believe you can now get compact digicams which produce better photos than a DSLR with Sigma attached. Sad but true. sigma really need to look at the QA process and to do something about it. Nb. We used various camera bodies in the testsQuote this post

pawn_sr		02-Dec-2008 07:50
My friend bought a 17-70 as it seemed good value for money but after buying it, we discovered it was back focused, had poor contrast and center detail at F4.5 or larger and sharpness as a result was very poor. We went back to the shop and tested 8 other lenses in stock. After 2 hours, we picked the best one but after more testing, it was still 10mm back focused and again, contrast at F4.5 or larger was terrible. Having no idea what to do about this bad purchase, we went to our local Sigma service center in Hong Kong to have the lense re-calibrated thinking this would fix everything. After two days, we got the lens back and it was still 3mm back focused causing 80% of photos to be out of focus shot in AF mode. We spoke to Sigma and what advice did they give "You must use ths lens only in manual focus mode and at f5.6 to get good shots. These lenses are like this, there is nothing more we can do". After given that advice, we swiftly refunded the lens and changed it for a canon 17-40. I don't like to put down any brands as I appreciate that not everyone has bundles of cash to spend but after my friend's experience, I really feel I ought to share it as I think Sigma are getting away with murder selling the products they do for our hard earned money and yet have the cheek to patronise the consumers. I have only ever bought L lenses but on this occasion, reccommended Sigma to my friend as she has a low budget. What a mistake... To those of you who want a good lens, please stick to Canon. I strongly believe some reviewers who claim they have excellent Sigma lenses are not testing properly or ther benchmarks are lower. It's a bit like writing a car review having never tested a Ferrari. How do you know what is good if you have never tested the best on the market ?... One more thing, even the shop keeper was not surprised when we went back for an exchange. In fact, I think he expected us to come back. That just says it all. In regards to Canon, they are an expensive brand but they get it right more of the time. There are bad lenses reaching the shop shelves but far fewer than sigma. I have used canon L's for a while and do some pretty geeky tests before I buy. 80% of lenses are very good to excellent. In the case of Sigma, 80% was unacceptable, 10% was passable, 10% was OK but "OK" Sigmas are cheap but I believe you can now get compact digicams which produce better photos than a DSLR with Sigma attached. Sad but true. sigma really need to look at the QA process and to do something about it. Nb. We used various camera bodies in the testsQuote this post

Guest		02-Dec-2008 07:49
My friend bought a 17-70 as it seemed good value for money but after buying it, we discovered it was back focused, had poor contrast and center detail at F4.5 or larger and sharpness as a result was very poor. We went back to the shop and tested 8 other lenses in stock. After 2 hours, we picked the best one but after more testing, it was still 10mm back focused and again, contrast at F4.5 or larger was terrible. Having no idea what to do about this bad purchase, we went to our local Sigma service center in Hong Kong to have the lense re-calibrated thinking this would fix everything. After two days, we got the lens back and it was still 3mm back focused causing 80% of photos to be out of focus shot in AF mode. We spoke to Sigma and what advice did they give "You must use ths lens only in manual focus mode and at f5.6 to get good shots. These lenses are like this, there is nothing more we can do". After given that advice, we swiftly refunded the lens and changed it for a canon 17-40. I don't like to put down any brands as I appreciate that not everyone has bundles of cash to spend but after my friend's experience, I really feel I ought to share it as I think Sigma are getting away with murder selling the products they do for our hard earned money and yet have the cheek to patronise the consumers. I have only ever bought L lenses but on this occasion, reccommended Sigma to my friend as she has a low budget. What a mistake... To those of you who want a good lens, please stick to Canon. I strongly believe some reviewers who claim they have excellent Sigma lenses are not testing properly or ther benchmarks are lower. It's a bit like writing a car review having never tested a Ferrari. How do you know what is good if you have never tested the best on the market ?... One more thing, even the shop keeper was not surprised when we went back for an exchange. In fact, I think he expected us to come back. That just says it all. In regards to Canon, they are an expensive brand but they get it right more of the time. There are bad lenses reaching the shop shelves but far fewer than sigma. I have used canon L's for a while and do some pretty geeky tests before I buy. 80% of lenses are very good to excellent. In the case of Sigma, 80% was unacceptable, 10% was passable, 10% was OK but "OK" Sigmas are cheap but I believe you can now get compact digicams which produce better photos than a DSLR with Sigma attached. Sad but true. sigma really need to look at the QA process and to do something about it. Nb. We used various camera bodies in the testsQuote this post

Steve pawn		02-Dec-2008 07:46
My friend bought a 17-70 as it seemed good value for money but after buying it, we discovered it was back focused, had poor contrast and center detail at F4.5 or larger and sharpness as a result was very poor. We went back to the shop and tested 8 other lenses in stock. After 2 hours, we picked the best one but after more testing, it was still 10mm back focused and again, contrast at F4.5 or larger was terrible. Having no idea what to do about this bad purchase, we went to our local Sigma service center in Hong Kong to have the lense re-calibrated thinking this would fix everything. After two days, we got the lens back and it was still 3mm back focused causing 80% of photos to be out of focus shot in AF mode. We spoke to Sigma and what advice did they give "You must use ths lens only in manual focus mode and at f5.6 to get good shots. These lenses are like this, there is nothing more we can do". After given that advice, we swiftly refunded the lens and changed it for a canon 17-40. I don't like to put down any brands as I appreciate that not everyone has bundles of cash to spend but after my friend's experience, I really feel I ought to share it as I think Sigma are getting away with murder selling the products they do for our hard earned money and yet have the cheek to patronise the consumers. I have only ever bought L lenses but on this occasion, reccommended Sigma to my friend as she has a low budget. What a mistake... To those of you who want a good lens, please stick to Canon. I strongly believe some reviewers who claim they have excellent Sigma lenses are not testing properly or ther benchmarks are lower. It's a bit like writing a car review having never tested a Ferrari. How do you know what is good if you have never tested the best on the market ?... One more thing, even the shop keeper was not surprised when we went back for an exchange. In fact, I think he expected us to comeback. That just says it all. In regards to Canon, they are an expensive brand but they get it right more of the time. There are bad lenses reaching the shop shelves but far fewer than sigma. I have used canon L's for a while and do some pretty geeky tests before I buy. 80% of lenses are very good to excellent. In the case of Sigma, 80% was unacceptable, 10% was passable, 10% was OK but "OK". Sigma really need to change their QA process... Yes, Sigmas are cheap but I think some compact digicams can produce better photos than an DSLR with Sigma attached. Sad but true.. Nb. We used various camera bodies in our tests...

Eric Seavey		31-Oct-2008 13:52
I have this lens for my Pentax K10D. Indeed it is a very sharp lens that is great for landscapes as well as indoor shots. For macro photography I went ahead and bought the 105mm from Sigma. Again very satisfied with the quality, So then I continued shopping and bought the Bigma (Sigma 50-500mm). The Bigma is also a fantastic lens! Now I have only three lenses for capturing anything I want. The Pentax DA 17-70mm just came out with supersonic focusing, seems attempting, however, the sigma offers wider aperture at shorter focal lengths. The focusing has not been an issue for me, so I am sticking with the Sigma 17-70mm.

Eric Seavey		31-Oct-2008 13:47
I have this lens for my Pentax K10D. Indeed it is a very sharp lens that is great for landscapes as well as indoor shots. For macro photography I went ahead and bought the 105mm from Sigma. Again very satisfied with the quality, So then I continued shopping and bought the Bigma (Sigma 50-500mm). The Bigma is also a fantastic lens! Now I have only three lenses for capturing anything I want. The Pentax DA 17-70mm just came out with supersonic focusing, seems attempting, however, the sigma offers wider aperture at shorter focal lengths. The focusing has not been an issue for me, so I am sticking with the Sigma 17-70mm.

jerzyhebda		30-Oct-2008 15:34
Thanks for really useful tests Jim. I live in Poland and I've read all the comments about that Sigma lens. I've decided to buy that one for my Nikon D70 and it will also fit for my future Sigma SD15. Thanks.

Ru		29-Jun-2008 15:55
I'm glad to see many people happy with this lens but I have had 2 examples and both misfocussed (back) badly on my EOS 30d when on wide apertures, I have no similar problems with my 2 other Canon lenses on the same body. "Be careful out there!"

Jim Barr		20-Apr-2008 19:11
I have a sigma 18-200 and it's excellent in every respect, sharp at all f stops and all focal lenghts, personally sharpness is the main feature of all lenses, have had nikon lens, only one word to describe them-terrible.

Jim Barr		20-Apr-2008 19:10
I have a sigma 18-200 and it's excellent in every respect, sharp at all f stops and all focal lenghts, personally sharpness is the main feature of all lenses, have had nikon lens, only one word to describe them-terrible.

Jim Gieber		26-May-2007 03:14
I own the Canon Rebel XT (350D) with this lens. I have noticed some front focus at 17mm wide open, nothing that would warrant a calibration in my eyes. It may very well be alot of user error as well :) Keeping the kit lens, not bad for those soft shots in good light. Have the Canon S3 IS (well, the wife does) and if Canon could reproduce that lens for DSLR, I would pay any price for it...absolutely incredible for P&S.

Jim Gieber		26-May-2007 03:14
I own the Canon Rebel XT (350D) with this lens. I have noticed some front focus at 17mm wide open, nothing that would warrant a calibration in my eyes. It may very well be alot of user error as well :) Keeping the kit lens, not bad for those soft shots in good light. Have the Canon S3 IS (well, the wife does) and if Canon could reproduce that lens for DSLR, I would pay any price for it...absolutely incredible for P&S.

photofredrik		21-May-2007 10:50
What would you say? Should I sell my Nikon 18-70 to get this lens? =P

Guest		29-Apr-2007 01:03
this is a great lens...but i want to know more about it..!!!

RebelARtGrrrl		16-Mar-2007 03:20
I currently own the Canon EF-S 17-85mm and am unhappy with it's lack of sharpness. I'm seriously debating about selling that lens and replacing it with this one. Has anyone done a side by side comparison of these two lenses? I definitely value optics ands sharpness over IS, plus I like the fact that this lens is brighter.

Ilco Trajkovski		27-Feb-2007 08:39
I just bought this lens, and even though I was warried with the issues and bad copies, mine is perfect, even wide open at 17 mm. Yes, there are distorsions, but that is normal, but sharpness is exelent on every focal range. Only dissapointment for me is tad slower autofocus. Coupled with Nikon D50 it is perfect.

azazello.		25-Jan-2007 08:49
Hi!Q Great site!

Waqas Usman		12-Jan-2007 22:48
Nice test Jim! I've been thinking about getting a 17-70 for my Pentax K100D, any updates on the "bad copy" issues? How many ppl are getting a bad copy these days? Is the "bad" part only about frontfocusing on WideAngle? Please "CC" the reply at my pbase guestbook http://pbase.com/waqas). Thanks.

Guest		12-Jan-2007 20:14
very nice lens i also tested it against the Canon 17-40 L and the Canon 17-85IS and there doesnt seem to be any difference...love it!

Guest		21-Dec-2006 12:01
so whats the results like with this lens on a nikon D50 ? and how do i go about NOT getting a bad copy, given sigma have some quality control issue's. many thank's.

hmc		13-Dec-2006 13:33
Don't know if anyone is still reading this forum, last post nov06. I have a sigma 18-200 and havent been very happy with it. It seems to mis focus, ie when focusing far away actually selects a closer focusing point. Is this what you mean by back focusing?? I was considering taking it back and getting it replaced by the 17-70 (my camera is 350D) but from reading this here it seems this lens also suffers from back focusing on the 350D. I think it is that sigma doesnt quite understand canon's auto focus system, or so ive heard. So I guess its best to avoid sigma if using the 350D???

jordanl		11-Nov-2006 19:39
I just got a Sigma 17-70mm. After reading a lot of posts about back-focusing and front-focusing issues I did a test for myself. I did notice a very slight (2-3mm at 45degrees), but not consistent front focusing issue in low light at 17mm. I'm not sure what is acceptable, but overall I love the lens.

Guest		05-Nov-2006 13:57
I tried three Sigma 17-70 DC f/2.8-4.5 lenses, all three have backfocusing on my Canon 400D :( Now I am thinging to return this lens to shop :(

jimcreek		26-Oct-2006 02:24
Yes, this is an outstanding lens for the money.

Malcolm Turner		26-Oct-2006 00:42
Jim, I bought this lens for my Minolta 5D partly due to your tests (among others). I'm absolutely delighted with the results. This should be everyone's standard lens.

Marc Claro		16-Oct-2006 04:25
Wow thats cool! better to have one than buying L lenses from canon that cost more. Thank you sir!

jimcreek		06-Oct-2006 02:57
It focuses better than many of my Canon lenses in low light.

Marc Claro		25-Sep-2006 08:45
sir jim, any problem with focusing during night shots. A few people have speculated that it wont focus well in low lights situation? Is it true sir?

sushi chef		22-Aug-2006 03:02
I have a rebel xt. and an amerture food photographer. I am debating on 50mm 2.8 macro and 17-70 2.8. Macro. I need good photo quality and flexibility for everyday use. please please give me some advise.

Vlad		15-Aug-2006 22:24
After many readings I`ve tested 2 models : tamron 28-75 and Sigma 17-70. After 2 bad copies of Tamron I finally decided on Sigma.I`m not a Sigma fan but with this copy I am going to be :) I love this lens..Sharp 17mm even at 2.8. In sharpness terms this copy I have is wonderful and 5.6 is corner to corner sharp! It makes a great combo with my 70-200 4L. Don`t forget about macro possibilities as well. I would recomend Sigma 17-70 if you can get a good copy.

Sam		08-Aug-2006 10:37
Thank you all for insightful info. My mind is clear now: I am going for the Sigma 17-70. However, I understand there is a risk of getting a bad copy in this case. Can anybody tell me how I can quickly and easily tell a bad copy from a good one so I don't have to wait a year for the bad things to show? Thanks.

Endre		13-Jul-2006 10:34
I also own one, and focusing was horrible on my 350D. It frontfocused at WA quite a bit. It never focused to infinity at 17mm, but 70mm was fine. Tried a few other lenses, but they were fine. Now on a 30D it works as it should. Otherwise the lens is fantastic.Best is if you can try it with your camera before you buy it.

jimcreek		06-Jun-2006 12:48
I've read some comments about front focusing with the Sigma 17-70 mounted on a 30D. I tend not to take these reports too seriously until more data is available. In any event, I own a Digital Rebel (300D) which has been working perfectly with the Sigma 17-70.

jimcreek		23-May-2006 23:36
No, I have not had any focusing issues with the Sigma 17-70.

evandavies		22-May-2006 20:01
Hey Jim, Great test!!! I also have it but I'm finding it is front focusing at the 17mm end. I guess you haven't had this with your copy...? Cheers, E:¬D

jimcreek		12-May-2006 22:01
One weakness of this lens is barrel distortion. But I doubt if it is any more pronounced than other wide angle zooms.

vecarlson		11-May-2006 20:10
Hi there - Agree with the above comments - - very thorough and helpful review! How much barrel distortion - - particularly at 17mm - - do you enounter with your lens? Today I just returned my 17-70 (for an exchange) because I thought the barrel distortion was so pronouced. A new copy is on its way to me but I'm trying to manage my expecations on what a "good" copy of the lens can deliver..

Guest		03-May-2006 10:02
Just wanted to let you know that I am equally impressed with my Sigma 17-70 on a Nikon D50: excellent piece of kit! It beats the Nikon 18-70 hands down (and not only by its impressive macro capabilities) as well as the kit lens that is normally sold with the D50. The only disadvantage that I found was a slight susceptibility to flare.

jimcreek		26-Apr-2006 14:33
I've owned the cheap Canon 18-55 Kit lens. I found the CA to horrible and the resolution at the corners was terrible. The Sigma is MUCH better in all respects including build quality. For me, the Sigma is the perfect walk-around lens.

ThrdDyFn		25-Apr-2006 14:04
Thank you for this review. The Sigma seems to be a very nice lens. I wish they had included HSM, but they don't seem to be putting that on many of their lenses for some reason. I am sure it would have made the lens more expensive and probably larger anyway. I would love to see a test between this lens and the kit lens. While I agree that the kit lens feels cheap (why shouldn't it, it is cheap), I have gotten good results with it. That is the reason I still am using it. I keep thinking I am going to upgrade, then I look at some of the pictures I have taken and wonder what about them am I disatisfied with. Anyway, this Sigma looks really nice and thanks for the review.

jimcreek		18-Apr-2006 00:23
I hope your Sigma 17-70 lens works out for you. Consider this though. A Canon EF 17-55/2.8 IS will cost you over $1000. The Sigma is less than $400. That leaves you over $600 for another lens! Good luck and happy shooting Mr. Clean !!

Guest		17-Apr-2006 23:20
Jim, thanks for putting this up...I've been trying to decide on a good kit lens replacement. After much research and your site along with many others I ordered the lens. I actually tried to cancel the order over the weekend in hopes that I could hold out for the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS reviews but I was too late! Hopefully my lens will perform as good as yours. Thanks again! Mr. Clean from POTN

tamu2002		12-Apr-2006 16:53
I did a casual test of my new canon 50mm, 1.8 and this sigma lens. At ISO 100, F8, the sigma has about the same sharpness as the Canon 50mm at F16. The Canon 50mm has a slight but clear advantage at F8. The Sigma also has a wamer color tone than the canon,which is consistent with another review I read.

jimcreek		05-Apr-2006 23:28
I'm glad you found the reveiw usefull to you. My 50mm f/1.8 arrived back after repairs from the authorized Canon shop. I shot about 20 test shots and the center lens group loosened up and started flopping back and forth. I have to send it back. I'm not sure if my 50mm test shots are useful or not.

Bruce Bird		05-Apr-2006 13:50
Thanks mr. You have really put my mind at ease about the one I ordered today. Thanks Rgds bruce

jimcreek		28-Mar-2006 02:48
Thanks for the suggestion about the wide crops. I have a wide screen laptop 1200X1024 so I never see the problem.

jared@sailbyair.com		28-Mar-2006 02:40
If this had been out a few months back I would have gotten it over the Sigma 24-70mm, but thats ok. I have constant f2.8, and I find myself never needing anything wider. Suggestion, don't make your crops so wide, makes it hard to fit onto the screen at once.

jimcreek		27-Mar-2006 12:40
I used to own the Canon 18-55 kit lens. In comparison, the Sigma is sharper, faster, has far less CA, is better built and has a longer zoom range both wider and longer. It all depends on how much those benefits are worth to you, as to whether or not the cost of upgrading is justified.

diqiman		27-Mar-2006 12:30
Hi, really nice test, so is it definetely worth to buy this instead of my kit lens Canon 18-55 which is not so bad at higher f stops and is quite light..? If you compare especialy the sharpness.. Thanx man

click on thumbnails for full image

Type your message and click Add Comment

It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest. Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help	private comment