Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 DC Macro v. Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com

Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 DC Macro v. Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM

Feb 15 2006. I've posted additional test comments under each image. If you have any particular questions, leave them here on this page.

Quick Comments:
Build: I like the build of the Sigma more, even though it isn't an "EX" lens, it feels nice and solid with a grippy zoom ring. It feels like the Sigmas 1850EX/2460EX/2870EX lenses.

AF: The Canon wins easily here with its USM and FTM. The Sigma is "fast enough", and while it makes some noise (wheezy) it is fairly quiet. The focus ring turns externally while in AF, similar to the Sigma 1850EX, 18125DC, and Tamron 2875Di. Both lenses have very accurate AF.

Optics: These two lenses are very similar in sharpness and contrast. The Sigma is sharper at the wide end while the Canon is sharper at the long end; this is a consistent finding of mine. The Sigma is a bit better at the edges overall. Distortion and light fall-off are a little better controlled on the Sigma, while flare resistance is better on the Canon; color fringing is clearly better with the Sigma. The Sigma renders a warmer tone while the Canon is cooler (as usual).

Conclusion: The main perks of the Canon are its 15mm longer reach, IS, and USM/FTM. The main perks of the Sigma are its slightly better build, its faster aperture across the focal lengths (and brighter VF), and its excellent MFD and 1:2 reproduction ratio (VERY nice!). Both are tremendous "walkaround" lenses that give you 17mm on the wide end (27mm effective FOV). The Sigma runs about $400USD while the Canon can be had for about $520USD (though even cheaper on eBay). Both can only be used on 1.6x bodies. If I had to choose between these two, I would go with the Canon for its better range, much better AF (ring USM/FTM), and of course, IS. The Sigma is a fine choice, but the Canon gets my nod overall (though it's not an easy selection).

Sigma 1770DC focal length to aperture break-down:
17-20mm 2.8
21-24mm 3.2
25-34mm 3.5
35-54mm 4.0
55-70mm 4.5

[82,400 page hits]

1	2	3	4
5	6	T1	T2
T3	T4	T5	T6
FlareSigma	FlareCanon	CloseUpSig1	CloseUpSig2
CloseUpCan1	CloseUpSig3	BrickWallSigma17mm	BrickWallCanon17mm
BrickWallSigma70mm	BrickWallCanon85mm	Sigma 1770DC Images [2/17/06]

post a comment

lightrules		25-Jul-2008 16:30
No, it is not parfocal. Sorry mate!

ale		25-Jul-2008 11:35
I have a very important question for lightrules: The sigma 17-70 is parfocal or not? thanks a lot! ale

pirxthepilot		14-Oct-2007 20:03
thanks again!

lightrules		14-Oct-2007 15:26
I found no significant difference in low light AF with the Sigma and Tamron. I'd say they are very comparable. I think you'll find either one quite satisfactory. Enjoy.

pirxthepilot		14-Oct-2007 05:17
hi lightrules! i was wondering if you were able to test the 17-70 at (typical) low-light situations. how is it's AF? is it better than the tamron 17-50? i am currently deciding between these two lenses (here in hong kong they cost the same). thanks a lot!

Chris		26-Aug-2007 13:31
Thanks. I've messed around with one at a local shop in the past and really liked it but the reason I didn't buy it in the past was the cost difference and after reading your review almost a year ago, I decided that at the time, I would go with the cheaper lens. However, now that I've got two other Canon lenses and they are both USM and FTM, I love the Canon line. Maybe if Sigma had an EX HSM version, I'd be more inclined to get that but I've also started leaning toward the IS lenses too. Its a tough call, I know but thanks for the comments.

lightrules		25-Aug-2007 16:46
Chris, tough call. The 1770 is a fine lens and it's 1:2 reproduction is real nice to have. I wouldn't put too much stock into the 70mm versus 85mm; rather, I think you need to weigh how much you want IS and ring USM/FTM. Those are the key things here in moving to the Canon. Build is nicer on the Sigma, however. I think IS and ring AF with FTM is a significant thing personally, so it seems based on what you've said also, that it's a good move. Don't expect IQ to go up, but your keep rate might with the addition of the IS. Maybe you can try one out at a local photo store first?

Chris		25-Aug-2007 16:32
I have been curious about going with the 1785 and selling my 1770. How disapointed do you think I'll be? I mainly want it for the longer focal length, IS and USM. Being 'fast' isn't a big concern for me seeing as how I usually shoot at 5.6 and above outside and I use a flash indoors but I've also got an 85 1.8 for low light stuff.

Bleriot419		01-Aug-2007 11:37
Choised the Sigma for : - Image quality - Cheaper - Faster, which means better to look through eyefinder - Huge distorsion with the Canon at wide end (See PhotoZone review) I find colours a little warm with it and very important vignetting at wide angle full open. FTM missing is not a problem to me as my eyes do no more allow me to manually focus. Had a 28-105 USM before and quite never used it. IS can be great but opening at 4 maximum is a weakness and at the end I am not sure the Sigma zoom (f 2.8) is far from the Canon one.

lightrules		11-Mar-2007 15:36
The 1770 will fit on your 1DMK2, but it will vignette a lot. The 1785 will not even fit. I would look elsewhere for your 1DMK2.

Grinfeld		11-Mar-2007 07:55
"Both can only be used on 1.6x bodies" so i can't use it on my Canon 1D mark II ?

lightrules		07-Mar-2007 16:50
Hi Melanie, it seems to me that the problems you encountered on your trip have more to do with proper exposure than the lens itself. I don't know the lighting conditions you experienced, but setting your camera in "auto" mode can render images that are not properly exposed (in your case, underexposed). Without coming off as offensive, do you know how to expose properly using Manual mode? I think only after you've eliminated the user side of things can you move to the lens being the problem. Let me know how things turn out.

Melanie		07-Mar-2007 16:31
I have now owned the Sigma 17-70 for two months and took it to South Africa for a three week vacation where I took over 700 photos. Yes, it took great close-up shots of flowers, but a moajority of the photos are dark. Landscape shots with my lens are a waste as they all came out with either a lack of detail or dark. I am quite bummed. Being on vacation, with family, running around, I didn't always want to set the shots and used the auto setting on my XTi, which normally is enough to get good shots, but I learned by the end that for every photo I needed to guage the ISO and more to get something I am somewhat happy with - and that did not always help. Could this mean that I have one of the bad lenses? I have had other lenses before, and am surprised and very bummed with the picture quality.

Samuel Ho		16-Feb-2007 18:38
Does any one can tell me waht is a back focus problem, appreciated.

digimpressions		12-Jan-2007 16:13
Thanks for work. Well done! I use the Sigma 17-70 that I bought 'cause I got it for a very good price. After the first photos, I was amazed by its quality and performance. I agree with you that the Sigma feels nicely and is fast enough. I had the chance to compare it to a 17-85 IS from a friend. This is a very nice lens. Actually, a little softer than the Sigma and with more optical problems but with a longer end and the IS which is really nice. For those who have to look at the money, I would recommend the Sigma, the others should go for the Canon, unless they need the f-stop 2.8, that is...

Smash		24-Aug-2006 00:27
Thanks for the review. Based generally on this test and on the price of the lenses of course, I've ordered 4 months ago Sigma 17-70. My copy has a back-focus problem on my Canon 350D. I have returned it to repair center for check, but the guys claimed that the lens is OK, but they agreed to check other available lenses with my body and if they behave better - to replace it. If somebody is interested in back-focus test pictures, please mail me at itsanov at gips dt net.

Sam		08-Aug-2006 16:04
Thank you, lightrules! I'll just keep my fingers crossed.

lightrules		08-Aug-2006 13:38
Assume a good copy unless clearly shown otherwise. The DC is a good lens and there are relatively few complaints about it. Just use and enjoy it; you will know if something is wrong after some use. But I would guess you'll be just fine.

Sam		08-Aug-2006 09:26
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.

lightrules		19-Jul-2006 23:12
I am not sure if the Sigma 1770 is parfocal or not in practice. My guess is that it is (its 1850EX sibling works this way). But I generally found the AF to be accurate on the 1770 copy I had.

Johan		19-Jul-2006 22:17
A trick I sometimes use with 17-85 is to zoom in on what I want to focus on, focus, and with the shutter half pressed, zoom out to how I want to frame the picture, and then take it. This works because the 17-85 is effectively parfocal (tho I don't think that's an official designation). Does the sigma 17-70 support that technique?

lightrules		07-Jul-2006 15:04
Jack, if you're mainly interested in the 17-40mm range, I'd say get the L. It's got better build, ring USM/FTM, FF compatibile, and in terms of IQ, it's about the same sharpness as the DC lens but has slightly better contrast. It also has slightly better edge performance. If the 40-70mm range isn't all that key to you, then the 1:2 "macro" of the DC lens isn't really an advantage anymore. But I think you should know that even though you would have a 17-40 and 28-75, it's quite different practically having an excellent all-in-one 17-70 that doesn't require you to keep switching back and forth. That's something to consider. Otherwise, considering only the 17-40 range, I'd say the L.

vjack		07-Jul-2006 12:51
Seeking clarification on your comments about 17-70 vs. 17-40L. No question that the 17-70 is a more versatile walk-around range, but I've been burned chasing this goal before (Sigma 18-125). Within the 17-40 focal range, are these lenses comparable in IQ, color, contrast, etc.? Since I already have the Tamron 28-75 which I could keep to cover the 40-70 range, I'm most interested in the L is clearly superior to the Sigma in the 17-40 range.

lightrules		09-May-2006 20:50
There is no "better" lens here, only "better at certain things". My short answer is that IMO the Sigma is the "better" walkaround lens on crop bodies because of the focal range it offers, the close focusing distance and 1:2 "macro" ability, and smaller size. It's also a "faster" lens. Optically it's really not that great a difference, unless you talk to 1740L owners who will sneeringly deny any comparison of any sort. The L is of course much "better" in other areas like having ring USM and nicer build, refinement, etc. It's also FF compatible.

feilb		09-May-2006 19:53
I'm wondering your thoughts between this lens and the 17-40 L. I am agonizing between these two. On one hand, there is the greater reach of this lens, on the other... well it is an L. Ive seen tests where resolution is comparable. What about color, contrast, and other aspects?

Guest		18-Apr-2006 16:54
Fstop/Lightrules, thanks for such great work on all the lens reviews. I ordered a 17-70 after a ton of reasearch on the net and visiting your site mulitple times a day! Thanks again for everything! Mr Clean - POTN

lightrules		26-Mar-2006 06:42
Glad to see the lens is working out for you, Jim. Looks like a solid Siggie copy you've got. Hope it works out well for you as your main walkaround. Also, nice comparison/test you did. It's another good data-point for photo-folks. Take care.

jimcreek		26-Mar-2006 02:32
Thanks for the review on the Sigma 17-70mm. Based on your comments I bought one and I really like it. I did my own review at: http://www.pbase.com/jimcreek/sigma_1770_test_report. It's still a work in progress. Thanks again.

lightrules		14-Mar-2006 21:33
Maria, I'm not sure what more I can say. You know the pros and cons of the lens. You have a copy in your hands and need to decide if it's the right one for you. I think only you can make that decision. Have you tried the 1850EX?

Maria		14-Mar-2006 21:29
Hi, I know you've been asked this already, but I must ask it again.. I'm using Sigma 1850EX, and I needed something broader than this, and 1770 seemed to be the solution..I got it today to try it out, and I must decide until tomorrow, and I did tested with several shots, but indoors with clody day outside, and it seems to me as you already said that 1850 is a bit sharper, but I really like that extra over 50..It's a hard desicion for me..Could you give me some more pro or cons for 1770, please? Thanks

lightrules		13-Mar-2006 15:12
IMO, yes the 1770 has better AF accuracy. At 17mm the lens rarely misfocused, and that's where the AF issues normally arise. It's a good, all-around, walk-around.

Jim Mueller		13-Mar-2006 15:00
The Sigma 18-125 has a bad reputation for auto-focusing errors. Is the Sigma 17-85 better than the 18-125 in this respect?

Jan		09-Mar-2006 17:53
Thanks, I guessed the same thing, but since I never used IS, I thought I'd better ask...

lightrules		09-Mar-2006 16:27
I find IS more useful personally. YMMV. The new 1755IS that is soon coming out will have the best of both worlds, but at a hefty price. The aperture on the 1770 is faster than the 1785, but it does "slow down" fairly quickly as at 21mm it's already at f3.2.

Jan		09-Mar-2006 12:22
Very interesting test, thank you! A little question: Does the aperture of the Sigma make up for the missing IS, or is the IS more useful? I rarely use a tripod, so I wonder if in low-light situations the IS or the aperture is more helpful.

lightrules		08-Mar-2006 15:48
The 1770 has a slower but quieter AF than the 2470. Optically the 2470 is slightly better (that's how good the 1770 is). The 2470 is larger, very similar to the Canon 2470L.

Guest		08-Mar-2006 14:48
Hi, I'm looking to buy a 'decent affordable' walkaround lens. I think I've narrowed the selection down to either the Sigma 17-70 DC or Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro. I guess I'm asking for advice on which one to buy. Are they pretty much the same optically ?, I read on your review of the 24-70 that it's focus is noisy but fast. Is the 17-70 as fast ? or noticeably slower ?

lightrules		04-Mar-2006 04:14
They're both good in their own way; each has their strengths. But I did make my choice as I kept the 1785IS. I think once you use Image Stabilization, it's hard to pass up when it's one of the options in a lens decision. Don't get me wrong; I would like to have both really, but that's not practical. So I've kept the 1785IS...at least until the new 1755IS is released. Best wishes to you on this decision; I recommend both heartily. [As for the Sigma's AF, it's relatively quiet and "fast enough"; similar to the 1850EX and 2870EX.]

Stephen Aim		04-Mar-2006 02:10
If you had to make a choice between these two lenses on a limited budget which would you choose? And how accurate and "noisy" is the Sigma 17-10?

David Fenn		04-Mar-2006 00:31
Thanks for the quick feedback. I have the 28-135 IS and sing the IS song every time I use it, usually past 100mm. I'm not a pro, but I've been waiting for something sharper than the 18-55, esp on the short end. This lens seems like it, and it's decently priced.

lightrules		04-Mar-2006 00:19
David, I think either of these lenses will provide tremendous gains for you in terms of focal range, build quality (one of the weakest aspects of the kit lens), and other things. The Sigma is really nice with its super close focusing distance and 1:2 magnification, while the Canon lens has 3rd generation IS and super swift and silent ring USM AF. I think you'll notice these right off the bat. Best wishes.

David Fenn		04-Mar-2006 00:02
I need a replacement for my Canon 18-55. Think I'll see a huge difference here?

lightrules		23-Feb-2006 16:03
Hi Robert, as of today (2/23) the excellent 1770 is gone and sold. It leaves me with a very favorably impression though. The new owner is "beyond pleased", which is no surprise to me. Highly recommended lens.

Robert		23-Feb-2006 13:16
So have you been able to let go of the 17-70 yet.. or is it too good to NOT have around? :) Im leaning towards ordering one.

lightrules		18-Feb-2006 15:14
See this http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/17401850

Robert		18-Feb-2006 06:54
What made you moved from the 18-50EX to the 17-85?

lightrules		17-Feb-2006 14:53
Yes, I do. Speed is a good thing. But I do have primes for those situations.

M.H. Lau		17-Feb-2006 09:10
Just curious. I know you moved from the 1850EX to the 1785IS. Do you ever miss the speed of the former?

lightrules		16-Feb-2006 18:13
Distortion is better controlled on this new 1770DC (vis-a-vis the 18125DC). I think you'll find it's quite similar to the 1850EX.

Jman		16-Feb-2006 17:44
How do you find the distortion of the Sigma lens at both extreme ends? I have a very sharp copy of the 18-125mm (at least as sharp as the 18-50 or 24-70EX I've tested), though the extreme barrel distortion at the wide end and slower aperture are making it a much less used lens for me the past few months. Does the 17-70 exhibit the same type of distortion?

lightrules		16-Feb-2006 15:00
IMO, the 1850EX is a sharper lens than the new 1770DC at corresponding apertures. Is it a noticeable difference on print? Probably not, but to my "I've viewed thousands upon thousands of 100% crops" eyes, the 1850EX is both a bit sharper and has better contrast. This goes for the 1785IS also (i.e., the 1850EX is better optically IMO). But again, each lens has its perks and these 2 lenses in this test have advantages over the 1850EX too. I am speaking vis-a-vis optics per se only.

M.H. Lau		16-Feb-2006 10:12
Hi, how would the 1770 compare to the 1850: 1) both at 18mm f2.8? 2) both at 50mm f4? on the balance of all things, IYO, would you recommend the 1850 over the 1770? And thanks for always posting these useful tests.

Tonda		16-Feb-2006 09:46
Yes, sigma 18-50 is very popullar lens. I hope, that 17-70 will be near qualitty optical performance with 18-50. If it will be, it will be very impressive lens for me! Of course Tamron 17-50/2,8 . UF We will see...

Robert		16-Feb-2006 06:37
So the Sigma as _almost_ as severe distortion as the Canon? (as to be expected given the focal range) What you mention about the 17-70 having "only" a little more range than the 18-50EX, I've read somewhere that the 18-50EX is more like 19-47mm so if the 17-70 is true 17-70mm there's a big difference. Thanks for the test, now when will you get to the Tamron 17-50/2.8 XR Di II? :)

click on thumbnails for full image