Sigma 17-70 vs Sigma 18-50 Photo Gallery by Miljenko Devcic at pbase.com

Sigma 17-70 vs Sigma 18-50

Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5DC is modestly priced compared to established 18-50mm f2.8DC lens from their EX series. Does it makes sense to compare two lenses positioned into different categories? According to results, it does! Check 100% crops extracted from full size pics shot with Nikon D200 at 19, 24, 28, 35 and 50 mm. At 19 mm Sigma 18-50 is set to 18mm mark, but actual focal length is 19mm. This time I am not publishing Imatest resolution charts. The reasons are poor edge results due to curved focal plane. Real life pics (like those presented in above crops) tell the story more realistic and accurate for those two lenses. Please check Excel charts where light fall-off and distortion was measured for both lenses. Besides pics and charts, here are brief findings: on average, both lenses are roughly equal in sharpness. 18-50 excells at wide end, while 17-70 takes over at 35mm and above. 17-70 has better contrast and is neutral in colour, compared to 18-50 that has slight yellow cast. For most comparisons 18-50 pics were trimmed by +0.3 f-stops, while 17-70 pics were lowered by -0.7 f-stops.

pages 1 2 ALL

Side by side	Extended	With hood	19mm full pic
19mm left edge crops	19mm right edge crops	24mm left edge crops	24mm right side crops
28mm left edge crops	28mm right edge crops	35mm left edge crops	35mm right edge crops
50mm center crops	50mm left edge crops	:: Sigma 17-70 sample pics ::	:: Sigma 17-70 macroshots ::

pages 1 2 ALL

comment |

Miljenko Devcic		22-Jan-2010 14:45
"The 72 mm model has 2 versions again (at least on Nikon): one without motor and a HSM version. Between those two, no optical differences indeed." This is what I had in mind. Transition from non-HSM to HSM version didn't bring any optical formula change.

Henrik		15-Jan-2010 21:32
No, the 67 mm and 72 mm Sigma 18-50/2.8 versions are quite different! Especially the light fall-off in the corner has improved a lot, but distortion is also better on the newer model. It is not a huge surprise: bigger diameter explains both. Some even say sharpness is also better, but that of course can be sample variation as well. The 72 mm model has 2 versions again (at least on Nikon): one without motor and a HSM version. Between those two, no optical differences indeed.

Miljenko Devcic		14-Oct-2009 18:24
Hi Ryan, new version shares exactly the same optical formula with previous version, with HSM being the only difference.

Ryan		12-Sep-2009 20:30
I noticed that the filter diameter of the 18-50mm f/2.8 is 67mm, however, Sigma lists the filter diameter of the current 18-50mm f/2.8 Macro as 72mm. So, is the 18-50mm f/2.8 lens you tested of a different design than the 18-50mm f/2.8 Macro currently offered by Sigma? If so, do you by any chance have a comparison of the newer 18-50mm f/2.8 Macro?

Miljenko Devcic		30-Mar-2009 07:29
Hi Ruud, I'm glad 17-70 works for you. So far I've shot thousands of pics using this lens with great success. As the matter of fact, despite having dozen of great lenses on hand, I'm doing 90% of all wide to mid angle shots using this lens. Happy shooting, rgrds, Miljenko

Ruud		17-Mar-2009 18:45
Thank you Miljenko! I did as you said. I tried a 17-70 in our local camera store and bought it as it seemed a good copy. It's a lot of lens for the money. I'm so glad I read your review because somehow this lens had escaped my attention. Great work, Miljenko, you wrote a very useful review!

Miljenko Devcic		11-Feb-2007 22:36
Rodney, sorry, but I couldn't tell. I didn't heard anything about it. I guess you should search more popular Canon forums to find such an info. Good luck. Regards, Miljenko

Rodney		03-Feb-2007 13:41
I read somewhere that there is a auto focusing problem on a 20D using a 580 speedlite with this the Sigma 17 - 70?

Janika		21-Sep-2006 15:32
Just got this lens yesterday and so far I am very happy with it. I appreciate all the testing you've done here. I was also aiming for the 18-50 2.8 EX DC, but than I saw the in-house test done by Photozone.de, where the lens was compared to the more expensive EX and the Canon EFS 17-85 and the Sigma 17-70 beat them both in optics. This lens also feels very sturdy and it's built like tank. This is an ultimate walk around lens that's got the wideness, the length and the macro, so it will be permanently attached on my 350D. I will also test it on my 30D at the next wedding I'll shoot with it... Cheers

Sam		08-Aug-2006 10:34
Thank you 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.

Alan		13-Jul-2006 23:52
Very much enjoyed the quality of these pictures just beautiful! I have a Canon G3 so you can imagine. I was at a store today looking at the 17-70mm f2.8-4.5DC. After seeing what this lense is capable of and reading such fine reviews about it, no doubt I will be going back soon to purchase the 17-70mm f2.8-4.5DC. I plan to buy Canon's Rebel Xt to go with it. Keep up the good work. Thanks again. Alan

Miljenko Devcic		02-May-2006 07:41
Dom, you have noticed the problem very well, but precisely said, it happens on certain focal lenghts. The answer lies in "Sample variation" subgallery. Buildings pic crops were done using sample "A" as reffered to samples designation. With other samples unsharp areas appear on different sides. This is not an unusual behaviour even for much more expensive lenses (Nikkor 17-55 comes to mind; tested here:http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/1755_vs_1850)

dom		01-May-2006 22:14
sorry, i mean't the other way around, the left looks worse than the right, generally, to me.

Dom Burke		01-May-2006 16:38
hi Miljenko. Useful tests, thanks for all the effort, it's appreciated. I have the 18-50 but would like the extra length and also macro ability of the 17-70. Is it just me though, or do the right edge crops on this test look terrible on 17-70 (at wide apertures) compared to the left side crops, which look very impressive? Dom

Miljenko Devcic		27-Apr-2006 19:20
Hi Tamas, in most cases 17-70 bokeh was slightly smoother. However, I didn't have both lenses side by side for long so didn't have a chance to perform all possible tests on both. This includes thorough bokeh tests.

Tamas Kerecsen		27-Apr-2006 06:11
How is the bokeh rendering of the 18-50 compared to 17-70. Is there a noticeable difference?

Miljenko Devcic		03-Mar-2006 21:40
Yes, Sigma 17-70 feels much wider than 18-50. It's almost like 24mm vs 28mm difference in film days.

Guest		02-Mar-2006 18:30
a) thanks so much for the effort to test and place on the web! b) do I understand correctly that the 18-50 has an effective widest focal length of 19, while the 17-70 has 17? This difference is, in my book, substantial (full frame equivalent of 30.4 vs 27.2) and is a factor in my decision between these two lenses. (It may be the case that when the Tamron 18-50 comes out, it will be wider than the Sigma. Not sure if I am willing to wait until then.)

Miljenko Devcic		21-Feb-2006 13:48
Hi guys, thanks for appreciating my work. Unfortunately, whenever I get a lens for testing I have a tight timeframe so usualy do lab test target shooting first. This is why test shots appear ahead of anyhing else, sometimes they end up as the only shots made. This time it's a bit different as the results made me buy this awesome lens. So you can expect more interesting pics ranging from macro to panoramas. Regards, Miljenko

Guest		20-Feb-2006 16:05
No reason to be rude or sarcastic. When I wrote the post there was only the very testoriented pictures used to compare lenses. What I wanted was some "normal" pictures - I can now see that macro shots has been added since my post. They look great! Thanks.

Peter Gabriel		20-Feb-2006 14:14
Will it works as well on a Nikon D50? I would really appreciate some portrait pictures taken with the lens :)

Guest		19-Feb-2006 23:06
Its a good test. Im greatful. I was making a joke at the other person who didnt like your lack of "real worl" pictures when you clearly posted plenty. Good job!

Miljenko Devcic		18-Feb-2006 22:21
:)) I've just burned those model buildings down to ashes and will finaly start to shoot something real :)) Sorry guys, just went to the woods for weekend, shooting birds with my Bigma. I'm a little bit tired of shooting silly stuff like that. Just don't want to forget why where those cameras invented for in a first place...

Guest		17-Feb-2006 10:52
Ya post more "real life" pictures. You built all those fake buildings and miniture trees for these tests and they dont look real. Those cars and brick walls look better....but ya....post "real life" stuff like the other guy said. Your budget of 48 million dollars to do this test for us isnt enough. Its too fake.

Guest		16-Feb-2006 18:52
Awsome test! Thanks :) Would really like to see som e"real" life pictures taken with both lenses.

Guest		16-Feb-2006 00:36
Hi, Miljenko, Thanks for sharing the detailed comparison. Can you please provide some macro photos? Thanks again.

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