Sigma 17-70

Has anyone had any hands on with the new Sigma 17-70 macro lens?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06011802sigma17-70.asp

I am still after a lens that will "do it all" for when I want to do a recon dive or when I just don't want to make a commitment I know not all of you have the option to dive on a whim and a lens of this type might not be foremost in your minds, but I think a lens of this type would be good to have for me.

I have been using the Sigma 18-200 on a few dives and it's not bad but it doesn't focus close enough and the magnification isn't great. It does what I intended for it to do, so I'm happy with that. But as I wander around more, I have to think there is a lens that can meet my needs more thoroughly.

I don't expect a new lens to replace the 100, 60 or 10-20 that I also have and use. But there are just some times when I'd like something else, you know?

Input appreciated as always...

I use the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX underwater and like it. I don't know how the 17-70 is built (how far extending when zooming, close focus). It should be no problem to use the lens behind a flat port. For usage with a dome port, you should check if your manufacture can recommend a combination.

Julian

You could always add a diopter to the 18-200 to improve close focus. If you are not all that picky about image quality then this would do the trick. If you are being more picky then use the other superb lenses you already own.

How about the newly announced Canon 17-55mm at f2.8?

Will be interested in your comments on the 10-20mm - I assume that is the Sigma lens??

Geoff

Hi Alcina,

I also had an eye on the sigma 17-70 macro. I checked with some housing manufacturers what the possibilities were and both UK Germany and Hugyfot expected that the inside of the lensport would be on the foto in wide position when a flatport is used. At 70 mm the lens comes 4.5 cm out. So you have to buy a more expensive domeport which is also not very preferable for macrowork.

Then, there is the aperture value of f/4,5 at the teleposition which isn't very good. In the dark water here in the Netherlands you would need a pretty strong focuslight otherwise your autofocus wouldn't work.

Furthermore, i checked this lens in the shop and compared it to the Sigma 50 mm macro on the D200 with a ruler. The 50 mm showed exactly 24 mm of the ruler at closest focus and the 17-70 showed more than twice this length (to be exact: 2.3*24= 55 mm). Both lenses were almost touching the object. So, decide for yourself whether the 17-70 will be a proper macro lens for you.

I decided to go for the sigma 50 mm macro which very suitable for poor visibility work. it's also quit an affordable lens in my point of view (249 euro). In case that you'd like to make fishportait it's also still possble with this lens.

Hopefully this information is usefull for you,

Udo

You all may want to try the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 lens. It's a strange one, the lens actually extends out the LONGEST at the 24mm zoom. At 70mm it's pulled back about 2". Weird eh?

This lens also focuses very close and is reasonable build quality, and pretty sharp. I got one at Alex's recommendation as he likes it for pseudo macro and fish photography.

Cheers

James

I read the specs on this new Sigma lens and it looks pretty interesting. According to the Sigma website the lens is Internal Focusing so I'm not sure if the lens changes length when zoomed. It's stated length is 3.2 inches and it makes no mention of any different length at different focal lengths. Also the minimum focus distance is 7.9 in. throughout it's range and the f2.8 at 17mm sounds pretty good. It might be worth trying at $389.

I am very, very certain that the 17-70 mm will extend 4,5 cm in 70 mm. I tested the lens in the shop and had the extension measured, no doubt about it. It's true that sigma doesn't mention the extension on their site, but they don't do this for any of their lenses.

cheers, Udo

Internal focusing does not equal "does not extend while zooming." It just means that the front element doesn't extend when the lens focuses.

Ref. my comment above about the 24-70 - it's worth looking at, IMO.

Cheers

James

James,

What zoom ring do you use for this lens and what port ?

Internal focusing does not equal "does not extend while zooming."  It just means that the front element doesn't extend when the lens focuses.

 

Ref. my comment above about the 24-70 - it's worth looking at, IMO.

 

Cheers

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of coarse you're right about IF - I was confused for a moment. What I'm looking for is something to fill the gap between my 15mm and my 60mm. Something in the equivalent FF range of 24-28mm and the 24-70 wouldn't get me there on a crop sensor camera. I used to shoot a lot with my Nikonos and 28mm - fish portraits, u/w still lifes, etc. I've been lusting over the Nikon 17-35mm for some time but I just can't justify the $1300. I think this lens as well as the newly announced Tamron 17-50 would be worth looking at as a lower cost alternative.

I am very, very certain that the 17-70 mm will extend 4,5 cm in 70 mm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's quiet a bit. My 18-50 f2.8 extends about 3cm and I don't have black corners (port diameter ~ 120mm and 1.6 crop camera). However, I use it behind a dome glass anyway because I prefer the field of view.

Julian

I am very, very certain that the 17-70 mm will extend 4,5 cm in 70 mm. I tested the lens in the shop and had the extension measured, no doubt about it. It's true that sigma doesn't mention the extension on their site, but they don't do this for any of their lenses.

 

cheers, Udo

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_chart.asp

Unfortunately the 17-70 is so new it hasn't made it into the chart yet.