Sigma Lenses

Hi everyone,

I have been thinking for the past couple of months on getting a middle range zoom lens. I have a Nikon 16 mm and the 105, and I will be traveling to Bali in about couple months. I thought about the Nikon 17-35 but I don't think I want to spend that much money for now, I saw that Sigma has a 17-35 mm f/2.8-4.0EX DG for 479$ and a 20-40 mm f/2.8EX for about 439$. Does anyone has any recommendation or experience with these lenses or any other Sigma.

Thanks for your help.

David

I have two Sigma lenses - that are good lenses. I use a 28-70mm F2.8-f2.8 a lot. This is a very useful lens and I am very happy with the quality. I also have a Sigma 150mm F2.8 macro lens. This lens is too long for most UW shooting - and I would use the 105mm 9 times out of 10 compared with it. But that 1 time out of ten, it is pretty nice!

 

If I was going to Bali (and I am) I would prioritise a 50/60mm macro lens. The Sigma 50mm would be an excellent choice. The 105mm is definitely too long for many of the subjects in Bali, and the 50mm would be ideal.

 

Alex

Thank you Alex,

What is the difference between the Nikon 60mm and the Sigma 50mm?

Thanks for your help

David

I don't know anyone who shoots the Sigma 50mm underwater. But I'd imagine it is good - and being that bit wider is a bonus on a cropped sensor DSLR.

 

I know one underwater photographer who has only one gripe about non-full frame Nikons for UW photography - no 60mm macro equivalent (he wants a 40mm macro lens).

 

Alex

I have three Sigma lenses, two of which I use uw frequently: the 150mm f/2.8 macro and the 50mm macro. Both are 1:1 macro, and both work extremely well. I like the 50mm because it focuses well in low light and is a good fish lens as well as being good for medium macro. Thus, if you are going on a dive where you're not sure if you'll see tiny critters (e.g., pygmy seahorses) that warrant something super-macro like the 150mm, the 50mm will enable you to shoot anything from nudi's to octopus to fish.

 

The 150mm is great for super-macro, but I only use it if I'm going on a dive where I really expect to see tiny stuff.

 

The third Sigma lens I have is the 18-200mm for cropped sensor cameras only (I use it topside on a Canon 20D), but I have never even considered trying to use it uw. It's a great "vacation" lens for topside use.

The Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 is the one I would like to know a bit more about - just because the close focus ability is better than any other mid range zoom avaiable.

A few previous posts are positive about this lens, despite no off the shelf zoom gear available for it.

The Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 is the one I would like to know a bit more about - just because the close focus ability is better than any other mid range zoom avaiable.

A few previous posts are positive about this lens, despite no off the shelf zoom gear available for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've been using the Sigma 17-70 for a few dives now and am very happy with it. Here are my thoughts on my first few dives with it:'

 

http://www.digitaldiver.net/yabbse/index.p...77140#msg177140

 

http://www.digitaldiver.net/yabbse/index.p...79968#msg179968

I use a 50 mm Sigma Macro lens and i like it a lot. I dive a lot in poor visibility water (Netherlands) and it's really important that you get close to reduce backscatter. With the 50 mm you have to get closer to your subject then with the 60 mm when you shoot 1:1 which is an advantage in my situation. The difficulty when shooting 1:1 with a 50 mm is lighting your subject. It's hard to get the light in between the port and the subject, because you're so close.

Furthermore i also own a Sigma 10-20mm wideangle, which is about half the price of the 12-24 mm Nikon. For this lens i use my FE port and the images are sharp from corner to corner. I think it's very easy to shoot WA with this lens (compared to shooting with the 10.5 mm FE). It also focusses closer then the Nikon, so i would never consider to get the Nikon.

If i would buy a Sigma standard zoom it would be the 18-50mm F/2.8 EX DC, but i'm not inbtending to get one.

 

cheers, Udo

Gudge,

More positive comments about the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5. That's good.

What I need to know more about is getting a zoom gear for this as it does not appear to be supported by any of the leading housing makers. As a Sea and Sea users I was interested to read another post mentioned a Nikkor 18-35 zoom gear could be made to fit easily by filing something. It would be helpful if someone could say a bit more about how exactly this is achieved.

My comments about Sigma based on my own and friends use of them (including the 50 macro underwater) are that their optics are usually very good, their mechanics are not as solidly built nor in my experience as reliable as those of the camera manufacturer (and repairs can be problematic as models change frequently and can soon become uneconomic based on resale values) and that the support in terms of gearing from housing manufacturers is patchy.

 

However if a lens is supported and will spend most of its life being relatively lightly used in a housing then they can be very good lenses to use.

Gudge,

More positive comments about the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5. That's good.

What I need to know more about is getting a zoom gear for this as it does not appear to be supported by any of the leading housing makers. As a Sea and Sea users I was interested to read another post mentioned a Nikkor 18-35 zoom gear could be made to fit easily by filing something. It would be helpful if someone could say a bit more about how exactly this is achieved.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm uising my Sigma 17-70 on a Canon 20D in a Subal housing. The zoom ring I use is the custom one I had made by Reef Photo & Video for my Tokina 12-24 with a little bit of packing under it (one wrap of double sided velcro tape). If you contact Ryan from Reef Photo and Video he may be able to help. This thread should help you with some more information on getting a zoom ring for an S&S housing:

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14371

Great thread. I have used the Sigma 24-70f2.8, the 50mm macro and the 150mm macro underwater.

 

The 50mm macro is a GREAT lens for cropped sensor cameras. It's cheap, focuses fast, and has good sharpness and color. The 50mm is a direct drive lens, not ultrasonic (AF-S).

 

The 150mm is awesome for tiny critters, but is expensive and really needs a 500D diopter to perform.

 

The 24-70 and older 28-70 are excellent because the lens extends while zooming, however it's fully extended at the wide position and pulls back as it goes to tele. Perfect for use behind a flat port.

 

Cheers

James

I have shot the Sigma 50 underwater a bunch, but I switched to the Canon 60 precisely because the Sigma didn't have ultrasonic focus. Many skittish critters (I hate that word) could hear the Sigma grinding away and were gone before I could focus. With the 60 it doesn't seem to happen so much, but maybe its just more experience in sneaking up on them. There is a new Sigma 70 that will look a lot like the 105 on film cameras supposedly but it too is not HSM so I will probably stay with the Canon 60. I must say that optically, the Sigma 50 appeared to be a bit sharper than my Canon 60 but not as sharp as the Canon 100

Bill

Just going back to the Sigma 17-70 for a moment - I have just looked at the lens for the first time at my nearest camera store.

I was surprised to see how physically short the lens was at the 17mm end and how just how long it extended at the 70mm end. Perhaps for that 20 cm minmimum focus this is inevitable.

It left me thinking just how much of a compromise this zoom optic might be behind a dome port - getting the front of the port at the optimum nodal point of the lens and all that stuff. Not at all obvious what size extention ring would be needed either?

Read this:

 

http://www.marinethemes.com/domespacer.html

 

With respect to the lens being close to the dome port at the 70mm end this paragraph explains why there are no great problems:

 

My 60mm macro lens which I use behind a dome extends way, way into the dome, almost touching the front surface at full extension. However, because it is using only a small area of the dome, the edge distortion is not noticed; it is not "accepting" or taking in light far from the lens' axis.

 

I use a 40mm extension ring with my Subal SWC dome port and a step up ring with a +4 dioptre on the end of the lens. At the 70mm end the end of the lens is only a few mm from the inner surface of the dome port.

 

Basically you need to ensure that you have the lens nodal point in the right spot at the 17mm end, not so important at the the 70mm end.