Some questions about the Sigma 17-70-Canon

Hi Everyone.

 

I'm considering a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro lens for my new Canon 7D rig I'm assembling, and I have several question for those who already use the lens.

 

 

1. I'm currently using a Canon XTi/seatool and I find myself using the kit 17-55 lens underwater more often than any other. Would the Sigma lens be a good upgrade from the 17-55? Or would it be a completely different animal?

2. Is the HSM option worthwhile for UW use? How about the OS option?

3. I also own a Canon 60mm macro. Would the Sigma yield comparable image quality when set to 60 or 70 mm? In other words, is there any point in owning both the Canon 60mm and the Sigma?

 

Thanks for any replies.

1. I'm currently using a Canon XTi/seatool and I find myself using the kit 17-55 lens underwater more often than any other. Would the Sigma lens be a good upgrade from the 17-55? Or would it be a completely different animal?

The Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS has a minimum focus distance of 35cm and maximum magnification of 1:5.88. The Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO (which I own) has minimum focus distance of 20cm and maximum magnification of 1:2.3. The Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM has minimum focus distance of 22cm and maximum magnification of 1:2.7. The Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro HSM only comes in a Nikon mount and isn't an option for a Canon owner. For UW use the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO would be my choice as it has the closest focussing distance and biggest magnification

2. Is the HSM option worthwhile for UW use? How about the OS option?

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO has pretty fast focus and I've never had a problem with it. However, I don't know if I'd want to trade off faster focus for worse minimum focus distance and magnification.

3. I also own a Canon 60mm macro. Would the Sigma yield comparable image quality when set to 60 or 70 mm? In other words, is there any point in owning both the Canon 60mm and the Sigma?

The best you're going to get out of the Sigma options is 1:2.3 magnification, if you want to get down to 1:1 (and you will ) you're going to want to use a macro lens such as the Canon 60 macro.

The Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS has a minimum focus distance of 35cm and maximum magnification of 1:5.88. The Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO (which I own) has minimum focus distance of 20cm and maximum magnification of 1:2.3. The Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM has minimum focus distance of 22cm and maximum magnification of 1:2.7. The Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro HSM only comes in a Nikon mount and isn't an option for a Canon owner. For UW use the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO would be my choice as it has the closest focussing distance and biggest magnification

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO has pretty fast focus and I've never had a problem with it. However, I don't know if I'd want to trade off faster focus for worse minimum focus distance and magnification.

The best you're going to get out of the Sigma options is 1:2.3 magnification, if you want to get down to 1:1 (and you will ) you're going to want to use a macro lens such as the Canon 60 macro.

 

I knew I came to the right place :-) Thanks Gudge. But I do have a couple follow up questions: Magnification and working distance aside, is the Sigma glass better than the Canon kit glass? Since I use a zoom so much UW, I'm primarily looking for zoom lens that is sharper, and secondarily looking for more versatility. Clearly the Sigma is a much more versatile lens, but will it produce better quality images? Or is there any other choice, at any price, of a zoom lens that would be better than both the kit and the Sigma for UW use?

 

My other question is more difficult to ask because of my limited understanding of the technical differences between lenses. Here goes... Since there is more glass in a 70MM than a 55MM, would that translate to poorer relative performance between these two lenses at the 17mm end of the spectrum? In other words, I'm not necessarily interested in giving up one quality to gain another.

 

And for the record, this would not be the only macro lens in my kit. Currently, I have the Tok 10-17, a Canon 60mm, and the kit lens. I was thinking I would use the Sigma to take the place of both the Canon 17-55 and the Canon 60 macro, then buy a Canon 100mm macro. I also have the Subsea 10X.

 

I think the Sigma and the Canon 100mm might use the same port, so I would travel with 3 lenses, 2 ports, and the diopter.

I knew I came to the right place :-) Thanks Gudge. But I do have a couple follow up questions: Magnification and working distance aside, is the Sigma glass better than the Canon kit glass? Since I use a zoom so much UW, I'm primarily looking for zoom lens that is sharper, and secondarily looking for more versatility. Clearly the Sigma is a much more versatile lens, but will it produce better quality images? Or is there any other choice, at any price, of a zoom lens that would be better than both the kit and the Sigma for UW use?

 

My other question is more difficult to ask because of my limited understanding of the technical differences between lenses. Here goes... Since there is more glass in a 70MM than a 55MM, would that translate to poorer relative performance between these two lenses at the 17mm end of the spectrum? In other words, I'm not necessarily interested in giving up one quality to gain another.

 

And for the record, this would not be the only macro lens in my kit. Currently, I have the Tok 10-17, a Canon 60mm, and the kit lens. I was thinking I would use the Sigma to take the place of both the Canon 17-55 and the Canon 60 macro, then buy a Canon 100mm macro. I also have the Subsea 10X.

 

I think the Sigma and the Canon 100mm might use the same port, so I would travel with 3 lenses, 2 ports, and the diopter.

 

I have the three lenses you are considering. The 10-17, the 17-70 and the 100mm. The 17-70 is good for things that are too large for the 100 and it will give you decent wide angle as well. Will not get you as close as the 60 so not really a true underwater macro lens. However, much more convenient than the 100 for fish portraits and medium-sized creatures. For my Seatool housing, the 17-70 requires a different port than the 100mm. In order to make full use of the zoom range, you need to either decide to use it behind a dome (in which case you can probably use the dome you use for the 10-17 (with an extension ring)) or use it behind Seatool's wide flat port (again, with an extension ring) -- that is what I do, and I tend to prefer the wide flat port. If you don't care about the full zoom range and want to do macro, you might be able to get away with a standard flat port but I cannot verfy that. Also, my housing is M-mount so the wide flat port may or may not even be compatible with yours (which, I believe is S-mount). I can't speak to the difference between the 17-70 an the kit lens as I don't have a kit lens.

 

Mike

 

PS. There is a new OS version of the lens that is HSM and available in Canon mount. Probably overkill for underwater use.

The Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS has a minimum focus distance of 35cm and maximum magnification of 1:5.88. The Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO (which I own) has minimum focus distance of 20cm and maximum magnification of 1:2.3. The Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM has minimum focus distance of 22cm and maximum magnification of 1:2.7. The Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro HSM only comes in a Nikon mount and isn't an option for a Canon owner. For UW use the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO would be my choice as it has the closest focussing distance and biggest magnification

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO has pretty fast focus and I've never had a problem with it. However, I don't know if I'd want to trade off faster focus for worse minimum focus distance and magnification.

The best you're going to get out of the Sigma options is 1:2.3 magnification, if you want to get down to 1:1 (and you will ) you're going to want to use a macro lens such as the Canon 60 macro.

 

 

I would check with whomever you bought your Seatool housing/port from and ask which port and extender is available for the Sigma 17-70. And whether there is a zoom ring gear available. This is because that lens has a relatively long throw from one end of its zoom range to the other. To me it seems to be a tough lens to port without giving up some of its focal range on either end.

 

(Gudge, I just checked with BH and they 'show' this lens in the HSM version for the Canons. However, in BH's description of the lens they feature the lens's OS ability, which is Nikon's version of Canon's IS (Image Stabalization) Here is the link

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/6700...o.html#features

 

I'm thinking if what you say, Gudge is right, that BH made a misstake in their listing. They list the non HSM lens for Canon also. I can't remember which version I had last summer....

 

All I have read about the lens in either version was good things. I could not get it satisfactorily ported behind the Watershot with what was available in ports and extensions at the time I tried. So I returned the lens to BH. That said, I think the newer IS version of the 18-55mm lens is a great improvement and nice little lens. So I don't miss thee 17-70 per-se but maybe because I also shoot the 60mm Macro.

 

my2centworth, Larry

Magnification and working distance aside, is the Sigma glass better than the Canon kit glass? Since I use a zoom so much UW, I'm primarily looking for zoom lens that is sharper, and secondarily looking for more versatility. Clearly the Sigma is a and according to the reviews I read was a much more versatile lens, but will it produce better quality images? Or is there any other choice, at any price, of a zoom lens that would be better than both the kit and the Sigma for UW use?

I got my 17-70 when they first came out and at that time the 17-70 was a better lens Canon 17-85 kit lens. Here's some reviews:

 

Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO

Canon 17-85

Canon 17-55 IS

 

My other question is more difficult to ask because of my limited understanding of the technical differences between lenses. Here goes... Since there is more glass in a 70MM than a 55MM, would that translate to poorer relative performance between these two lenses at the 17mm end of the spectrum? In other words, I'm not necessarily interested in giving up one quality to gain another.

Sorry can't help here.

 

I think the Sigma and the Canon 100mm might use the same port, so I would travel with 3 lenses, 2 ports, and the diopter.

You really need to use a dome port with the 17-70. The length of the 17-70 increase greatly as you zoom in to 70mm:

 

 

If you use a flat port long enough to accommodate it the end of the lens will be well back inside the port at 17mm and will vignette. A dome port will also give you a wider field of view and better results at the 17mm end.

 

(Gudge, I just checked with BH and they 'show' this lens in the HSM version for the Canons. However, in BH's description of the lens they feature the lens's OS ability, which is Nikon's version of Canon's IS (Image Stabalization) Here is the link

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/6700...o.html#features

 

I'm thinking if what you say, Gudge is right, that BH made a misstake in their listing. They list the non HSM lens for Canon also. I can't remember which version I had last summer....

My information came from the Sigma web site. There are three Sigma 17-70 listed, the original Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO that I own and came in a variety of cameraa mounts, the HSM version of this lens the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro HSM which only comes in a Nikon mount and the more recently released Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM.

Hi Everyone.

 

I'm considering a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro lens for my new Canon 7D rig I'm assembling, and I have several question for those who already use the lens.

 

 

1. I'm currently using a Canon XTi/seatool and I find myself using the kit 17-55 lens underwater more often than any other. Would the Sigma lens be a good upgrade from the 17-55? Or would it be a completely different animal?

2. Is the HSM option worthwhile for UW use? How about the OS option?

3. I also own a Canon 60mm macro. Would the Sigma yield comparable image quality when set to 60 or 70 mm? In other words, is there any point in owning both the Canon 60mm and the Sigma?

 

Thanks for any replies.

 

I recently got the new Sigma 17-70 Macro with HSM and OS. I love the OS feature topside and suspect it will also help underwater, but I have not tried it inside my housing as yet (my concern is the additional power drain and housing ability to turn it off during a dive. Can't do so in my kelite). The HSM feature is little faster and quieter in comparison to the also new 70-300 f4-5.6 DG OS, which is not HSM unfortunately (I traded for this lens with Sigma when my discontinued 28-300's aperture went out. BTW. I was happy with Sigma's service and trade up offer)

 

Hope this info helps,

 

Bo

You really need to use a dome port with the 17-70. The length of the 17-70 increase greatly as you zoom in to 70mm:

 

If you use a flat port long enough to accommodate it the end of the lens will be well back inside the port at 17mm and will vignette.

 

Again, the exception to this is the Seatool wide flat port.

 

Mike

A couple of things.....

 

In the OP's first post he mentions a 17-55mm "kit" lens and I think many are confusing this with the much more expensive Canon 17-55mm f 2.8 IS lens. So Saudio, did you mean you have the Canon 18-55m IS "kit" lens as your mid-range lens?

 

If the 18-55mm EF-S IS "kit" lens is what you have I have shot all the Canon 18-55mm EF-S "kit" lenses Canon offered with the Rebel series for a mid-range zoom choice.

 

The latest IS version is the sharpest but I do only use it from about 18-40mm or so. I also stop it down to f6.3 - 8 where it is best. I use it behind an extended dome port on my Ikelite housing(s).

 

That said I had a lady on my Great White Shark trip in Sept. 2008 who had an Ikelite housed Canon Rebel XTi. She shot a Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye and the Sigma 17-70mm behind her 8" port (with different extensions of course.) The shots she got with the Sigma 17-70mm were simply astounding. No diopter either.....

 

She shot RAW and used Canon's own DPP (Digital Photography Professional) packaged software and was blowing away another shooter's Nikon D300 shots.....I watched her spend maybe 2 minutes per shot editing too.

 

So the NEWEST version Sigma 17-70mm with their OS (Optical Stabilization) is something I'm curious to see. I believe it has HSM too and although I advocate using these mid-range zooms from widest to mid-zoom for best results underwater they are also a great walk around lens on the surface.

 

Anyone who gets one of these newest Sigma 17-70mm HSM OS lenses will hopefully post their results so all of us can know whether to run out and buy one

 

YMMV

 

dhaas

 

I got my 17-70 when they first came out and at that time the 17-70 was a better lens Canon 17-85 kit lens. Here's some reviews:

 

Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO

Canon 17-85

Canon 17-55 IS

 

Sorry can't help here.

 

You really need to use a dome port with the 17-70. The length of the 17-70 increase greatly as you zoom in to 70mm:

 

 

If you use a flat port long enough to accommodate it the end of the lens will be well back inside the port at 17mm and will vignette. A dome port will also give you a wider field of view and better results at the 17mm end.

 

My information came from the Sigma web site. There are three Sigma 17-70 listed, the original Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO that I own and came in a variety of cameraa mounts, the HSM version of this lens the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro HSM which only comes in a Nikon mount and the more recently released Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM.

 

I'm awfully glad I posted here before purchasing. I frankly didn't realize that the Sigma extended that far through the zoom range and required (with the seatool exception) a dome port. I'm afraid that changes the game for me.

 

When I'm diving the 18-55 lens, I always have a macro diopter handy. First I used the Inon, now I have the Subsee. That combo gives me extreme versatility underwater. If the Sigma requires a dome port for the Nauticam, that takes the diopter out of the equation and whatever gains I would realize with the additional magnification would be lost by not being able to use the diopter.

 

I guess I can hope Nauticam will offer a wide flat port like Seatool.

 

For clarification, the Kit lens I have is the one that came standard with the Canon XTi. So, is there any other lens choice that would be an improvement over the 18-55 and fit full range behind a standard flat port?

 

thanks again everybody, this thread has been very helpful and informative.

So the NEWEST version Sigma 17-70mm with their OS (Optical Stabilization) is something I'm curious to see. I believe it has HSM too and although I advocate using these mid-range zooms from widest to mid-zoom for best results underwater they are also a great walk around lens on the surface.

 

Anyone who gets one of these newest Sigma 17-70mm HSM OS lenses will hopefully post their results so all of us can know whether to run out and buy one

 

YMMV

 

dhaas

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi dhaas,

 

I just obtained both the Sigma 17-70 Macro with OS and HSM and also the new Sigma 70-300 OS (but no HSM).

 

I can report that the HSM feature on the 17-70 is much quieter (and seems little faster) than the focus seek on the 70-300 that has no HSM.

 

The OS helps sharpness when using the 17-70 in maro, and does significantly more so with the 70-300 when handheld.

 

So for the 17-70 (IMHO), HSM is wonderful if you are doing macro and have skittish subject matter, the OS may help in macro and with surge conditions. Both OS and HSM are worth the extra $80 or so from the old lens without HSM OS.

 

 

I have attached some pics showing the comparison in image sharpness when using OS at the 70mm macro and also at 300mm range while handheld and in low light (with my 7D cropped sensor is actually 112mm and 480mm in FF terms).

 

Hope this helps

 

Bo

 

First one in series is without OS, second is with OS.

 

 

Thanks Bo.....

 

I have a news shooter buddy who is thinking of getting one the NEW Sigma 17-70mm OS HSM lenses (for work mainly) but would also be pleased to hear of faster AF and how well the OS works.

 

More decisions to make WHEN I get a new dSLR

 

dhaas