Sigma 17-70

Just looking at the Sigma 17-70 OS lens as an option for cutting down weight and gear for travel, and providing some versatility for wide angle and macro. I know it has limitations but just wondered if anyone had any thoughts. Anyone using it on a regular basis?

This glass needs a biggish dome, something like the Zen-200 so that alone more or less rules out any macro possibilities. As a portrait lens this glass has potential and I do enjoy observing the patrol pattern of reef fish and snapping 'head and shoulders' images. I like the focal range of this lens for that type of work. Clearly its a 'competitor' lens to the Canon 17-40 but with some additional 'reach'. Many folk like using the Canon glass to shoot sharks and large pelagics so the Sigma would probably do the job equally well.

I've used an older version 17-70 (the non OS version, F2.8-4.5 DC Macro) for some of my pics, in my own choice of 6" dome (Ikelite did not recommend one), with a +2 diopter, and I think the results were reasonable...but not stellar. I'd get some vignetting at the 'wide' end and at the 'long' end the lens would crash into the dome interior at 60mm with the +2. I don't know what housing and camera you're using, but I know Ike doesn't think the lens diameter for the OS version works in their domes at all. I suspect it could be made to work, but you might have to get a little more creative in terms of zoom gearing. The AF/MF switch with a 79mm diameter lens in particular is going to kind of get in the way. Do your research for your particular housing as to whether there's a currently recommended dome that would fit it before purchasing. My non-OS lens is listed as the same diameter as the newer OS version down around the back (although the newer version flares out much wider at the end) so its conceivable you can make it work.

I did try some 'macroish' shots, but never really got acceptably close or sharp even at the closest end, behind a 6" dome, with or without the +2. Here's one example at 70mm, no +2, behind a dome:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rtrski/689998...157629270961257

I suspect you could choose to shoot with it behind a dome or a flat, to gain better macro usage in the latter case, but in the flat you'd really be throwing away a huge amount of the 'wide' end of usefulness by selecting a flat port that was about the right length for the lens at the long end of the range (it would probably vignette at as high as 55mm or so). So the flexibility would only be saving you an additional lens, but you'd still be carrying 2 domes and have to 'choose' your shooting preference. At that rate, better off getting a true macro lens that doesn't have much 'throw' as it focuses and fits a nice small flat port, to supplement a more moderate range wide-mid sort of lens behind a small dome.

With the 200mm Zen dome and 60mm extension you can use the 17-70mm (os version) throughout its focal range without need of a diopter.

HTH, Tim

Anyone tried it behind flat port? That would work better at the long end, and give much better macro magnification...

With the 200mm Zen dome and 60mm extension you can use the 17-70mm (os version) throughout its focal range without need of a diopter.

 

HTH, Tim

Thanks Tim

I have a 60 extension for the nautical which is one of the reasons I was thinking of going with it. Just thought it might fit the gap between the 10-17 and 105.

I have the older version of the Sigma 17-70mm. I found it every time I used it that I wished I had just stuck with either the 60mm or the Tokina 10-17mm. It wasnt good for macro behind a dome and it wasnt wide enough for the big stuff.

Another idea to cut down in travel weight is a 1.4x TC for the Tokina 10-17mm??

Regards Mark

I agree with you precisely Mark. The 17-70 is, for me, a very specialist lens (though an excellent general topside lens) and only good for fish portraits. If the 10-17 or 8-16 is too wide, as it can be for pelagics and sharks, I just move up to the 10-22.

With the 200mm Zen dome and 60mm extension you can use the 17-70mm (os version) throughout its focal range without need of a diopter.

 

HTH, Tim

I get good results with a Nexus 170 mm dome with 60 mm extension and no diopter - not OS, but is HSM. This is not a specialize lens; 1:2 macro at best.

Bob

I've used this lens in a dome port and a macro port and found it a great lens behind a dome for the diver on a budget moving up to SLR looking to buy just one les, Its also a great lens when your on a dive when you can expect anything from a Manta ray to a Mantis shrimp.

I would actually use 17-70 in this 6" diameter Nauticam dome:

Nauticam 6" Acrylic Wide Angle Port (Inc. Shade & Neo Cover), #18801

Other manufacturers have similar parts. This is the same dome element that is used in the 8.5" Nauticam Fisheye Dome Port, but is cut down leaving only the portion of the optic required for super wide and mid-range lenses. The smaller overall size makes it easier to get close to closeup critters, and easier to swim with. The image quality is identical to shots taken in the 8.5" dome with compatible lenses (fisheyes aren't compatible).

I know we have had customers set this lens up behind a flat port for macro-zoom ability, too. The usable range was something like 35-70, which is pretty useful behind a flat port for the closeup end.

Just to add, using it in a macro port was quite different when shooting at the low end of the focal range, vignetting your shot with the port rim

I use the nikon 16-85mm lens in my aquatica housing with 6 inch dome port for the exact same reasons. A good all around lens and very sharp. When shooting macro in the 6inch aquatica port and for 1:1 macro i add a second +4 diopter to achieve very good results. My buddy likes to use a +5 diopter to get slightly more magnification. A diopter is much easier to travel with than another lens and port. To see some of my shots which where all shot with the nikon 16-85mm lens check out my website from thailand and komodo, not the west coast of canada which was shot with a nikonos camera.

http://reefscenics.smugmug.com/

I have used it in a flat port. but sparingly. I have the newer 17/70 which is quite fat and supposibly wouldn't work in my port so i had Reef Photo permantly fix a zoom ring to it. You need a flared flat port which may, or may not, be available for your housing. The rig is much like my wife's 14/54 Olympus lens. You can focus virtually up against the glass and get a decent macro shot and can also get decent wide angle shots.

I say decent. I use it sparingly because I want true macro and others will want true WA. You won't get that. Still, it is the best GP solution for Nikon/Canon that I know of.

I use the non OS 17-70mm (pretty much the same lens as the OS version) in 6'' dome port with a 18462 Extension ring, I like the 6" dome with this lens, it allows good close up, and in this case, this little dome works perfectly with my Tokina 10-17mm as it did with my old 10.5mm and the fact the dome shade is separate and removable, allow's me to use the 4.5mm circular fisheye from Sigma.

The field of view of the Sigma at 17mm is fairly moderate and the need of very large dome is nowhere as imperative as it would be with a rectilinear ultra wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) angle lens such as Canon, Sigma or Nikon offering that start at +/-10mm.

I like this lens as a scouting lens but the truth is I rely on the Tokina for the bulk of my stuff, and the fact it integrates in my system seamlessly, without the obligation to schlep around yet another dome is a big plus for me.

Cheers.

Lots of excellent tips and information. I am new to the forums but really glad I have joined - thanks to everyone for the comments. Having said that I am still undecided. I have an 8" dome and the extension for a 17-70 already. And now using the 10-17 with a mini dome. Suppose just thought that getting the 17-70 would be a good GP lens, give me a useful top side lens as well and make use of the port and extension.