Sigma 17-70 zoom?

Having had the original Rebel and kit lens, I say the lens is not bad, but
only fair. Canon has a "step up" IS lens, but optical performance is
disappointing. I also looked at the Canon 17-40L, but it is pricy and quite
large (77mm filter). Looking at Photozone's fairly detailed lens tests of
several normal range zooms, the next decent performer I can find is the
Sigma 17-70. While not perfect, it seems to outclass the kit lens in
resolution. Anyone try it?
Thanks!

What does "resolution" mean in terms of the final image for lenses of this
class?
Sharpness is both real (the absolute resolution of sensor and lens) but the
visual appearance of sharpness is equally or more affected by software
sharpening, whether done in-camera by a jpeg algorithm or post-camera.
Linear distortion, particularly barrel distortion at the wide end of these
zooms, is easily corrected by software and while ideally should not be
created by the lens is not as big an issue as formerly.
The point is: if you want a new lens you may be better off looking into
focal lengths you do not have rather than making a more or less horizontal
move into glass not all that much different than what you have.

OP used the past tense of have.

"Having *had* the original Rebel and kit lens,"

And he then asked a question.

"While not perfect, it seems to outclass the kit lens in
resolution. Anyone try it?"

GC

"bmoag" wrote in message
t...
What does "resolution" mean in terms of the final image for lenses of this
class?
Sharpness is both real (the absolute resolution of sensor and lens) but
the visual appearance of sharpness is equally or more affected by software
sharpening, whether done in-camera by a jpeg algorithm or post-camera.
Linear distortion, particularly barrel distortion at the wide end of these
zooms, is easily corrected by software and while ideally should not be
created by the lens is not as big an issue as formerly.
The point is: if you want a new lens you may be better off looking into
focal lengths you do not have rather than making a more or less horizontal
move into glass not all that much different than what you have.

"Chips" wrote in message
et...
OP used the past tense of have.

"Having *had* the original Rebel and kit lens,"

And he then asked a question.

"While not perfect, it seems to outclass the kit lens in
resolution. Anyone try it?"

GC

"bmoag" wrote in message
t...
What does "resolution" mean in terms of the final image for lenses of
this class?
Sharpness is both real (the absolute resolution of sensor and lens) but
the visual appearance of sharpness is equally or more affected by
software sharpening, whether done in-camera by a jpeg algorithm or
post-camera.
Linear distortion, particularly barrel distortion at the wide end of
these zooms, is easily corrected by software and while ideally should not
be created by the lens is not as big an issue as formerly.
The point is: if you want a new lens you may be better off looking into
focal lengths you do not have rather than making a more or less
horizontal move into glass not all that much different than what you
have.



Yes, I sold the Rebel and the lens supplied with it to raise money for the
XTi/400D and a better lens. I had better results with other lenses such as
the 50/1.8 and others on that camera, so I feel the "kit" lens is not up to
snuff. Considering I'm increasing resolution by 4mp, the kit lens will not
provide image quality I need of a "normal" kit lens. This is why I'm looking
for a better lens. I realize fixed focal length lenses are ideal, however,
I'm more interested in the zoom.
Thanks

SimonLW wrote:

Yes, I sold the Rebel and the lens supplied with it to raise money for the
XTi/400D and a better lens. I had better results with other lenses such as
the 50/1.8 and others on that camera, so I feel the "kit" lens is not up to
snuff. Considering I'm increasing resolution by 4mp, the kit lens will not
provide image quality I need of a "normal" kit lens. This is why I'm looking
for a better lens. I realize fixed focal length lenses are ideal, however,
I'm more interested in the zoom. Thanks

Have you looked at the Tamron 17-50/2.8 yet? It is supposed to be great,
and has a much better warranty (and reputation) than Sigma. You give up
50-70 range but you get f/2.8 not f/4 at the long end.

It's got a high reputation amongst Pentax owners as a good step up in
quality from the 18-55 kit lens and I'm seriously considering it as my next
purchase for my K100D as I've seen some impressive images taken with it.
Can't see it being any different with a Canon.



"SimonLW" wrote in message
...
"Chips" wrote in message
et...
OP used the past tense of have.

"Having *had* the original Rebel and kit lens,"

And he then asked a question.

"While not perfect, it seems to outclass the kit lens in
resolution. Anyone try it?"

GC

"bmoag" wrote in message
t...
What does "resolution" mean in terms of the final image for lenses of
this class?
Sharpness is both real (the absolute resolution of sensor and lens) but
the visual appearance of sharpness is equally or more affected by
software sharpening, whether done in-camera by a jpeg algorithm or
post-camera.
Linear distortion, particularly barrel distortion at the wide end of
these zooms, is easily corrected by software and while ideally should
not be created by the lens is not as big an issue as formerly.
The point is: if you want a new lens you may be better off looking into
focal lengths you do not have rather than making a more or less
horizontal move into glass not all that much different than what you
have.



Yes, I sold the Rebel and the lens supplied with it to raise money for the
XTi/400D and a better lens. I had better results with other lenses such as
the 50/1.8 and others on that camera, so I feel the "kit" lens is not up
to snuff. Considering I'm increasing resolution by 4mp, the kit lens will
not provide image quality I need of a "normal" kit lens. This is why I'm
looking for a better lens. I realize fixed focal length lenses are ideal,
however, I'm more interested in the zoom.
Thanks

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
...
SimonLW wrote:

Yes, I sold the Rebel and the lens supplied with it to raise money for
the
XTi/400D and a better lens. I had better results with other lenses such
as
the 50/1.8 and others on that camera, so I feel the "kit" lens is not up
to
snuff. Considering I'm increasing resolution by 4mp, the kit lens will
not
provide image quality I need of a "normal" kit lens. This is why I'm
looking
for a better lens. I realize fixed focal length lenses are ideal,
however,
I'm more interested in the zoom. Thanks

Have you looked at the Tamron 17-50/2.8 yet? It is supposed to be great,
and has a much better warranty (and reputation) than Sigma. You give up
50-70 range but you get f/2.8 not f/4 at the long end.

Bill,
I check it out. It sounds expensive and big, but might be worth it. It
doesn't seem the camera brand lenses are necessarily the best choice anymore
unless going with the high end glass.
-S

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
...

SimonLW wrote:

Yes, I sold the Rebel and the lens supplied with it to raise money for
the
XTi/400D and a better lens. I had better results with other lenses such
as
the 50/1.8 and others on that camera, so I feel the "kit" lens is not up
to
snuff. Considering I'm increasing resolution by 4mp, the kit lens will
not
provide image quality I need of a "normal" kit lens. This is why I'm
looking
for a better lens. I realize fixed focal length lenses are ideal,
however,
I'm more interested in the zoom. Thanks

Have you looked at the Tamron 17-50/2.8 yet? It is supposed to be great,
and has a much better warranty (and reputation) than Sigma. You give up
50-70 range but you get f/2.8 not f/4 at the long end.

Not THAT great.
Check it out at photozone.de

SimonLW wrote:

Have you looked at the Tamron 17-50/2.8 yet? It is supposed to be great,
and has a much better warranty (and reputation) than Sigma. You give up
50-70 range but you get f/2.8 not f/4 at the long end.

I check it out. It sounds expensive and big, but might be worth it. It
doesn't seem the camera brand lenses are necessarily the best choice anymore
unless going with the high end glass.

The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is actually lighter and slightly smaller than
the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5, but costs more.

The Tamron takes size 67 filters, so you could match it (share filters)
with the Canon 70-200/4, now available with IS. In this case, there is
no third party vendor that makes a better 70-200/4 lens.

To answer your question: I have the lens and am basically quite happy with
it. It shows slightly less sharpness at the center than a Tokina 28-70 f2.8
that I have at widest comparable apertures, but the difference is slight.
The macro setting is handy, and the macro quality quite good. There is
noticeable chromatic aberration in the corners at the wider apertures, but
this is par for the course with these lenses.

Build quality is OK, cheapish but so far it has worked fine. Be aware that
if you don't need the extra range Sigma just introduced a new 18-50 f2.8
constant aperture lens at Photokina that looks to be in about the same price
range.

Toby

"SimonLW" wrote in message
...
Having had the original Rebel and kit lens, I say the lens is not bad, but
only fair. Canon has a "step up" IS lens, but optical performance is
disappointing. I also looked at the Canon 17-40L, but it is pricy and
quite large (77mm filter). Looking at Photozone's fairly detailed lens
tests of several normal range zooms, the next decent performer I can find
is the Sigma 17-70. While not perfect, it seems to outclass the kit lens
in resolution. Anyone try it?
Thanks!