Sigma's got a new lens out - 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 Macro
http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php...acro_lens/

Dunno, but it doesn't seem very attractive to me - Nikon's got a 18-70 version (albeit with a f/3.5-4.5 max aperture range), and if I wanted a faster lens I'd probably go for the Sigma 18-50...

Macro? Pfft...

Sounds like a good walk around lens and it takes close ups too when needed. I use my EFS 17-85 iS USM for walkaround and landscapes. It is fast to focus and takes sharp images. However no macro, so give n take here.

John

Sounds like a rework of the old 28-105mm F2.8-5.6, variable apperture I think is over rated because they are normally fast only at the very widest settings and fall away to fast to be of much use. I think you would be much better with a constant apperture lens even if it was say an F4.0 but of a higher quality, I was looking for similar for my Pentax *ist DS and settled on the Pentax 16-45mm ED lens.

and of course, the price plays a part

Here is a test of the new 17-70. I am keeping an eye on this lens as a walk a round replacement for my kit lens. I like the 1.2 macro and the quality seems reasonable. If I can save a couple $ over the 17-85 canon all the better.

Sorry, but 1:2.3 magnification is NOT a macro lens. Both Sigma and Tamron are very misleading in this regard. But I guess they could call it "world's greatest super wide angle ultra crazy macro zoom hyperdrive best thing since sliced bread" lens if they wanted to.

And variable aperture? It's already f/3.2 at 21mm. This will have mediocre low-light performance (at best.) Don't plan on using it indoors.

No way I'd buy this lens for anything close to that street price (US$400.) At half that price it's probably a respectable consumer-grade lens.

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX is probably superior, for almost the same price. For the slight inconvenience of the missing 20mm focal range, try zooming with your feet.

I thought the term "macro" meant 1:1 or greater...

shuttertalk Wrote:I thought the term "macro" meant 1:1 or greater...

Yeah, though some will accept 0.5x magnification (1:2) as "macro" but in my opinion that's a stretch. Canon does this with their 50mm 'macro' lens, and then sells a separate "life size converter" to get it to 1:1. Stupid! Just buy the 100mm macro lens and be done with it.

BTW, the Canon MP-E65 goes to 5x (1:0.2)!!!

Well, now I've derailed the thread ... sorry. But the point is simply that the new Sigma lens is NOT a macro lens. Don't be fooled by marketing hype.

Thanks Mitch, I do understand that 1.2 is not macro...........they do use the term loosely!!! I do like the close focus and 1.2 reproduction I agree about the price but then I think the canon 17-85 is over priced as well $859 here in OZ is cheap (used cheap loosely) The 17-70 seems to perform as well if not a little better than the canon.
My budget wont allow for what I want, so I know I will have to settle for second best! The price of lens here by world standards are over priced. :mad:

I am after a walk around lens to replace my kit lens (18-55) that is going to give me better quality shots.
I was (still am) thinking of the tamron 28-75 2.8 but I really want wider and the short end.

The sigma 18-50 ex does get some great reviews this might be the way to go....:/

Out of interest HERE is a head to head, sigma 18-50 vs sigma 17-70.

Anyway time will tell and the $ will rule

Hey Russt... sounds pretty cool if the 18-50 and 17-70 are comparable..

Just food for thought - I know budget is a factor too, but make sure you make a good investment for the lens that you'll be using 80-90% of the time...