I'm looking at the Sigma 17-70mm Macro lens as a possible replacement for the 18-55mm kit lens on my Rebel XT. Does anyone here own one/have an opinion on it?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sigma 17-70mm as a kit lens replacement?
- Thread starter Lord Blackadder
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I bought one yes, I like it a lot, I bought it for much the same purposes. It's a bit better on the wider end, and it really shines when you're taking advantage of the fact that it is a macro lens, but it does suffice as a general purpose walk-around lens too. It's aperture is somewhat restrictive at times though, so it tends to do badly in low light situations.
You'll probably want to get a 50mm as well, depending on what you plan to be shooting. A nice prime 50mm shoots much sharper than the 17-70 will at 50, and fares much better for low light shooting.
You'll probably want to get a 50mm as well, depending on what you plan to be shooting. A nice prime 50mm shoots much sharper than the 17-70 will at 50, and fares much better for low light shooting.
I have an EF 50mm f1.8, and it's an awesome lens for what it cost - though, to be honest, ever since I bought an EF-S 55-250mm IS lens I haven't used the "nifty fifty" as much. For the kit lens replacement I'm more concerned about the wide angle end of things, but I like the increased focal-length range and Macro capability in the 17-70 as well. It's also relatively cheap.
I recently did some shooting in a WWII submarine museum and the kit lens did surprisingly well doing handheld shots in dark, tight spaces, but I want better performance in low-light/wide angle scenarios. This Sigma looks good for that.
I recently did some shooting in a WWII submarine museum and the kit lens did surprisingly well doing handheld shots in dark, tight spaces, but I want better performance in low-light/wide angle scenarios. This Sigma looks good for that.
A nice little lens is Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. It's not a macro lens, but it's f/2.8 all the way to 50mm, which should make it better than the Sigma in low light. For a macro lens, I would save the cash and buy the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, or equivalent.
Why not the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 as the previous poster mentioned? Or maybe even the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8? They might not have quite the reach of the lens you're looking at, but the constant 2.8 would be certainly be advantageous for low light situations.
That does sound like a good alternative. It's more expensive, but not by too much, and being able to use f2.8 at all focal lengths is probably better than having an extra 20mm of focal length.