0
mircan

Sigma 17-70mm for skydiving

Recommended Posts

Hi,
does anybody use this lens (Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 AF DC Macro) for skydiving?
There was significant price drop on the local market and it`s about 220 euros now, so I`m considering replacement for my kit Canon lens (and Russian Zenitar 16mm that I sometimes use).
Camera is Canon 400D.
* On DZ.com I only found info on Sigma 17-35.

blues!
dudeist skydiver #42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There really is no need to jump the lens when its only marginally better then the kit lens, it weighs more and its range is outside the majority of the jumping conditions. Anything past 30mm or so is a specialty lens or setting on a crop body for jumping.

Unless you really want to get some shots at a longer focal length to compress the background a lot... I'd pass on this one and stick to the kit lens.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was looking at this lens also, I don't intened to use it for skydiving only. I need a faster lens for low light pictures, and it sure would be nice to only have to carry around the 17-70 and a 70-300. My concern is with the width, it lists as 72 degrees, where as my Tokina 19-35 lists as 98 degrees. I was hoping for something just a little wider than my current 19mm but not a fisheye like the 15mm.
"If it wasn't easy stupid people couldn't do it", Duane.

My momma said I could be anything I wanted when I grew up, so I became an a$$hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I researched come more and find it`s FOV is narrower than Canon kit lens. The plan was to only jump it at it`s widest end, but I could still use it in everyday ground shooting.
My MC Zenitar 16mm is wide enough, but it is heavy and has zero automatic functions :P
Any other lens to recommend in that price range?

dudeist skydiver #42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been using this lens on my helmet for about 4 years. I do tandem video and it is a perfect match to my Pc-109 / Kenko .43 combo.

I am a professional photographer aside from tandem videos and I can tell you that Sigma makes some good lenses. They have a little problem with quality control and some people end up with a lens that back-focuses. However, I have seen brand new Canon L lenses do the same thing from time to time. Sigma will adjust it for free if you send it in.

I only recently sold it because I switched to a CX100 and I bought a Canon 10-22mm to go with it.

The Sigma 17-70 is a great lens both in freefall and on the ground.

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Care to post some pictures? Skydiving. No cropping.
I would be really thankful to see the photos that it makes. Mostly b/c Phree`s post regarding it is marginally better than kit lens and it`s angle of view.

Canon`s kit lens weight is a plus for sure and it`s cheap, but that`s it. I have printed a calendar for 2010. with my skydiving photos and on the 8x11 prints the issues with kit lens were quite obvious. Even the cheap Russian Zenitar was better.

I dunno, there is a Sigma 17-35 which is a bit more expensive, but I found some people here using it.
dudeist skydiver #42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

on the 8x11 prints the issues with kit lens were quite obvious.



Just curious... what kinds of issues are you talking about? I personally can't tell the difference between images I shot with my 10-22 vs. my 18-55. The 10-22 is a better lens for a variety of reasons, but I've always found the complaints about the kit lens to be a little exaggerated.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had mostly sharpness issues (focus) which were very visible in details on A3 prints (297x420mm). In semi/low light conditions there were exposure problems. Low detail in dark areas. Noise issues (but this was probably my fault - hi ISO).

Please note that I`m shooting tandems for 2 years now with kit lens. Most of the whuffos can`t see the difference. Published photos in some regular sized ads/newspaper too, no problem.

But when it had to be printed on some larger media A3/A2 i could see it right away. Maybe it`s b/c I`m in the desktop publishing business for quite some time and I can see the difference. For next year calendar I think I need better glass for print stuff.
dudeist skydiver #42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+1 to what Phree said already.

I cant see any real improvement in anything if you compare the canon kit lens to this sigma.

The question is are you sure you want to shoot this focal lenght ? Have you tried wider ? Personally I like shooting wider than 17mm (APS-C) for most of the times. This ofcourse is a question only you can answer...

Also I try to stay away from stigma lenses. I have seen so many bad copies and focus problems that I dont think I could afford to buy one and end up buying the more expensive alternative afterwards anyway. Where I come from we have a saying "the poor cannot afford to buy cheap" and I think it applies here well. Im sure someone will disagree on this though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Where I come from we have a saying "the poor cannot afford to buy cheap" and I think it applies here well.



yes, we have exact the same saying. that`s why I`m asking here. It was not that cheap two months ago. It was ~350 euros. [:/]

Here, it`s very expensive to buy from abroad. I bought an Opteka lense for cx105, I got it yesterday and in the end it cost me 200$+ which is double price.

For orders from BH photo the total price=(price$=price€)+20%
Anything from them would be in the range of 1000€.

There are some options of Tamron or Tokina here though...
dudeist skydiver #42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I made the change from the canon kit to this one. Had issues with the focusing on the kit lens (terrible and slow). For me the end result is WAAYY better than with the kit. For some people it may not be a "good" decision to deviate from the kit and use it in skydiving, but, you also mention that you want to use it on your other activities (same reason that I bought it) and I'm very happy with it also on the results of the non-skydiving pictures.

Ivan "Rock On"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe I am blind. How about you? Let's play "NAME THAT LENS!"

All these images were shot with either the 10-22 or the 18-55, and all are between 18 and 22 mm, so you can't tell based on focal length.

Breakoff
4-way on the hill
Tandem exit
4-way

I pulled these pretty quickly and randomly... I'm sure I could find my best 18-55 pics and my worst 10-22 pics if I wanted to really stack the odds.

And yes, I know you're going to say they're small and it would be obvious with larger versions. But if there's such an obvious difference between the lenses, please show me.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OOO a game!!! I like games...

I think Breakoff.jpg and 4-way.jpg were shot with the 10-22

whereas

meeker.jpg and tandem_exit.jpg were shot with the kit lens...

I'm probably wrong but that would be my guess if I had to guess...
Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My guess would be that "meeker" and "tandem" were shot with the kit lens.
But, as I said to you earlier, the problems with the kit lens were pretty obvious on big prints. And by big, I mean A3 and bigger.
my2c
dudeist skydiver #42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tandem, meeker, and breakoff were the kit lens. 4-way was the 10-22.

I have serious doubts too many people could tell the difference between L-glass and a sigma lens at web sizes like these, unless the pictures show the specific weaknesses of the particular lens. But in general, the differences barely affect image quality... build quality, weatherproofing, autofocus speed and accuracy, etc. On a full frame camera, the difference in sharpness at the corners may become really apparent. And in high contrast areas, there might be more chromatic aberration on a cheaper lens. But there are plenty of very sharp, cheap lenses.

The reality is that if I applied more display sharpening to the kit lens photos, they would look shaper at web sizes. There's really no appreciable difference in sharpness between the kit lens and the 10-22. I'm sure a focus chart would tell another story, but even at 100% zoom, i can't say that i would instantly be able to differenciate pictures from one lens or the other. Maybe 100% crops will be the next challenge.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with pilotdave. Not much difference at all with the imgages taken at 18-22mm when both pics are correctly focused.

There are comparison pictures availeable even 100% crops, if someone wants to google.

The differences are however USM motor, which will focus fast, some other optical qualitys like flares and CA´s and colors..

However, the real difference comes into play when you compare 10mm vs 18mm. Im quite sure most of us could see this difference. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been using the Sigma 17-70 on my XSI for the last ~100 camera jumps. I can't compare it to a kit lens since I just bought the XSI body. Other than the weight, I have had no issues with it. It is a great match for my flying style and have taken some great shots. Take my opinion for what its worth (not much) since I am still learning and have a long way to go in regards to cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have serious doubts too many people could tell the difference between L-glass and a sigma lens at web sizes like these, unless the pictures show the specific weaknesses of the particular lens.



Yes. My thoughts also. On WEB sizes.

Quote

...And in high contrast areas, there might be more chromatic aberration on a cheaper lens.



There definitely are, and they are quite visible, especially on prints.

Quote

But there are plenty of very sharp, cheap lenses.



Please advise me on this. Which are cheap and sharp? (*cheap would be 200-300 euros/300-400$ range, where this Sigma is).
dudeist skydiver #42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Please advise me on this. Which are cheap and sharp? (*cheap would be 200-300 euros/300-400$ range, where this Sigma is).



Cheap is relative of course... but I have a Tamron 17-50 which is $460 right now on amazon. I read review after review before I bought it that said how sharp it was. It's often recommended (on forums) for wedding photography... on a budget. The autofocus is fairly slow and makes a lot of noise compared to an expensive lens.

I think the closest Canon L lens, for comparison, is the 16-35 which goes for over $1500.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't jump with the 17-50. I considered taking it on a high pull once because I wanted more zoom than the 10-22. But when I held the 10-22 in one hand and the 17-50 in the other hand, I decided it was way too heavy to jump and I'd rather use the 18-55.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

but I have a Tamron 17-50 which is $460 right now on amazon.


here it is: 500euros/700$!

I was considering to bite the bullet and just buy canon 10-22 (600e/800$), but it`s just too expensive for using it just for jumping [:/]
dudeist skydiver #42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i personally can not tell a $1500 dollar difference between L glass and Sigma so I use Sigma.

but i CAN tell a $200 dollar difference between 18-55 kit lens and 10-20 sigma so I use Sigma.

and i strongly suggest people to look in craigslist for lens, people baby the shit out of lens and you can get them for half price..
Bernie Sanders for President 2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0