I feel like it’s a bit of a “who gains benefit?” question from talking about this disconcerting lens now. But since I’ve acquired this lens, I’ll write a short review of the test shots I took.
First, let’s talk about image quality. In particular, I would like to talk about the resolution performance.
As is the case with many older lenses, this lens tends to lose the sharpness of image when the aperture is wide open, and the sharpness improves as the aperture is stopped down.
It seems to be most solid at apertures around F8 to F11. Maybe it’s just a coincidence with my unit, but I feel like I can get a firmer image at 35mm to 50mm than at the wide end and tele end.
The subject matter is what it is, for example, 48mm F11
I don’t agree with people who talk about “out of focus & flow at tele end.”. IMHO the telephoto end is not so bad. In my case, many of my photos at the telephoto end are failures due to the photographer’s factor “camera shake/fine blur” rather than the lens factor.
The following three photos were taken at the same aperture of F11 at different focal lengths. All of them look to me as if they were taken without any big problems, even in the periphery.
17mm F11
34mm F11
70mm F11
In these dimly-lit photos with a reasonably low shutter speed, I must emphasize again, as a poor photographer, the “slight blur” problem I have is a bigger enemy than the “lack of sharpness” of the lens itself.
I was able to confirm that the image quality is not that bad, despite the harsh evaluation it is sometimes given by the public. However, I must admit that at the wide end, the image quality at the periphery is a bit poor.
This is what it looks like at 17mm F11.
Although not visible at the size of the photo on the blog, when enlarged to nearly equal size, the tiled mesh pattern on the building wall, which is clearly visible in the center, for example, is barely discernible in the upper left corner.
So, in terms of image quality (resolution), it is not better than the genuine DA16-85 at least. It is not as bad as I was prepared for, and not as good as I expected it to be, in other words, within my “expected range”.
I can’t say for sure about the color rendering until I have more experience with it, but I think it tends to have a “clean, rather cold color tone” similar to other SIGMA lenses I have. This is especially true when shooting plants.
18mm F8
I’ve only listed a few photos that I’ve narrowed it down to so far.
One thing that made me happy was that the bokeh was noticeably softer and more pleasing compared to the genuine DA16-85 I used to use.
This is what it looks like at 70mm f4 (wide open).
This gradual bokeh is pleasing at the mid-telephoto range of zoom lenses.
I have no comment on “vignetting” and “distortion,” as my routine is to correct them by applying Adobe’s lens profile during the RAW development process. The all photos above have been corrected. In addition, the color and contrast have also been processed using Adobe’s camera profiles.
So far, the SIGMA 17-70 looked about as good as I had expected. I’m glad I now have a viable option for when I’m “going out on the town with just one lens for now”.
Ah, well. I haven’t tried the other feature of this lens, the ability to get closer. That will be for another time.
Equipment this time: K-3III, SIGMA17-70mm Contemporary
