Difference between SIgma 17-70mm lens and Sigma 24-135 mm lens?

Question

What is the difference between Sigma 17-70mm lens and Sigma 24-135 mm lens? Both are f/2.8-4.5 however the 17-70 cost about $100 more. What is the difference between Super Wide Angle AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC "Macro" and the super Telephoto 24-135 mm lens. Whats Macro mean?

Answer 1

Well it depends on what you want to use the lens for. If you want to take close up photos go for the 17-70 lens, if you want to take distance shots take the 24-135.

Answer 2

Macro is the lenses ability to magnify an object to as close to a 1:1 ratio as is possible and usually makes the lens more expensive. Sigma has many lenses that will perform a macro magnification of at least 1:3, so I don't think that will translate into a $100 difference in price. It is more likely in the zoom ranges themselves. Wide angle zooms are usually more expensive, especially for lenses made specifically for digital cameras because the only way you'll get an ultra wide angle shot with the smaller image sensors is with anything below 20mm because of the 1.5x crop. So, for people who need a wider zoom, 17mm is more desirable than 24mm, which isn't considered wide [for digital]. This is the same with most every other lens manufacturer. That or the 17-70mm may be a newer model lens than the 24-135. Either way, popular is always more expesive.

Answer 3

I'm not really up to date on the Sigma & Tamron lens collection. Like Canon however, they both offer a wide selection with everything from cheap garbage to pro quality optics (with Sigma, the EX line is professional grade). So the zoom range isn't the only factor that determines the price of a lens.
To be complete, the price is determined by zoom range, quality of the optics (including coatings), maximum aperture, image stabilization, build quality, and auto-focus speed. This explains why the Canon 18-55mm is practically included for free as a kit-lens while the Canon 17-55mm zoom cost $1050. Same with Nikon. They also have a cheap 18-55mm zoom and a $1200 17-55mm.
When a lens includes macro, it can be used to take pictures at very close range. It's a nice feature to have for close-up photography flowers, jewelery, etc. If you're really into this however, you'll get better results with a dedicated macro lens.
For a walk around lens, including landscape photography, I'd try to get a zoom lens that starts at around 18mm. The Rebel XT has a focal length multiplier of 1.6x, so 18mm effectively translates to 28mm on a film body. On the Rebel XT, a 24-xx mm lens would slightly limit your wide angle coverage, and a 28-xx mm lens wouldn't offer any wide angle coverage at all. For me, the Tamron 28-75mm zoom would be out of the question.
My usual recommendations are the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 ($440), and the Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 ($515). Both provide great image quality, although the Canon 17-85mm underperforms a bit in the 17-24mm range. The Tamron is the better choice for low light photography and the Canon has more zoom range (but not enough for outdoor sports). I'm afraid I can't make specific recommendations in the $250-$400 price range.

Answer 4

The basic difference in these lenses is the focal length ranges in the zooms. This leads to differences in types of pics they are best at taking.

The "mm" numbers are the focal lengths. 50 mm is generally accepted as the "neutral" view (the way our eyes see things).

Under 40 mm is "wide angle", good for getting wider views of subjects while relatively close.

Over 75 mm is "telephoto", good for getting closer but narrower views of things further away.

As you get further toward either end (low or high mm), it becomes more and more difficult to make a lens that does not distort the image or lose light. Higher quality lens glass and more complex engineering is required, therefore higher cost.

17 mm is very wide angle. This is difficult to make, so is more expensive. 24-135 mm is more mid range, so is easier to make and less expensive.

Your decisions about what to buy should be based on what you want to do with the lens. The 24-135 mm lens covers a lot more of the frequently encountered situations. Only get the 17-70 mm lens if you have an interest in closeup, wide angle shots.

Good Luck

Answer 5

There are about three Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses. If you are talking about the EX DG HSM, then I would say that the image quality and performance should be comparable although the Canon probably does have a slight edge. That version of the Sigma costs about $900. Another option is the Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8 which is nearly as good as the Sigma (minus the HSM) but costs about $459. Because of the HSM, the Sigma focuses much faster than the Tamron, comparable to the Canon, and much more quietly. If you're looking for a lens to use, and not one to resell, then I wouldn't worry about the resell value anyway. But if you can afford it, I am sure that the Canon is worth the money.

Answer 6

Macro means it is for close ups. The Sigma 17-70mm ''macro'' lens is in a class of lenses made for taking closes ups. This is what makes it more expensive, and probably a slight better quality over the Sigma 24-135mm.
The 24-135mm is a telephoto lens, which means it acts like a telescope. Macro lenses are usually more expensive than telephoto, but not always, because of the fact that it is like a specialty lens. Because of this, high brand name macro lenses are usually better built.