Need opinions on Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX DG

[Tokyudo]

I'm looking to replace my stock lens with a Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX DG. It'll probably be my 'walk-around' lens.

I've read a ton of reviews on the lens and I've seen opinions going both ways - good and bad.

First off, here are my personal impressions from what I've read:

Pros:
- Affordable
- Well-built
- f2.8
- Light weight


Cons:
- Loud AF (not a big deal to me)
- Pic quality can be soft are f2.8
- Flare can be a problem
- Some people claim it sucks in low light (which WOULD be a GYNORMOUS issue to me)


Here are some links to reviews by others:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-28-70mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=100&sort=7&cat=37&page=2
http://www.testfreaks.com/click/out...268/lens-test-sigma-28-70mm-f28-ex-dg-af.html
http://www.photographyreview.com/mfr/sigma/35mm-zoom/PRD_331082_3128crx.aspx
http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=212


So basically I'm looking for a nice replacement for my stock lens that has a good general range but also addresses my need for low light shooting (ie. indoor sporting events). I'm aware of Sigma's rep for producing duds right out of the box but I'm willing to risk the headache for the price.

Anybody else have any personal experience with this particular lens?

 

[dEARlEADER]

I tried very hard to buy this lens.... but just couldn't.... I wanted a usable 2.8 lens and there are just too many neg's associated with this one... there are people here who endorse the lens though..... so must be some okay copies on the street...

fyi - sigma recently announced a make over of the lens with HSM... you may want to wait to see how that one turns out...

 

[soylentgreen]

I purchased this lens from B&H about a year ago and called back to return it after just 3 days. My main purpose was getting an affordable lens for a cruise to Mexico so budget was an issue at the time. I upgraded to the Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS instead. Longer focal length for a walk around lens with the added bonus of IS. The Sigma 24-70 performed very poorly in low-light. The AF was extremely slow in responding and had difficulty adjusting accurately and quickly most of the time. f/2.8 is definitely soft. Stopping down helps, but than again....Why did I purpase a f/2.8??!? Sigma was to announce a HSM version of this lens, but I do not know if htey upgraded the optics. What can I say, you pay for waht you get. Probably why the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L is still sought after.

 

[djacobox372]

Personally I prefer the sigma 20-60mm f2.8, and it's about $100 cheaper!

 

[icassell]

I put my vote in for the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 as a walkaround lens. Love mine.

 

[Johnboy2978]

I can't speak to the 28-70, but I do have the 24-70 which is about another $100. It's a nice lens, but a little soft around the max aperture, which is to be expected with any lens. It's quite sharp at f/8 and f/5.6 but you buy a 2.8 to use it in low light at 2.8. I personally like the EX Sigmas quite a lot. I have the 24-70, the 70-200 and 70mm all EX versions and they do a nice job, but you have to expect the same short comings with Sigma as you would with any other lens.

 

[icassell]

I personally like the EX Sigmas quite a lot..

I have to agree with this one. I have the EX 50-150 f2.8, the EX 10-20 f4-5.6, and the EX 100-300 f4 as well as both EX teleconvertors (1.4 and 2 X). They are all excellent lenses. Sigma's HSM works like a dream, if that becomes available on your lens. Not having an ultrasonic motor on my Tamron is the only thing I miss about that lens.

 

[SpeedTrap]

I rencently sold my Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX. I was happy with it. My wife bought me a different lens. Depending on what you will be ding with it it is great value for the money.

 

[Tokyudo]

Thanks for all of your input guys.

I guess I may pass on lens. My goal is get a 70-200mm, ideally the Canon L series but it's just ridiculously expensive. I've heard good things about Sigma's equivalent.

 

[shivaswrath]

You might want to even consider the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

It has been reviewed against both the Canon and Nikon equivalents, and did well, just not superb. But at $700, you could have an amazing lens!

The major flaws, as described by DPreview (I don't have experience first hand) are really centered around softness at f/2.8 in the center. Might be batch variability, etc.

Worth considering if you're on a tight budget.

For those of us with Nikon's, we have another NIKON choice outside of the routinely unavailable 70-200 VR, the older 80-200 non-VR (both at f/2.8). It retails for about $900 or so, lacks the VR, but will at least be sharp. Might need a tripod with it!

Another choice for the hobbyist in the NIKON department would be the 70-300 VR II (around $450-500 now, down about $50 from first offering). It's slow, so I wouldn't recommend it for a wedding photographer, but if you're a hobbyist, you can't go wrong with it, especially because of it's size. . .

 

[reg]

I know this is probably of no help but, I really like my Sigma 18-50 2.8 macro. It's not the absolutely newest HSM Macro version, but it's got the same optics. On my Olympus, it's equivalent to 36-100 on a 35mm camera, or equivalent to a 22.5-62.5 lens on your Canon. I like it a lot. It IS sharp at f/2.8... obviously it's sharpest from f/4 to f/13 or so, but I would absolutely qualify it as sharp at f/2.8. I have no qualms about shooting wide open in any light.

On my camera, obviously, there's not a really wide angle. Not a big deal, I don't do a lot of landscape and for when I do I just slap on the Olympus 14-42 and leave it at its widest setting. The 18-50 is a pretty ideal wedding lens on my camera.

On your camera it would be a direct replacement for your kit lens, but better. I got mine used at Adorama for $350. No issues, perfect glass, etc.