Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Leo, Jul 19, 2007.

  1. Leo

    Leo TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Just got this lens today. Opened the box and it's kinda bulky and heavy. Took a few shots with the lens and I found the zoom ring kinda stiff, but I heard it's going to losen up in due time. Per reviews that I read, the AF is somewhat slow but I didn't think it was slow. AF is a little noisy compared to my 28-135mm IS USM but it's not really annoying. Overall I am happy with the lens. I've never owned a comparable Canon L lens so I can't compare. For the price I've paid I think it is worth it. Here are a few pics that I took today. Oh btw, I was curious to see how heavy this lens is, together with my Canon 30D and BGE2 grip on my bathroom scale it was 4lbs.

    My dog Sparky

    [​IMG]

    My son's Lightning McQueen lamp

    [​IMG]
     
  2. sothoth

    sothoth TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice looking dog... :)
     
  3. soylentgreen

    soylentgreen TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    735
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Well, I got my Sigma on Tuesday from B&H and tested it out on Wednesday at the zoo. This was the first lens that I purchased that wasn't a Canon so I was a little hesitant.
    I did encounter the same problem in which the zoom ring is a tad stiff. Took some finger power to turn it from one end to the other. Also a bit narrow in my opinion and too close to the camera body. Forces a wierd angle to adjust. My fingers kept rubbing against the body and I have small hands!
    The autofocus is fine in normal light. I found it VERY slow to react in low light, especially on the wide end. Very strange considering it is a f/2.8. Then again, it does not have a Hypersonic motor. Are you listening Sigma? Optical stabilization perhaps?
    Optically, it is fine when the focus is on. Color and contrast were good. Prone to flares at extreme angles. Just a tad soft at 70mm and f/2.8. You really do have to stop it down a notch or two to get a sharp image. But then again, why did I just buy a f/2.8?
    Depth of field is also very shallow. I did not encounter any vignetting or pincushioning as others reviewers did, but than again I have a 1.6 crop. I just found the slow auto focus such a hindrance that I will just stick to my 24-105 f/4 L or try the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.
    I bought the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 just for this reason. To be able to focus in lower than ideal lighting situations, track & stop action, etc. and this lens just did not cut it. Maybe I am expecting too much from a $400 lens or just spoiled by my L lenses and demand too much of "lesser" lenses. In recap, you get what you pay for.
     
  4. Alex_B

    Alex_B No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    14,491
    Likes Received:
    206
    Location:
    Europe 67.51°N
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I used this lens until a year ago on 35mm film and sensor. I think it is well worth the money.

    It is not L of course, and it shows some CA on APS-sized sensors.

    Very stury and good for outdoor use.

    Best cheap-ish 2.8 in that focal range in my opinion.
     
  5. sothoth

    sothoth TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not saying your observations are wrong or anything, but I think you're seeing "typical" behavior from a lens in this price range. I think you could easily do worse than this one for <$400.

    The slow focus in low light I think has less to do with the motor speed and more to do with the low light. Mine jumps around between the near- and far-extreme in low light, but then again so do all of my lenses in low light. How low is the light you're working with?
     
  6. keith204

    keith204 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Bolivar, MO
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I just received my Sigma 24-70 today. The zoom range is more natural than I would have imagined, and it feels very solid. The focus is fast in my opinion, and I tried it in some low light situations... it seemed fine. Now, I use the center focus point when focusing which helps.

    The zoom ring is incredibly stiff, and I am sure will wear out my hand soon enough. I would prefer a stiff zoom feel, than one that felt too loose. The focus is noisy, but that doesn't bother me--as it seems fast still.

    82mm is HUGE.. quite bigger than you'd think. Filters are expensive. However, it's worth it for that 'pro' look. In my opinion, I think this looks better than the canon ones. However, this obviously doesn't matter after the picture has been taken :). Just fun.

    Overall, I am incredibly happy with the purchase. Only complaint is the stiff zoom, but I hear that will loosen after time. I'd recommend this to anybody wanting a solid, but less expensive lens in this F-stop and zoom range.
     
  7. Alex_B

    Alex_B No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    14,491
    Likes Received:
    206
    Location:
    Europe 67.51°N
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit

    It is huge, and people are easily scared by it ... more than by many canon L-zooms ;)
     
  8. keith204

    keith204 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Bolivar, MO
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Is scaring people bad? Just makes for better pictures, I suppose... :D
     
  9. Leo

    Leo TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Another happy customer, I thought I was the only one! :mrgreen:
     
  10. keith204

    keith204 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Bolivar, MO
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Leo, those are some pretty neat pictures showing off that aperture.. nice work. :thumbup:
     
  11. Leo

    Leo TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit

    thanks, I appreciate! :mrgreen:
     
  12. keith204

    keith204 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Bolivar, MO
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Just wanted to post again, since I did notice some rough low-light autofocusing. Not real sure what I think about it... but it stinks that my stock 18-55 focuses faster & more accurately than this lens in the dark.

    Overall, still happy with the lens...image quality seems excellent, and the price is great for a 2.8.

    Verdict? I'll probably end up with a 17-85 Canon IS to compliment my Sigma 70-200 2.8. Then I'll have 2 lenses that adequately cover my range, and this one will just be my fun lens. It looks professional, image quality is incredibly sharp, and f/2.8 is simply awesome. Would I buy it again? Yep...but I would have bought a Canon 17-85 IS or Canon 28-135 IS first.

    After using it a bunch, here are some pros and cons:

    Pros:
    f/2.8
    Price
    Sharp
    Professional look & feel
    comes with hood

    Cons:
    Range - 24-70 is funny... like Big Mike warned
    Zoom Ring - Stiff, very stiff
    Low-light focusing is bad
    82mm filters are pricey... super pricey.
     

Share This Page