Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG

Leo · Jul 19, 2007

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

My son's Lightning McQueen lamp

sothoth · Jul 19, 2007

Nice looking dog...

soylentgreen · Jul 20, 2007

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.

Alex_B · Jul 20, 2007

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.

sothoth · Jul 20, 2007

Alex_B said:
Best cheap-ish 2.8 in that focal range in my opinion.

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?

keith204 · Jul 20, 2007

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.

Alex_B · Jul 20, 2007

keith204 said:
82mm is HUGE.. quite bigger than you'd think. Filters are expensive. However, it's worth it for that 'pro' look.

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

keith204 · Jul 20, 2007

Alex_B said:
It is huge, and people are easily scared by it ... more than by many canon L-zooms

Is scaring people bad? Just makes for better pictures, I suppose...

Leo · Jul 20, 2007

keith204 said:
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.

Another happy customer, I thought I was the only one! :mrgreen:

keith204 · Jul 20, 2007

Leo said:
Another happy customer, I thought I was the only one! :mrgreen:

Leo, those are some pretty neat pictures showing off that aperture.. nice work. :thumbup:

Leo · Jul 20, 2007

keith204 said:
Leo, those are some pretty neat pictures showing off that aperture.. nice work. :thumbup:

thanks, I appreciate! :mrgreen:

keith204 · Jul 22, 2007

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.

Leo · Jul 23, 2007

well sad to say but i am very disappointed with this lens. it is sharp on the 24mm end but soft on the 70mm end. i am returning this lens back. guess i have to wait till i can afford the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L lens.

keith204 · Jul 23, 2007

I may look into sending mine back as well... problem is: i bought it off the internet................. Overall, a decent lens... for the price, that is... but not what I expected.

Leo · Jul 23, 2007

keith204 said:
I may look into sending mine back as well... problem is: i bought it off the internet................. Overall, a decent lens... for the price, that is... but not what I expected.

just curious, what made you change your mind?