sigma lens

[royalWITHcheese2]

Has anyone used or heard anything about the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG

? I was thinking about getting it, but it just seems too good to be true for only $329 at B&H. Especially when you compare it to the price of the similar Nikon at like $1500 or so.

 

[Garbz]

Watch your linking. Also there's a reason for each price. f/2.8 is just one factor of lens usability. Just because a lens is f/2.8 does not make it quality or designed for professional.

The Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 somewhat unheard of, as in I haven't found a solid objective review yet.

The Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8 on the other hand is one of the beall and endall of full frame lenses. The design is 10 years old but still outperforms nearly all lenses give or take a couple of the new and also very expensive pro lenses. It's price is justified by the way it's marketed to professionals, and it's a lust worthy piece of equipment.

/Note: I am biased. After playing with the 28-70mm mine arrives this weekend. And the test shots I took to compare it to my $600 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 showed quite the chalk and cheese difference in not only sharpness but overall image quality. The bokeh is wonderful.

 

[Antithesis]

Has anyone used or heard anything about the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG

? I was thinking about getting it, but it just seems too good to be true for only $329 at B&H. Especially when you compare it to the price of the similar Nikon at like $1500 or so.

That focal range doesn't really work well for a DX sensor, and the lens is undoubtedly older then the DX design, making it pretty dated. I would like at something that's atleast 24mm in the wide department or it will be pretty pointless.

And Garbz, it sounds like you overpayed on your 18-70

 

[table1349]

That focal range doesn't really work well for a DX sensor, and the lens is undoubtedly older then the DX design, making it pretty dated. I would like at something that's atleast 24mm in the wide department or it will be pretty pointless.

And Garbz, it sounds like you overpayed on your 18-70

Why? I hear this all the time and have yet to hear a good answer. That range may not work for you on a DX sensor but that is shooting preference. I shoot Canon not Nikon, but my 24-70 f2.8L lives on one of my bodies. (both my bodies are Apc sensors) It is a great lens and a perfect focal lenth for 95% of the shooting I do around that range. I own the 16-35 f2.8L II as well and use it when I need wider, but it doesn't see that much use for average shooting.

I have a program at home that if I can find the link for I will post it. It examines the exif data in your photos and charts you focal lengths you use. It's amazing how many people that say 24mm is not wide enought on a crop sensor only to find that they very rarely get much below it in their own use.

The difference between 24mm and 28 mm is about one large step backwards. Not a huge difference. If the OP has a good idea of the focal lenth they need and the glass is good glass then there is no reason not to look at the lens.

 

[royalWITHcheese2]

Sorry about the crap in my OP, I really had no intention of it being in there, I don't even know what it is because I didn't copy a link.

And I'm well aware of the fact that it's not going to be that wide on my camera, I already have a wide angle, I'm more looking at the f/2.8 part of it. I rarely get to 18mm anyways, so I could care less.

Garbz, I saw your other thread that you were getting it earlier...lucky. I think you said you got it second hand, if you don't mind me asking, for how much? If I had the money I would definitely go with the Nikon, but I only have so much to spend, and I would rather have the 80-200 f/2.8, so I had to make a choice.

 

[NateS]

From my research it seems the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is a better lens than the 28-80 f2.8. The 18-50 is actually comparable (not as good, but comparable), to the Nikon counterpart...17-55 f2.8.

I don't think the same goes for 28-80 Sigma vs. Nikon.

If you are wanting a general zoom with f2.8 that's good for the money, look at the Sigma 18-50 f2.8....you'll lose a little on the top of the range from the 28-80, but quality should be better.

 

[royalWITHcheese2]

From my research it seems the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is a better lens than the 28-80 f2.8. The 18-50 is actually comparable (not as good, but comparable), to the Nikon counterpart...17-55 f2.8.

I don't think the same goes for 28-80 Sigma vs. Nikon.

If you are wanting a general zoom with f2.8 that's good for the money, look at the Sigma 18-50 f2.8....you'll lose a little on the top of the range from the 28-80, but quality should be better.

I will look at that one, thanks. I saw it on the Sigma website earlier but didn't really think much of it.

 

[250Gimp]

I have the sigma 18-50 f2.8, and am really hapy with it. Mine doesn't have HSM, but it still focusses pretty quickly and is pretty sharp. The f2.8 is great for indoor shots!!

I have a 28-135 that I use when I am out doors more, but I still carry the sigma for when I want wider for landscape shots.

 

[table1349]

If 50mm is not to short on the long end, you might also look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. I have the Canon version and it is the only non-Canon lens I own. It is just too good not to keep as a backup to my 24-70 f2.8L.

I believe that Big Mike has the same lens in the Nikon version. If memory serves me correctly (it doesn't always)(getting old I guess) he is very pleased with it as well. The optics are great, the focus quick (but a bit noisy) and the build is decent. Just a thougt of another option if you want to look at it.

 

[royalWITHcheese2]

If 50mm is not to short on the long end, you might also look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. I have the Canon version and it is the only non-Canon lens I own. It is just too good not to keep as a backup to my 24-70 f2.8L.

I believe that Big Mike has the same lens in the Nikon version. If memory serves me correctly (it doesn't always)(getting old I guess) he is very pleased with it as well. The optics are great, the focus quick (but a bit noisy) and the build is decent. Just a thougt of another option if you want to look at it.

I think it might be ok, I'd have to just test it out, but I'll look at that one too, thanks.

 

[skieur]

From my research it seems the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is a better lens than the 28-80 f2.8. The 18-50 is actually comparable (not as good, but comparable), to the Nikon counterpart...17-55 f2.8.

I don't think the same goes for 28-80 Sigma vs. Nikon.

If you are wanting a general zoom with f2.8 that's good for the money, look at the Sigma 18-50 f2.8....you'll lose a little on the top of the range from the 28-80, but quality should be better.

I have the Sigma 18 to 50mm f. 2.8 and am impressed with the fact that texture is still present in highlights even at ISO 1600. With macro, it can also serve as a close-up lens and at the long end it makes a good portrait lens that can blur out backgrounds at low settings.

skieur

 

[NateS]

I have the Sigma 18 to 50mm f. 2.8 and am impressed with the fact that texture is still present in highlights even at ISO 1600. With macro, it can also serve as a close-up lens and at the long end it makes a good portrait lens that can blur out backgrounds at low settings.

skieur

All I ever hear is good things about the Sigma 18-50 f2.8. Time after time, it get's good reviews. It is definitely on my list to replace my kit lens down the road.

 

[soylentgreen]

Until they put a HSM motor in those lenses, I will avoid them like the plague. The Sigma focusing mechanism is slow. Watching paint dry slow. I had the 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG for about a day before I traded it in. Even in good light the AF is hunting. Low-light was near unbearable. Price is great, IQ was ok.

 

[NateS]

I think that part of it would be a lot different between Nikon and Canon. Nikon would operate by the screw drive which should AF about the same as the prime's (which is noisy, but not bad).

Edit: ^^ That's purely an assumption since I've not shot with the Sigma 18-50 f2.8

 

[Deadeye008]

I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 in a Canon mount and really enjoy it.