Which Sigma 24-70?

[eric-holmes]

So I have found 3 different Sigma 24-70 2.8 models. Even the most expensive of the 3 is half the price of the similar Nikon model. So my question is; What is the difference in these three?

Sigma | 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF Autofocus Lens | 548306

Sigma | 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM Autofocus Lens | 571306 | B&H

Sigma | 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF | 549306

 

[TJ K]

the second one the HSM is the newest and best one out now I believe.
TJ

 

[Reel2]

So I have found 3 different Sigma 24-70 2.8 models. Even the most expensive of the 3 is half the price of the similar Nikon model. So my question is; What is the difference in these three?

Sigma | 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF Autofocus Lens | 548306

Sigma | 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM Autofocus Lens | 571306 | B&H

Sigma | 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF | 549306

The third one is a 28-70 not a 24-70. The second lens as well as being the most recent also has the built in motor for focusing.

 

[clbd39]

i have to laugh at the people that say it's a "heavy lens" they have probably never had an 80-200 or anything on their camera

I'm i the same boat as you and interested in which to get, once i sell my 18-135 i'd like to find a good 24-70 f/2.8 or comparable

 

[eric-holmes]

Well I wouldn't need the in body focus motor since I have the D90. And the third one is a lot cheaper.

 

[eric-holmes]

Any more input on these lenses?

 

[indeedies]

I too am curious. I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and find it kind of soft with aperatures above 3.5 I'm worried about buying another one with same problem. What's the point of having a fast lens if you have to sacrifice sharpness?

 

[eric-holmes]

I alsocame across a 17-50 2.8 lens by Sigma. I'm just not sure if that will have the reach I want.

 

[Nameless]

The 3rd one is a 28-70mm and is an older model and I believe is already discountinued.

The 1st one is the previous model from Sigma for this focal lenth. It is a good standard zoom with a fixed f/2.8. It also has a macro feature, although it is not 1:1. IQ on it is pretty good and the one I used seems to focus pretty good as well. Only thing about this model is that it uses a 82mm filter, which can be pretty expensive.

The 2nd one is the newest model out and has the HSM motor, which allows you to AF faster and quieter. Some users have said the IQ is very good on this model and almost up to par with Nikon, but cost about $350 more than the previous model. Does not have macro feature anymore and I believe the filter size is smaller at 77mm.

Just a final note, if your shooting with a D90, you may want to consider the Sigma 18-50mm or Tamron 17-50mm lenses as your crop sensor will make it a more useable walk-around lens. The 24-70 length might be a little long for you on a APS-C.

 

[DerekSalem]

i have to laugh at the people that say it's a "heavy lens" they have probably never had an 80-200 or anything on their camera

I'm i the same boat as you and interested in which to get, once i sell my 18-135 i'd like to find a good 24-70 f/2.8 or comparable

Aye they say it's so heavy even though it's 24.7oz lol try a professional zoom...my 70-200 f/4L IS is around 27oz but it's big brother (the f/2.8L IS) is around 57oz. Try carrying that around for a day without a backbrace on.

 

[chammer]

Aye they say it's so heavy even though it's 24.7oz lol try a professional zoom...my 70-200 f/4L IS is around 27oz but it's big brother (the f/2.8L IS) is around 57oz. Try carrying that around for a day without a backbrace on.

lol no kidding. i dont understand how people can say the 24-70 is heavy. i have the 70-200 2.8 IS you mentioned, and my first big event was a triathlon i shot for 4 hrs and didnt bring my monopod. that evening sucked, and the next morning sucked even more (its what i get for being out of shape though).

 

[eric-holmes]

Just a final note, if your shooting with a D90, you may want to consider the Sigma 18-50mm or Tamron 17-50mm lenses as your crop sensor will make it a more useable walk-around lens. The 24-70 length might be a little long for you on a APS-C.

But there isn't that much difference between 17 and 24 and withthe 24 you get an extended length to 70. I am wanting to use this for a portrait lens.

 

[cnutco]

Aye they say it's so heavy even though it's 24.7oz lol try a professional zoom...my 70-200 f/4L IS is around 27oz but it's big brother (the f/2.8L IS) is around 57oz. Try carrying that around for a day without a backbrace on.

lol no kidding. i dont understand how people can say the 24-70 is heavy. i have the 70-200 2.8 IS you mentioned, and my first big event was a triathlon i shot for 4 hrs and didnt bring my monopod. that evening sucked, and the next morning sucked even more (its what i get for being out of shape though).

No kidding my 70 - 200 is 54.3 oz. I had to lug that thing around the Masters for a day and I could not think about those pros carrying 2 or 3 cameras with much heavier set ups.

 

[pbelarge]

Yesterday afternoon, I climbed 1200ft, hand-to-foot a good portion of the way. I had my backpack, and carried a tripod. Did I say it was 90f (in April)?

I have read many reviews about weight, and I pretty much ignore them. I am in my 50s, heading toward 60 and I cannot understand how people complain so much about weight. I for one do not see it. I say "America, get in shape"

I do understand when weight counts, like the tripod issue with heavy lenses, etc...


P.S.
It was definitely hot yesterday, especially since a month ago, it was in the 20s here. :mrgreen:

But...I was able to get up high enough to see across the Hudson River, facing west. I got what I think for a rank amatuer were some pretty good sunsets. Another benefit of being able to climb...not too many people up there with me. I noticed a few young people up there doing the same as me (imagine, not one had a camera).

The small mountain I climbed is called "Breakneck Mountain". I didn't know that until I looked on a map today. :mrgreen: