What do you think the Sigma 24-60 f/2.8

[STINKY PICTURES]

SORRY TYPO IN THE TITLE... should read....Sigma f24-70 2.8-4
ok i think thats right

I have a Canon 40D
I have the Kits lens 28-135mm plus the 50mm 1.8

now i`m considering....Sigma 24-70 f/2.8

I have a coupon and i can get it for free on ebay. Should i bother or should i use my $100.00 ebay coupon for something else. I can`t spend much more. I already put out way too much on my camera and stuff.
I shoot indoors only. no lights just natural light during the day.

My coupon must be used on an ebay purchase only. I just bought the 50mm 1.8 last week, and buying another lens this week will make my husbands top blow. The coupon expires in June. I can hold on, save a little for another lens, or I can get the free SIGMA lens now, or any other lens i find on ebay. i can put a little extra into the purchase of ANOTHER lens now... but it has to be small. We`re on a fixed budget. Hes disabled, so funds are really limited. I`m just anxious to get a new lens. this hobby is like eating potato chips, its hard to stop with just one.

What i want and need is a lens thats auto foucs, and tac sharp. thats why i got the 50mm.... I sell on ebay for a living and if my things don`t look good, they don`t get a good price and we don`t eat. lol, seriously its my living. Thats why i bought the 40d. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I know some say stay with Canon only....sighhh... but others have also had good results with other lens too.

I don`t have big money, not now for the L lens so what other option do i have that would give me nice shots. keep in mind i`m doing pictures for ebay, i just want clear sharp pics. but i have to stress that they have to be sharp.

thanks so much for any help.

since i don`t now what i`m talking about, here`s the listing for the lens for all i know.. AF may not even mean AUTO FOCUS....

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=270227950007&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=017

 

[asfixiate]

Shots for Ebay only? Keep what you have and give me the coupon.

 

[STINKY PICTURES]

Well i can tell you how i got the $100.00 coupon from ebay!!

I bought something, and the lady took way to long to send it, and was not answering my emails. It was over a month. so i opened up a PAYPAL DISPUTE.
I won 2 items from her, ebay wanted to keep me happy within about 4 days they sent be this big beautiful colorful coupon by email for $100.00 for my problems. (you know they own paypal too) it has a code and i put in the code when i go to pay at paypal.

so if you have a dispute with someone don`t hesitate to open up a dispute with paypal you may be rewarded. I was!

It was finally settled, she got scared and she did send me my items.

ok back to my lens..... lol

 

[sabbath999]

I have one.

It is EXTREMELY soft at 2.8 around the edges.

It is here in my office I am sending it in to Sigma. I bought it for $239 on a whim, and am not at all happy with it. I don't know if I have a bad copy or what.

By EXTREMELY soft I mean blurry as all getout. I am going to ship it off for warranty service. It is unusable under 5.6.

I need to take a couple shots for the warranty people, I will do that later today and post them here for y'all to see.

I am hoping that I just have a misaligned copy, and that it can be fixed, because other than the fact that it takes horrible pictures, it is a cool lens

 

[sabbath999]

OK I hope this shows up reduced... I have no way to really do 100 percent on this current machine, but this will give you an idea. I just shot these of the C-Store across from my office with a borrowed D40.

I have taken one of these pictures at f/16, and one at f/2.8. I then blew up the side of the 2.8 in iPhoto (the only photo software this machine has on it... I am not at my regular desk) and you can see how the branches get really distorted as they move to the left (this is the left side of the picture). It isn't a depth of field issue because all the trees are at basically the same focal distance.

EXIF on all: D40, Sigma 24-60, ISO200 60mm

First the f/16:

Now the f/2.8:

Now, the left part of the 2.8 (cropped):

This isn't a scientific test, but this lens is so bad on the edges you don't NEED a scientific test to see it.

 

[STINKY PICTURES]

Oh good grief, wow... i had a soft lens problem with my first lens and the store let me trade it in for a different one. the last thing i want is lens that takes soft pics. thanks so much for sharing that. I saw a different pic of a dog and a few other shots that a lady took and it was with this lens and it blew me away. so i thought WOW what a great lens!

now i guess i`m back to square one, with this coupon burning a hole in my pocket!! earmarked for a lens...

maybe someone else will have another suggestion. thanks for posting your pics, i appreciate it.

 

[sabbath999]

I have seen other pictures with this lens model that were VERY sharp at 2.8, I may just have a bad one. I am going to send it in to get it serviced (which is why it was at the office... I am going to mail it off). Hopefully they can fix the problem.

It is one of their "pro" series lenses, which means it should do better than absolutely horrible.

 

[frXnz kafka]

The link you posted isn't to the 24-60mm f/2.8 It's to the 28-70mm f/2.8-4

 

[STINKY PICTURES]

OOOPS sorry your right... but thats the Lens i`m looking at.

I`m going to go up to the top and fix it. Thanks for seeing that.

 

[JerryPH]

Your lens is known for being very soft at wide apertures, Sabbath very likely did not get a bad lens... they are pretty much all like that.

If you want a Sigma lens known to be sharp, its the 18-50 HSM Macro. It is a little more than $100, though.

 

[STINKY PICTURES]

WOW Thanks Jerrry, am I glad I asked ahead of time..