Does anyone use this lens? I want the Nikon 24-70mm so bad but don't really want to spend the money. I have had bad luck with sigma in the past and haven't bought a 3rd party lens in a long time but is this new 3rd generation lens a good compromise?

I would be using it on a D3 and a D700

It's a terrific lens if you get a good copy.

i owned the 24-70 EX DG (non HSM) and used it a lot, portraits, events weddings, landscapes, even some simple macro work. Al on a cropped body. Eventually i got other glass and i didn't use it that much anymore.

When i went full frame i started to use it again but for some reason i did not like it that much anymore. The AF was rather clunky and felt like hit or miss. So i decided to go for the upgraded version with HSM and the all new design. That lens was fast to focus, colors are great same for the contrast. When focused correctly it was very sharp, even wide open i had no complaints. But it had a terrible amount of front focusing. Even the max adjustment on my camera wasn't enough. I've returned it and got a original nikkor instead. Which is great...

Despite the fact that i don't have the lens you mention, i will still recommend it, just check for any issues while you can return it... (but that goes for any lens hmm?)

few samples (manual focused since the AF was of no use on my version)

Have it. Love it. I use D300.

Thanks for taking the time to respond and post your examples. I think I will go this route and try it. Don't see any reason to pay double for the Nikon.

Adam why not 35-70?

ramzey wrote:
Adam why not 35-70?


I'm not sure the 35-70mm will communicate with TTL flashes and communicate with the camera when using FV lock.

Plus it only has 7 diaphragm aperture blades which wont make for very good bokeh especially with lights in the background.

So, you can have me over and we can try it.
Second thought, actually it may be not wide enough for you if you like to use it instead of 17-35.

I bought this lens Monday and sent it to Sigma on Wednesday because it back focuses badly but the lens is very detailed and sharp, More so than the Canon 24-70mm and from what I read in the reviews a hair behind the Nikon 24-70mm.
Don't bother looking for a good copy, It's a wast of time and money just buy one and send it in for a calibration, that way when you get it back it's perfect.

WOW, Raymond, pics 1 & 3 there are really impressive!! Love them.
I would love this lens, but it's out of budget and my first priority is fast primes for now.

siberslug wrote:
I bought this lens Monday and sent it to Sigma on Wednesday because it back focuses badly but the lens is very detailed and sharp, More so than the Canon 24-70mm and from what I read in the reviews a hair behind the Nikon 24-70mm.
Don't bother looking for a good copy, It's a wast of time and money just buy one and send it in for a calibration, that way when you get it back it's perfect.


I think buying this over the Nikon and sending it in for Calibration is till worth the money saved. I think I may go that rout.

"Ramzy"

Yes, any excuse to get together and hang out sounds good to me.

lol,Adam , looks like you looking for permission, go buy it. If you don't like it you can always sell or return. Actually i would be interested to try out this lens

I bought a used Sigma 24-70 HSM from the buy/sell board here on FM a few months ago. The seller had already sent it in to Sigma for a tweak to the focusing. So far I am very happy with the lens. I compared the image quality to my previous standard bearer which was my Tamron 28-75. I found that both lenses were very close in image quality at f/2.8 but the Sigma was sharper past f/4. I also liked the color cast from the Sigma better than the Tamron. In the end I sold my Tamron and kept the Sigma. It is the lens that lives on D700 most of the time. It takes amazingly clear and sharp images.

Thanks w4mk, I will probably give it a shot.

I got the newer version of the 24-70 siggy, ($899 version) it is awesome.

I had two copies of the Lens; both got sent back. Glass was fantastic, AF was not acceptable - it would continuously hunt for focus so long as the af-on button is down. It never locks on. Ever. I wanted this lens to be a cheap, lightweight 24-70. It was too much compromise at too much cost for me. If I could get a copy that focused properly? Sure, I'd keep it.

Robb Mann wrote:
I had two copies of the Lens; both got sent back. Glass was fantastic, AF was not acceptable - it would continuously hunt for focus so long as the af-on button is down. It never locks on. Ever. I wanted this lens to be a cheap, lightweight 24-70. It was too much compromise at too much cost for me. If I could get a copy that focused properly? Sure, I'd keep it.


I hope I don't run into this problem. I still think $700 savings may be worth it as long as it focuses and is sharp. isn't that the case with all lenses.

You will want to see the photos took by Sigma 24-70 & Nikon 24-70 on a D700 machine.

D700 + Sigma 24-70
http://english.sellpower.net/modules/flickrorg/dlsr_index.php?id=2&dc_model=79&iso1=0&iso2=0&len_id=139&exposure1=0&exposure2=0&shutter1=0&shutter2=0&num_focal_mm=0&num_focal_mm2=&B1=Query

D700 + Nikor 24-70
http://english.sellpower.net/modules/flickrorg/dlsr_index.php?id=2&dc_model=79&iso1=0&iso2=0&len_id=10&exposure1=0&exposure2=0&shutter1=0&shutter2=0&num_focal_mm=0&num_focal_mm2=&B1=Query

if you care the sharpness, you can download the original size and review them.

My dealer loaned me a, one version back, Sigma 24-70 until my Nikkor came. It was very sharp at F2.8 but mechanically clunky and, ultimately, a lesser value than the Nikkor (with its 5 year guarantee and high resale value). I use it with my D3 about 95% of the time.

You know, I have had bad experience with the 3rd party lenses and I keep thinking Sigma will get there act together and dream that I can save some money. I may as well just tough it out and be patient and buy the Nikon.