 |
|
|
Jesse Evans
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 6, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Apr 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $399.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, Color and Contrast, Accurate and fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy (non-HSM) AF
|
|
|
After owning this lens for almost two years I've decided to post my first review on Fredmiranda.com gushing over this lens.
First off I'll address the biggest con of this lens: The AF is loud. This is a serious problem for professional uses (read: weddings) in which people don't want to be bothered by the constant sound of focusing from the photographer. I have thought about getting rid of this lens and getting the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 USM for the silent AF, but I prefer the look of the pictures I get from the Sigma. Also, full-time manual focus would really be a nice feature for this and all of Sigma's lenses. I'm not quite sure why Sigma hasn't gone through and offered their full line of lenses in HSM form with an added cost of around 100-200 dollars, I would GLADLY pay it.
On to the pros: The AF on this lens is absolutely spot on despite it being noisy, and it is very fast even in low light.
Pictures are sharp from f/2.8 and completely razor sharp at f/3.5 and up.
Very little CA and no purple fringing.
This lens work amazingly on film bodies. Distortions are very well controlled and vignetting is gone by about f/4-5.6 on film bodies (though I'm sure it would be worse for FF digital bodies).
|
|
 Apr 21, 2007
|
|
tootalew
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 973
|
|
Review Date: Mar 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Cost, Size, Contrast, Color, Sharp even at 2.8 on a 5D
|
|
Cons:
|
Zoom Creep, focus is not as fast as the 24-70L
|
|
|
I bought this lens as a back up to my 24-70L and have used it as a main lense after looking over the IQ. Very hard to tell from the 24-70L, maybe a bit warmer, but a non issue. All I can say is wow. The contrast is just awsome. The focusing is not quite as fast as the 24-70L, but it a much smaller lighter lense also. Not to loud for a sigma. Zoom creep is present, but that is not a problem for me either, as I pay atention to what is going on as I shoot. Give this lens a try, it is well worth it.
|
|
|
Mar 1, 2007
|
|
Crazy Fool
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 5, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Oct 27, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp where in focus even at 2.8, handling, good focal range for standard use on a crop camera (although way too short to be ideal on FF for my kind of shooting) Size and weight much smaller than Sigma 24-70 2.8. Useful 38mm wide end equivalent. Build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Front focus very common apparently, plus a fair amount of purple fringing. As zoom is quite short and focus ring moves with AF, focus mechanism could be vulnerable.....don't forget the front focus!!
|
|
|
How I would love a good copy of this lens!
I tried three copies (took two of them home for extensive testing) and they all front-focused badly on my 10D so I gave up, and bought a Tamron 28-75 which focuses very accurately (first copy I tried) and is a little bit sharper to boot.
So why do I still yearn for one of these Sigmas? ...Basically for the build quality! The Tamron zoom ring is nowhere near as nice, it requires more turning, and it is not smooth. The 24-60 has a smooth, dampened feel to it.
In my opinion, the 24-60 is an excellent range on crop cameras. 24mm is fine for wide angle as far as I'm concerned ( I have an excellent ultra wide 10-20 HSM) I can live without the 17 or 18mm wide end that so many people think is essential for serious photographers' standard zooms. 38mm equivalent is wide enough as standard lens for me and doesn't distort people too much. Also, 60mm is just fine on the long end, yes you have to walk a few steps forward sometimes, but no big deal. To put this into perspective, nobody complains that their Canon 17-55 is too short, do they? So, for me, a 24-60 is a good compromise between range and size.
Sharpness (where in focus) is about the same as my new Tamron 28-75 which is excellent. Its also similar to the Tamron in terms of focus speed, size and weight. My Tamron is much better at resisting flare and purple fringing - I have yet to see any in fact whereas the Sigma 24-60s I tried exhibited this a lot even in indoor testing. Tamron is ideal apart from the handling I think, where this Sigma beats it hands down. Unfortunately as I have said, my three copies of the Sigma though sharp, were unusable due to focus issues. Perhaps Sigma could have fixed them, but I didn't want to risk it.
If you can get a good one, go for it. But I tried all three of my local stores' copies, and none of them were any good at focusing accurately (it always looked like they were okay at first glance, but on closer inspection, if I had focused on eyes, nose would be sharp, not the eyes)
My advice is don't even think about buying this lens without testing it, unless you can easily return it to the shop for replacement or refund, or are prepared to send it to Sigma for calibration.
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2006
|
|
ovredal73
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 21, 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 2478
|
|
Review Date: Oct 19, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
1. It is full frame (and basically the same focal length as the 17-40L on 1.6x cameras).
2. It has fast, accurate AF even in dark environments.
3. It has 24mm as opposed to the tammy´s 28.
4. It is an extremely compact "normal" 2.8 zoom.
5. It has better build than the tammy.
6. It is much smaller than the 24-70L.
7. So far it seems to match the optical quality of both it´s competitors.
|
|
Cons:
|
No HSM, but it doesn´t seem to be a problem yet.
|
|
|
I have used this lens a few days now and simply love it on my 5D. I have the tamron 28-75, the 24-70L and the 24-105L in the same range and the Sigma will replace both the tamron and the 24-70L.
Looking at all the convenient factors and simple quality of this lens, I don´t understand why this lens is not more popular. It seems like the perfect balance between optical quality, focal range, size and aperture.
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2006
|
|
breenj
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 24, 2005
Location: Marshall Islands
Posts: 317
|
|
Review Date: Jun 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, from f/2.8 up
Price
Compact size, but solid build
|
|
Cons:
|
? only 60mm on far end, but I already knew that and don't miss it much
|
|
|
I have had this lens for about a year. It is very sharp at f/2.8. Some of the reviews have noted that it is heavy, but it is well-built and compact also.
I use it on a 30D (1.6x crop factor), so I often would like to go wider. I have ordered a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to try out, and IF it is as good as the Sigma, I might sell the Sigma. But not until I try out the Tamron very thoroughly.
I highly recommend this for full frame cameras, and for 1.6x crop factors if the range is good for you.
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2006
|
|
Amsterdam
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 16, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, contrasty, good edge performance, fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
Limited range, no internal zoom
|
|
|
On a full frame DSLR its a good standard zoom lens. Its quite sharp, but not as sharp as a 50 1.4 USM. Build quality is excellent.
I doubt L zoom lenses will get any sharper.
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2006
|
|
WideOpenVision
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 27, 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, strong built, excellent price for what you get
|
|
Cons:
|
AF not really accurate sometimes, heavy but very well built, a little soft wide open
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2006
|
|
DeNak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 8, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
It's been made with care. To me the lens is sharp all the way from 24 till 60 in F 2.8. It's razorsharp between F 4 and F 11. I think this is an amazing lens which can compete with lenses that cost three times as much! People complain about the noise the AF-systeem seems to make but I don't think it's annoying
|
|
Cons:
|
A little heavy but who cares when you see your pictures!
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 8, 2006
|
|
davidmarsh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 26, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 133
|
|
Review Date: Apr 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
small, light, cost, build quality, good optics. I shot a number of images using my Canon 24-105 L ens and then took the same shots, with a Canon 30D, using the Sigma 24-60 lens. The Sigma shots actualy looked better than the L lens. I could not see any distortion around the outside of the images. The colour reproduction was as good, if not better, than the L lens!
|
|
Cons:
|
My initial reaction was that th efocusing was a little soft in 2.8 but in reality most lenses are. Even the L lens is.
|
|
|
Unless you are a pro photographer using in exses of 12 megapixels, it would seam silly to purchase a Canon L lens over the Sigma. We use all Canon L lenses and this Sigma is our only 'non' Canon lens and we love it. The auto focus sytem is slighlty slowwer than the Canon's but unless you are a sports photographer, it will not make any difference!
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2006
|
|
mlade10
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2005
Location: Serbia & Montenegro
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 26, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
f 2.8, sharpness, color bouquet, build quality, light lens, price, lens bag and hood included...
|
|
Cons:
|
focal range on the strange side( 24-60 ), sigma's lens cap loose.
|
|
|
...fast-ish, HQ sharpness, colour...all super...
...wide open can hunt a bit on low lights...
...great all-rounder...
RECOMMENDED.
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2006
|
|
canonlight
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Feb 26, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 42
|
|
Review Date: Mar 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Constant f2.8 zoom, Good size, Fairly sharp wide open, 24mm better starting FL than 28mm for walkaround, Good contrast reproduction, EX finish and build.
|
|
Cons:
|
Some copies tend to have front-focus problems, CA fairly evident at or near wide open, 24-60mm range a bit limited, no HSM/FTM.
|
|
|
I highly recommend this lens for a walkaround zoom, although the extra 10mm of the 2470EX is nicer (at the expense of being heavier though). But this is a fine lens in Sigma's EX standard zoom line-up.
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2006
|
|
daliangr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 16, 2006
Location: Greece
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp from f4,small,very good af,great color,very goog price,24mm very usefull.
|
|
Cons:
|
soft at 2.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2006
|
|
nightheron
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 3, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Feb 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $379.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent contrast and sharpness at all focal lengths at f/4 and above, f/2.8 good between 35-50mm but a little soft at 24mm, includes a lens hood and padded bag, comparable image quality to Canon L glass
|
|
Cons:
|
Does not AF properly with AF assist lights on Canon Speedlite flashes, HSM would be nice
|
|
|
I bought this lens to replace my Canon 17-40 f/4L. For my purposes 24-60mm is a more useful zoom range. I thought I would be sacrificing some image quality but I’ve found this lens to be sharper than the 17-40 at all equivalent apertures and focal lengths. Sharpness at f/2.8 is very good between 35-50mm. At 24mm I find f/2.8 to be a little on the soft side, but stopping down the lens to f/4 increases sharpness back to excellent levels. My copy produces neutral colors with very good contrast.
AF is not as fast as Canon’s USM or Sigma’s HSM, but it is better than most non-USM lenses I’ve used.
The one big disappointment with this lens is its inability to properly auto focus using the AF assist lamp on my 580EX flash. This is a known problem with some Sigma lenses, and this lens definitely has that problem. In order for me to obtain proper auto focus in low light I need to disable the AF assist lamp on the flash unit (via custom functions). With the AF assist lamp disabled AF works fine in most low light situations. I’ve never had any focusing problems in any other situation including when using the built in flash on my 350D for AF assist.
|
|
|
Feb 4, 2006
|
|
jspen
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Mar 31, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 542
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $299.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Photo quality - excellent, sharp at F 2.8, blown away when underexposed by 1/3 stop photos come to life.
Size, had the 24-70 2.8 version which is much larger, less sharp although
very good.
Price - under $300 delivered from KEH.com for a LN+ - A STEAL!!!
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing, maybe lens cap is not pinch style so hard to remove with hood on but I am grasping for negatives here...
|
|
|
Get this lens, for under $300 a F2.8 24-60mm range, its a gem. Using on a D50 and performance is awesome for price. Had the 24-70mm version of this lens but size is much larger and I would not use because of that on a D50, the 24-60mm is just right. Blows my 18-70mm Nikkor away except for focus speed. On the camera all the time, try one out!
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2006
|
|
digitaled
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 6, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 228
|
|
Review Date: Jan 22, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $370.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
It is light and very sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Non so far
|
|
|
I have seen many photos from the Nikon 17-55 and i fell the Sigma 24-60 is much sharper.
I have had it for a few weeks now on a D2HS and i love it and i am glad i got it.
I have done testing a lot with it compared to my Canon 20D with 17-40L F4 lens and the Sigma is much sharper then it to.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2006
|
|
Boom369
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 12, 2005
Location: Iraq
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent Build Quality, F2.8, Nice Warm Color, Starts getting sharp from f4, Lens hood & semi rigid case (awesome value extras), Feels right on a 20d
|
|
Cons:
|
Very Soft at 2.8 for me, prone to flare at 24-28mm without hood
|
|
|
This lens does perform at 2.8 but not well as I had hoped. I'm averaging 1:10 shots are keepers/suitable for 8x10s perhaps I could manage more if I were into post processing. This is my first zoom lens upgrade from the 18-55 kit lens, the kit lens has its usefullness as it is just as sharp at same fstop and has better macro capabilies, but it cant stop action for the lighting we have in European Winters. The 24-60 does stay on my camera body for the time being though as I do need the zoom and lower fstop, but that may change as I add more primes to my bag. Comparing this lens to the Canon 50mm 1.8 results in a rather 1 sided affair as the plastic fantastic brings in so much more detail it is easily twice the lens that this is for the same focal length, the Sigma outperforms it in one area though and that is AF speed.
I think this lens is a good enough performer to keep for a while and continue adding other zooms. I am just disappointed that my copy isnt a satisfactory performer at 2.8 in grey overcast lighting conditions.
|
|
|
Jan 9, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
60
|
181095
|
Mar 31, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
92% of reviewers
|
$326.00
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.00
|
9.43
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
