|
|
bobcita68
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 4, 2009
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 4, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, price/performance
|
|
Cons:
|
Slightly soft wide open
|
|
I found this lens for Nikon mount, used in excellent conditions, and gave it a try, although I had read some negative comments about it. In particular, some claim it is soft wide open and AF is slow and not accurate.
On my D200, AF is on-par with consumer AF-S lenses (such as the 18-70 or 18-200), both in speed and accuracy. Focus errors may occur with non-centre AF points, but that is true for most (wide angle) lenses on the D200 (and documented in Nikkors manuals). Provided one pre-focuses, I believe AF is fast enough for shooting moving subjects (from kids playing to cars on the street).
Sharpness drops from f/4 to f/2.8, but not as bad as one may think based on out-of-camera JPG's. There is a fair amount of CA and haloing at 2.8, which I believe is a common issue with fast lenses (certainly not as bad as with the Nikkor 50 f/1.4 AF-D), but these can be removed easily by shooting RAW and post-processing. Indeed, images taken at f/2.8 sharpen up pretty well.
I also read (minor) complaints about the zoom ring being small and stiff and the switch from AF to MF awkward.
The zoom ring is indeed a tad smaller than it should be, but becomes fluent with usage. And, although changing to MF is not as simple as on the Tokina's, the MF ring is a pleasure to use (frankly, much better than that of any of the AF-S lenses I tried, including the Nikkor 24-70 2.8).
Considering the price I paid (which is less than 1/4 the price of a Nikon 24-70 2.8 in Italy), this lens is a gem.
|
|
 Nov 4, 2009
|
|
tmonzon
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jun 25, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $325.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very affordable as far as lenses go, IQ is sharp, especially when stopped down
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as contrasty as other lenses, extending barrel can be annoying, autofocus is a bit slow
|
|
First off, the negatives. The first thing I noticed about the lens is that color reproduction seems to be a bit off. Colors seem to be a little more washed out on this lens. While it can be fixed in PP, I prefer a little more vibrance in my colors.
Also, the autofocus is pretty slow. I expected as such from a motor driven lens, but it even slower than I had originally thought. It'll do for concerts, if the subject is more stationary, but it'll be a lot harder to get focus quickly when it matters, like sports.
Lastly, the placement of controls on this thing are just really awkward. The zoom ring is too small, and the focus ring is too big. Maybe its just my tastes, but it took some time to get used to the controls on this thing.
Now for the positives. And these outweigh the negatives in my opinion. First off, IQ is comparable to its Canikon equivalents. Maybe I just got lucky and got a good copy the first time, but when stopped down around 2 stops, this thing is tack sharp. Even at 2.8 my copy is pretty good with sharpness.
Also, at an average price of about 400 bucks, this lens is definitely worth picking up if you don't have the 1500 to spare for the Canon or Nikon lenses. At the very least, you get a definite bang for your buck. If you're looking to upgrade from your kit lens for the first time, this is the perfect lens to do it with.
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2009
|
|
stevecoad1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 1, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Pretty good IQ, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy for size
|
|
Not a bad lens but nothing spectacular. I have a Nikon 18-105 kit lens and expected this lens to be far sharper but was disapointed in this respect. I have found that my little 18-105 can take much sharper shots than I expected, even in low light. The only reason that I purchased this is because I also occasionally shoot with my 35mm and the 18-105 is a DX. The image quality is inconsistant. One shot will be excellent and the next just okay. I have found that to get the most of it I need to shoot around f6-f8 so what is the point of getting the heavy lens. It is certainly not a bad lens but I have a hard time getting excited about the photos it takes. I guess that I'm damning it with faint praise but it is not as good as a Nikon or Cannon lense. If you want a good, fast lense at a bargain basement price this is a good one. Just don't expect it to shoot like a Nikkor lense.
|
|
|
Apr 1, 2009
|
|
gene A.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 204
|
|
Review Date: Jan 27, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
extremely sharp and contrasty
|
|
Cons:
|
zoom ring backwards from Canon
|
|
I shoot for a living and my canon 24-105 has had alot of use the last few years so when I saw this lens on Craigs list locally I picked it up as a back up. Maybe I just got lucky, but this thing is extremely sharp and contrasty at all f-stops and focal lengths. Its as good as any L series zoom I have ever owned and I find myself using it often, even though its the only off brand lens I own. The zoom is reversed from Canon zoom ring and frankly I find this aspect of the lens very frustrating, but other than that I highly recommend this lens.
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009
|
|
Dirk Hiemstra
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 14, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Stopped down it is sharp. Real sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy. Clutch system, no manual override. A bit soft at 2.8
|
|
I had the possibility to make a comparison to the Nikon 24-85 2.8-4.0. Hands down for the Nikon. On the other hand, the Sigma aint a bad lens, it is very, very good on F4 and above
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2008
|
|
apocrypha
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 15, 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 15, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
affordable f2.8, nice body
|
|
Cons:
|
hunts at 70mm, body too heavy, soft at small f, v. stiff from 28mm to 24mm
|
|
I wasn't as happy with this lens as I wanted to be. I'm not sure what exactly I mean by that, but I guess it was partly because this was my first introduction to 2.8.
I almost exclusively shoot outdoors so if I do need to shoot f2.8 (i.e. low light) I need it to be sharp. There's not really much point in forking out for a 2.8 if it can't shoot reasonable photos. The lens was sharp, but only around the sweet zone of f8.0. For travel outdoor photography the extra weight for 2.8 was not welcome. 82mm filters are awkwardly uncommon too. The auto-focus hunted slowly, and the zoom inredibly stiffened between 24-28 (why?). It came with a large foam padded pouch which turned out to be a breeding ground for fungi.
I won't gripe about all the L series features it doesn't have which make it half the price because that is irrelevant.
My 2nd attempt on Sigma and once again I am assured Canon is the only option.
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2008
|
|
emaphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 6, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 6, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $430.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Cost, AF performance, build, sharpness (stopped down a bit)
|
|
Cons:
|
AF noise (questionable), 82mm filter thread, AF/MF clutch
|
|
All in all this lens is a sound choice for those on a budget and can not afford the Canikon equivalent. For me spending over 1K on the 24-70L was quite a stretch, so after reading this site I decided to go with the Sigma, and I'm glad I did.
AF speed is good and the noise is bearable, quite frankly I think some folks are too spoiled (or nit picky) when concerning the lens AF noise. Unless you need to be stealthy get this lens... I use a RF for stealthy stuff.
It's quite sharp enough for me and even better at f/5.6 to f/8.
Solid build is quite nice and supplied hood is great, though I am not a fan of the AF/MF clutch mechanism
As for the 82mm filter size it's not so bad. The money you saved buying this lens will pay for more than enough filters. Plus with 82mm, vignetting is not so prevalent.
|
|
|
Aug 6, 2008
|
|
MrAdventure
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 12, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 761
|
|
Review Date: Jul 19, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid Build, Black Colour...less obvious for street shooting etc, Fast Focus, Sharpness after 2.8, Very convenient focal length
|
|
Cons:
|
Loud Auto Focus, Slightly soft at 2.8, Lens extends during focus
|
|
I'be been using the lens for a few days now and intially, didn't like it. The loud AF really turned me off compared to my Canon EF lenses which are smooth quiet and fast.
During a shoot at an outdoor baby beauty contest though, I hardly noticed the AF noise and was quite pleased with the quality of the images I captured.
For the money this is comparable to the Canon equivalent in all areas except for AF noise.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tallchocolateguy/sets/72157606255905716/
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2008
|
|
SoundHound
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 14, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 3608
|
|
Review Date: May 3, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
An incredible value and sharp wide open..
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy, rough focusing and less than good build quality.
|
|
This might have been the "older" model. A loaner while waiting for my Nikkor to arrive. I was surprised at how sharp it was wide open but more than annoyed at the focusing.
Due to the build quality I consider this a semi-expendable or light duty lens. If you only have $400 it's the only way to go.
|
|
|
May 3, 2008
|
|
kinuko
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 14, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Mar 14, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $313.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Sharp at 2.8 at wide angle end, good color and contrast, well built
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus fast for non-HSM but would be a great lens if it had HSM.
|
|
Negative first. At 70mm and f2.8 it's a bit soft. Stopped down to f4.0 it's tack sharp.
From 24-50 it's tack sharp at all apertures. It's fabulous value for money.
Check this Sigma 24-70 lens test page click on the picture of the stuff on the table, you'll see the full size photo direct from the camera. That's at f2.8 and it's extremely sharp.
Highly Recommended
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2008
|
|
DocTP1885
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 15, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 26
|
|
Review Date: Feb 19, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $389.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Built like a tank
Solid feel
Enourmous Glass
quicker response than I epxected.
Sharp lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Ring does feel stiff goin to 24mm (eventually loosens up)
When goin from 70-24m...you can feel air escaping from the sides.
Weight (I dont think it's an issue, but I can see people complaining bout it)
82mm filter is not cheap.
It's not HSM and you can tell. definately can hear the ring motor.
|
|
I did several months reviewing the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. I heard it was a beautiful glass. I went to my local camera store and asked for it. The store salesman was nice enough for me to test out the lens. As I was testing it out, he said if I would be interested in the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 lens as well. I was curious about the sigma and since I was testing the tamron, why not the Sigma as well. When he took the sigma out of the case, my eyes popped out. This is one HUGE piece of glass. I thought for sure I couldnt afford this one. I asked and he said it was only $20 more. Now I cant pass the opportunity to check the sigma out. I put the lens on the store canon 40d and started to do some testing. 1st impression
- SIGMA: It's a tank and I love it. Built very solid. TAMRON: was light and almost fragile.
- SIGMA: Extremely sturdy. TAMRON: could see the barrel wobble a little
- SIGMA: material on it was very nice compared the plastic feel of the TAMRON
- SIGMA Lens was enormous 82mm but wow it looked good.
- SIGMA focus ring was not a smooth as TAMRON and it DID have a slight resistance goin towards the 24mm side. I also felt air pushing out from the sides of the focus ring goin to 70mm range. Thought it was kinda odd.
Sales person comment about the focus ring getting resistance towards 24mm was because it held the lens little more firmly when extended versus Tamron has to use a lock position when extended from wobbling too much. Sales person showed me this and I confirmed this was to be true.
- SIGMA performace was pretty fast. Faster then I expected, but I came from a kit lens, so anything other than a kit lens will be fast. Tamron displayed about the same speed.
- Pedal Hood on the SIGMA is ok. I think it's more for cosmetic with average function against the sun.
- Manual is above the focus ring. Either push up for manual or down for auto. (Also need to set to manual on the side button).
Quality. Thank God the salesman let me test out both cuz I see all the time with both lens to either get a good copy or not. Fortunately the SIGMA was a good copy and I questioned the TAMRON. I tested all the f stops, aperture, 70-24mm range (I was in the store quite a bit. lol) I can confirm at 70mm f2.8 it can be slightly softer. From f4-6 is deathy sharp at all range.
The focus ring is far from quiet, if you're out of focus and lens focus in, you'll know someone is goin to take a picture. I would say, it's a suttle sound, but non the less you can hear it.
Since Im an amateur photographer, I thought this would be a good walk around lens and to take family pics and well as outdoors. So I decided to buy the SIGMA and im very happy I did. It looks very professional on my canon. The thing I like about this lens is that's it's always comared against the Canon 24-70mm L. That's a compliment in my eyes. Yes, the Canon 24-70mm L is a wonderful lens at a hefty price and does edge out the SIGMA (key word: EDGE by a miniscul). but for a 1/3 of the price of the canon with similar perfomance and quality for amateurs like me, it's definately a great piece of glass to have.
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2008
|
|
tinke
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 18, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 371
|
|
Review Date: Jan 23, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Inexpensive and very good quality; as good as I can remember IQ wise compared to my 24-70L - contrast and color too!
|
|
Cons:
|
A little bit jerky when focusing, but very easy to live with for the price.
|
|
Very nice lens, sharp - sharp - sharp, and contrasty too.
Disclosure: This is lens # 2 (you know the Sigma rule, don't necessarily expect a keeper the first time). This is my only third party I am currently using (I have a 30 1.4 that is currently living in its box). I am prety picky, but since this is more of a specialty lens for me I didn't want the weight of the Canon L or the hefty price (my everyday is a 24-105L).
If you don't need a red ring around the end this lens will do you right, provided you are prepared to send it in or get a second copy (third?). My first lens had focusing issues (general), and horrible flare. This copy handles both issues hands down. I got a 82mm Hoya collapsible hood for it (check the auction site), and Pro 1 UV filter. It comes with what I consider to be a whimpy stock hood. Yes, I would recommend the UV as there is a lot of glass sticking out there.
Fast to focus, no real hunting issues and is usually spot on. If you don't need the Canon name on a lens to feel good about yourself this one is a keeper. Just remember that if at first you don't succeed you may need to try again - the good news is Sigma has a renowned service dept, and most lenses sent in for calibration are reported to come back tack sharp. Good luck!
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2008
|
|
|
