 |
Page: 1 · 2
|
|
|
|
jezz.ez
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 28, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Its cheap, comes with a hood and its fast
|
|
Cons:
|
Very soft at f1.8 but stop down a couple of stops and it becomes very useable
|
|
|
For the price this is hard to beat. Yes it can be soft. Yes it is a bit big. But at 2/3 of the price of its nearest Canon equivalent which only goes to f2.8 it is excellent value for money. Build quality is good. The motor isn't that noisy. At f1.8 quite soft, much better at f2.0, by f4.0 very usable. If you can afford L glass buy that, if not get the sigma.
|
|
 Jun 28, 2006
|
|
Sarahg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 22, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $320.00
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
None from my persepctive. Might be fine for landscape photography, but the lens was useless to me.
|
|
Cons:
|
Exposure latitude at the high end was awful in low light --detail was completely blown out. Colors off, and not very sharp either.
|
|
|
This lens was a big disappointment. I returned it and lost $30 in shipping costs.
I purchased it mainly for concert photography, shooting bands under poor lighting conditions. I have a 20D.
After using the lens for one concert shoot, with very disappointing results, I did an clinical experiment in better light to compare it with my $80 Canon 50 mm 1.8, in terms of exposure latitude.
Sure enough, the cheap Canon lens performed SIGNIFICANTLY better in terms of the detail in areas under direct light. With the sigma lens, much more detail was blown out.
These problems were present under well-lit conditions, but were exacerbated under poor lighting, which for me was the point of getting such a fast lens.
Sharpness was lacking as well, and the focus performance seemed to be inconsistent, though I would have to do further testing to confirm this.
I'm going to save up until I can afford the Canon 24 mm 1.4mm, and until then I will do without. I cannot recommend this lens, even at a quarter the price of the Canon lens.
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2006
|
|
skatamacf
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 9, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide, Sharp, Fast, Nice Colours, Nice build
|
|
Cons:
|
ITS BIG - 77mm Filter
|
|
|
Please read my review from the perspective of someone who got it cheap 2nd hand. Im sure if i reviewed this after paying full price i would probably rank it infavorable to something like the Sigma 30 f1.4, but i didnt.
I really like this prime because its wide and sharp and quick. It handles very well in low light situations and is excellent for indoor and even just street shooting. I would give this a 10/10 if it only it was the size of the newer Sigma 30mm f1.4. I think that its size is the only negative aspect of the lens as everything else is pretty good relative to its price.
I gave it -1 point just because it is a little big.
|
|
|
Nov 9, 2005
|
|
Vitreous Humor
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: Jul 23, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $340.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
It's fast, quite sharp, has relatively good macro ability, has excellent manual focusing characteristics and lets not forget CHEAP!
|
|
Cons:
|
2 step focusing process (though I discuss this in the review), huge filter size (77mm), lack of HSM and concurrent FTM, and very heavy.
|
|
|
First things first, this is not an L lense. But if you could afford an L lense, and were as uncompromising as L lense owners, you wouldn't be looking at this review now would you? What it is instead is a very well built lense that has amazing performance and construction for the price.
Having used this lense for quite a while now on a 10D, I can say that my copy, at least, is perfect for its intended usages. F/1.8 gives you the opportunity to work hand held with ambient lighting in situations where you could never get away with it's most direct competitor pricewise, the Canon 24mm F/2.8. I know for a fact a few light bulbs in a room can give you enough light to shoot handheld (i.e. 1/40) at ISO 400. Granted, it's not going to be the sharpest or the most contrasty photo you've ever taken (people have called it a dream-like blur, and I think that's quite apt). But of course the point is that you actually can get A photo when you need it.
For non-low light workers, the lens is excellent at the higher apertures. By f/2.5, center sharpness gets very good, and by f/5.6 corner sharpness is quite good as well. The lense gets progressively sharper, peaking in the range of f/7.1-13. My copy does not exhibit a great deal of "sigma yellow", though the image is just slightly warmer than the Canon 2.8.
No review would be complete, however, without discussing the physical and mechanical qualities of this lense, the most controversial judging by the comments in the reviews. Sigma has designed the 24 EX with a HUGE focusing ring, which when used is both smooth and firm, a refreshing change from the skimpy, often overly loose rings on most modern lenses. It is immensly useful in both low light, and close focusing situations, fitting the 24 EX's specialties to a T.
Now, ideally this huge focusing ring would be attached to a HSM motor with full time manual focusing. Unfortunately the 24 EX doesn't have HSM, instead using a rather loud micromotor that usually has very little to do in light of the HUGE DOF of a 24mm past something like a meter. Of course, in macro situations the motor emits a soft but rather intrusive high pitched whine (but then again, within 2 feet pointing a huge 77mm filter-size lense at something is rather intrusive in and of itself). The greatest problem with the motor is that it takes a LONG time to hunt and cycle through the entire focusing range (this probably isn't a fault of the motor, instead being a drawback of adding macro ability to a wide angle lense). In fact, in any situation where the 24 EX might go hunting, it's probably better to switch to manual and focus yourself, or you're in for an excersize in annoyance as the lense takes at least a secont to hunt around once.
Switching to manual, however, brings up the major quirk of the lense. The 2 step AF-->MF process. Note, it is not the reverse, if you REALLY need AF you can simply flip the normal MF/AF switch and the lense will autofocus just like normal, but with the focusing ring engaged and turning. This is fine for those who (like me) hold their lenses close to the body, but if you hold the lense farther out you risk your focusing motor if the motor has to pull against your grip. Switching to manual, however, requires that you both flip the MF/AF switch and pull the focusing ring back into the "M" position. This is extremely bothersome at first, but you get used to it. It even has a side effect that is really useful for a wide angle lense. If you set the focus distance in MF and then carefully switch the focus ring to "AF" mode you essentially lock the focus distance, letting the ring turn freely without losing the setting. I like this for street photography and landscape shooting, where you can essentially set the focus for infinity, lock it, and then not have to worry about it changing. Overall, I'd say the 2 step system is worth the convenience and excellence of the optics and focusing ring.
Other than that peculiar quirk there is very little else to discuss about the lense. Of course it could be better. It's big and heavy (2 times the length, and much wider than the Canon 2.8), has a large (and expensive) filter size, and it changes size with focusing (I like lenses with internal focusing, makes for a cleaner, sturdier system if you ask me). The Canon 24L is better in all these respects, and is probably optically a bit better too. But is slightly better construction and optics honestly worth 4 times the cost? If you work with an understanding of it's limitations, the Sigma is an extremely flexible and useful lense that has never failed me in what I've wanted it to do.
In conclusion, if you want a cost effective, extremely flexible 24mm prime lense that is optically very good, take a long hard look at the Sigma 24 EX. It's got some quirks, both good and bad, but it's a very good lense that won't cost you an arm and a leg.
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2005
|
|
uhu-buhu
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 8, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
macro capabilities, image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
somewhat flimsy feeling
|
|
|
I've bought the 24 f 1.8 only yesterday, but judging from the handling and the first images, I am quite pleased. From f 2.8 upwards, the images are very good; the bokeh is nice.
On my 20 D, this lens has the potential to turn into my low-light lens of choice.
However, the fact that something seems to be lose inside the lens when you move the camera-lens combination to and fro is very irritating.
And yes, its rather big and heavy for a prime wide-angle, but I don't mind, being big and heavy myself ;-).
|
|
|
Apr 8, 2005
|
|
spartan123
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3683
|
|
Review Date: Jan 16, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $289.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
I love this lens, I think I might of gotten the sharpest unit Sigma produced. Great build quality.
Very close focusing.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I use this lens a lot. It is great for landscape, portraits and closeup work. A little soft wide open, but stop it down a notch or two and WOW.
A definite keeper.
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2005
|
|
k. mendenhall
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 23, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 10, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $310.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
good value for money, real manual focus!
|
|
Cons:
|
imaging quality at large apertures
|
|
|
Well, you don't get something for nothing. This lens is decently made, handles nicely and has good image quality when stopped down. But it's going back to the dealer. Perhaps I had a bad sample, but it's simply not very good at wide apertures, and that's the whole point of a fast prime to me.
I've heard complaints about Sigma's two-step manual focusing, but I found this to be a plus as the focus ring feels like an honest-to-god manual focus ring with positive stops at both ends of its travel. The auto focus is a bit loud, but I would have lived with it had the imaging performance been better.
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2005
|
|
Snowlock
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 13, 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: Jul 12, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, excellent for low light situation.
|
|
Cons:
|
Autofocusing is inconsistent.
|
|
|
I purchased this lens for my Canon 300D about a month ago.
The lens is mostly used for landscape, occasionally indoor group pictures (e.g. during a family gathering), and astrophotography.
For the f-stops I used most frequent (f/2.8 - f/16), the images are about as sharp as images from Canon's 35mm F/2.0 prime lens.
While the images are acceptably sharp, the autofocusing is disappointing. When I press the button to re-focus an already in-focus shot, the camera will hunt widely for focous. For my usage, this is merely a minor annoyance. However, it maybe detrimental in situations where pictures must be taken quickly.
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2004
|
|
Wanpakboy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 18, 2003
Location: Japan
Posts: 28
|
|
Review Date: Jan 18, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Wonderful companion for a 10d
|
|
Cons:
|
big, (no kidding its a 1.8)
|
|
Ive used it for 2 months now. Really a good, friendly lens. very nice opticaly good contrast, decent bokeh, lots of pop for manual focusing. Flare is well controlled. slight ghosting but neutral colored, small and maybe 2 spots, definatly no show stopper. slight loss of contrast but definatly useable. exelent for close-ups, low distortion and flat dof. comes out to about a 38mm equiv on a 10d, very retro fov. use it all the time. hard to go back to my zooms now  chang lenses mabe twice a month now!
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2004
|
|
DSeelig
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Oct 27, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 575
|
|
Review Date: Sep 9, 2003
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $295.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
fast f stop decent image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
slow autofocus bad build quality not for pro handling
|
|
|
This lens is built so badly I would not take it out much. Do not buy
|
|
|
Sep 9, 2003
|
|
solecist
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 12, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 22
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
27
|
201353
|
Nov 5, 2011
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
81% of reviewers
|
$307.70
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.79
|
8.00
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
