 |
|
|
bob877
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $229.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, bright, and cheap! I lucked out and got a very, very good price on it though. Decent build quality (not L class, but it certainly feels more durable than most lenses in its price class)
|
|
Cons:
|
Flare control is mediocre, zoom ring is a little bizarre, though I got used to it.
|
|
|
This lens is very usable at all apertures, and extremely sharp stopped down a bit. AF noise doesn't bother me, but I have the Minolta mount version so the AF motor is in the body anyway. Fast AF, in my experience. Good colors, too. I used a 24-70L (rented) on a 20D for a wedding a few months ago and having this lens on a KM 5d doesn't make me feel like I'm missing anything (and I get AS, a very very big plus!)
|
|
 Feb 25, 2006
|
|
CHIA
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 31, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1419
|
|
Review Date: Feb 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, optical quality, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm filter size (expensive), "buzzy" sounding, non-HSM focus, and opposite direction zoom ring than Canon brand
|
|
|
I have the newer "macro" version, and have personally had 2 copies of this lens in the past. I have also owned 2 of the competting Tamron 28-75 f/2.8's...one Chinese made, one Japanese made.
I found the Sigma was sharper wide open than both Tamrons, focused slight faster, and is built much better. I did not have any build problems with the Tamron's, but they felt small & cheap in comparison.....the smaller size may be a benefit to some people though?
I liked the extra 4mm's on the wide end, and found out much more useful than the 5 on the long end...with crop cameras, this makes quite a difference.
This lens is quite usable and performs nicely wide open, but at f/4, the Sigma performs consistently, and is always very sharp, as the DOF is slight more forgiving.
The focus is what I label as "buzzy" sounding. It focuses quickly, but is not silent like a Canon true USM lens. It's too bad Sigma did not include HSM in this version, but it's probably one of the reasons it's priced that way it is as well.
I have used this lens on both my 20D and my MkII without any problems. I thought I was having focus issues when using my external flash, sent the lens in for repair, they re-chipped it, then I found out later I had a setting wrong on my flash....really stupid on my part, but demonstrated great service on Sigma's part.
82mm filters are quite pricey for good quality.
Overall, it's a really solid performer, and for the price, is in my oppinion, the best value out there...in this focal range of course.
CHIA
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2006
|
|
MARTHIN
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 18, 2005
Location: Brazil
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $270.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Solidly built, good focal range.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I got into this lens on a trade and had originally planned to turn around and sell it...fantastic sharp and the color and contrast is just good for the price.
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2006
|
|
badplumbing
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 7, 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Helps you take sharp photos with good contrast and nice deph of field control. Cheap.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy and not very ergonimic.
|
|
|
This lens is heavy and not exactly ergonomic. When new, the zoom ring is as stiff as my great aunt Agatha (but in her case the stiffnes is the net result of an unfortunate case of pleurosy), but unlike poor old Agatha, the Sigma loosens up with use. Build quality is OK, but it ain't top end Nikon, Canon 'L' etc. In fact this lens has only got one good thing going for it ... it produces beautifully sharp, contrasty images with great depth of field control. I bought my first one when an accident left me stuck without a lens on a trip to Crete. Now I have two, one which I use with a Canon 5D and one which I use with a Nikon F6. Both have the same quirky ergonimics, but both produce great photos.
|
|
|
Feb 7, 2006
|
|
shaidarol
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 6, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 32
|
|
Review Date: Feb 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $389.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
|
I have had one of these almost since I got my 10D. I don't use it as much as my 28-135 which was recently retired by 24-105is L. However, I reach for this at weddings and whenever I am doing portraits. For the money it is unbeatable. A friend of mine was all set to go out and buy the canon 2.8 L but borrowed this one and bought one the next day. He is gradally replacing all his low end glass with L pieces as am I, but doesn't feel any need to replace this one.
His unit is very quiet, comparable to a USM. Mine is a cement mixer, which is why I don't use it as much as I might otherwise.
The comparable canon glass focuses faster, but I don't think it shoots substatially better. Now if canon would come out with an IS version, I would rush out and buy it. Till then, the only chnage is that I might seek a quieter version of the same piece.
|
|
|
Feb 4, 2006
|
|
paparazzinick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7893
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $300.00
|
|
Pros:
|
F2.8, sharp, contrast, well built, price, balance
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I had this when I was using a Canon and loved it. It was my main wedding lens. I got this again for Nikon and it is even sharper than it was on my Canon. I love this lens and can not work without it.
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2006
|
|
nugeny
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 21, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7551
|
|
Review Date: Feb 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $389.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
LIght (compared with canon 24-70/2.8 usm), well built, solid. Very sharp and contrasty.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
This is the first time I ventured out buying a third party lens. Until now, I always buy Canon L, USM, is. Before buying this Sigma 24-70/2.8 I have been looking in Canon 24-70/2.8 and 28-`105, IS. I am glad I decided for this Sigma lens. The built quality is comparable to any Canon, the sharpness is as good as any Canon's.
Some in this forum complaining about the "noise" of AF. well, if you shoot 1DII as I do, the "AF noise" is relatively sissy as compared with the shutter noise of 1DII. I can't compare with the Canon 24-70/2.8 but I did with my Canon 17-30. The Canon lens does focus faster. but then, no one use this lens for wild life or sport.
Reading these lines, you should keep in mind that I have some of the best of Canon,including 70-200/2.8IS, 105/2.8 Macro and 500/4 IS and others. So I do know what i talk about.
I have already ordered Sigma 180/2.8 macro. Out of stock, but it should be coming in 3 weeks.
|
|
|
Feb 1, 2006
|
|
jasonkim87
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast 2.8 aperture, solid build quality, awesome EX finish, close focusing, price!!!
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens cap, MF focus switch is clumsy on D70, expensive filters
|
|
|
This lens replaced the 18-70DX on my D70. It's not as wide but I don't miss the wide angle on the 18-70 much because it was too soft for me anyway. I bought the newer macro version of this lens at B&H in NYC. The sales person Jason was very helpful and was not pushy at all. B&H is a great store to deal with.
The lens is built very solid. The Kit lens feels cheap compared to the Sigma. It is a lot bigger than the 18-70, and it is heavy on my D70 with an external flash, but it's not a bad thing necessarily. I feel like the lens can take more knocks and the 2.8 constant aperture is worth the extra heft.
The lens is sharp wide open, perfectly usable and a whole lot better than my kit lens IMHO (but maybe I just have a bad copy of it). Focus is right on except at 70mm where I get a mm or two of front focus with closeup shots (hardly noticeable), but it's hardly a problem with regular shots, especially after f/4 and up.
Speaking of close focusing, the lens can be used as a decent closeup for those of you who don't have a true macro lens. I have a sigma 105mm macro so I won't be using the lens for real macro shots, but for casual closeups the lens is more than useable.
I have not done real tests but I'm more than happy with shots at 2.8. It gets better at f/4 but I would not hesistate to use it at f/2.8 when necessary.
I did not like the focus mode switch on my sigma macro lens, and this lens has the same problem. On my D70, if i want to switch to manual focus, I have to pull the focus ring down and also switch the position on the camera body to manual focus. However, I hardly manual focus on the D70 due to its less than stellar viewfinder so this isn't a big problem.
The focus isn't AF-S (or HSM as Sigma calls it) so it is louder than the kit lens, but the focus speed is pretty fast. My kit lens hunted a bit, especially in low light at the tele end (where the max aperture is 4.5). I was pleased to find that the constant f/2.8 aperture helped the low light focusing by a noticeable margin.
The lens cap is a standard one, not a pinch type like the newer Nikon ones, so it is hard to put the cap on with the lens hood on. I might buy a Tamron pinch type lens cap to remedy this.
The filter size is 82mm so filters can also be very expensive. A B+W circular polariser is $200, half of the cost of the lens itself!
I'd consider this lens to be a professional grade lens without a pro price tag. A 28-70 f/2.8 Nikkor is almost four times the price of this lens. I'm sure that there are benefits of paying the premium for the Nikkor, but for me, the extra $1000 dollars will go to a 85mm f/1.4 or towards the funding of a 70-200 VR.
For anyone looking to upgrade from the kit lens or want another choice when buying a D70s/D50, and does not want to spend a fortune, they should consider this Sigma.
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2006
|
|
Kstenger
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 9, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 118
|
|
Review Date: Jan 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
I Have The New Version of this lens 24-70 EX DG Macro DF
Sharp -- Cheap -- Nice Build Quality -- f/2.8 -- Great Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
LOUD Focusing - STIFF Zoom
|
|
|
I have the new version of this lens, I have the: SIGMA 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF.
I am VERY satisifed with this Lens. It is incredibly sharp and incredibly cheap. My only complaint is that the focusing is increadibly loud and the lens is very stiff when brand new. The day I got the lens I could barely move the zoom and the focus was very slow. After some time of working the lens in the zoom is much looser and the focusing is much quicker. My other complaint is that the focusing mostor is very loud, I would have rather been charged $50 - $100 more for a USM or HSM.
Summary: 2 Complaints -
1. Very Loud Focusing
2. Very Stiff when new
Everything else about the lens is positive - the price is great and the quality is better. I would say that the results are very similar to the Canon 24-70L. If this lens had an HSM I would have given the overall rating a 10. I suggest this lens for anyone who wants excellent quality on a tighter budget.
Ken
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2006
|
|
hlgreens
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 18, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 18, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
the zoom range
f2.8
has aperture ring.
otherwise I haven't really experimented with the lens other than noted below
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm filter
find it soft and/0r difficult to focus at f2.8 - see remarks
price approx $100 cdn more than the 28-70mm lens
|
|
|
I bought this lens to have a fast f2.8 wide angle zoom to complement my Leica 135mm f2.8 that I normally use in club & concert settings. Most of the venues have less than adequate light and I'm forced to shoot at ISO 1600 or higher, at f2.8 at shutter speeds at 1/60 or less (mostly less)
Because of inadequate lighting, I used the lens in manual setting (it took me awhile to understand that I had to pull/push to change from auto to manual), I have found the lens hard to focus (even with the focusing screen in the LX) and also have found that the results using it at f2.8 gave me a soft image. I have reverted back to using my old Pentax A-SMC 35-70mm f4 at even slower shutter speeds and sometimes higher ISO ratings.
I must admit that I haven't actually used this lens in other situations so can't comment on how it functions in "normal' use. Also I haven't used the lens at higher aperture in club use as I
already have my trusty older manual lens that gives me the quality I want.
I originally bought the 28-70mm Sigma EX lens to use with my Pentax cameras, specifically in dark club settings as a wide angle complement to my Leica 135mm F2.8.
Unfortunately, I was unable to use this lens with my Pentax LX as it didn't have an aperture ring. If, at the time, I had had my DSLR, possibly I would have kept this lens as it was smaller, seemed easier to use, and sharper, and about $100 cdn less.
herb
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2006
|
|
massi1978
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 7, 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
attima riproduzione dei colori
ottima finitura e robustezza
prezzo accessibile
|
|
Cons:
|
unico neo l' autofocus rumoroso ma comunque molto veloce.
|
|
|
lente molto discussa....
personalmente la trovo eccezionale, pochissime differenze con il canon 24-70 2.8 L il primo e piu' definito sulla focale 24mm il secondo su quella 70.
|
|
|
Jan 7, 2006
|
|
chino
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 12, 2005
Location: Greece
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jan 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Optical quality (sharpness & color rendering), Build quality, fast focus, overall feel.
|
|
Cons:
|
2 step AF/MF switching, pretty noisy, zoom ring a bit small & weird feeling, creeps.
|
|
I got this because at the time canon's 24-70 2.8 L was out of my price range. I'm now VERY happy with this lens, and after spending a week with the "L" thingie i'm even happier 
yes, sigma's version has no USM/FTM equivalent, but it's got as good optics (IMHO), focuses a bit faster (this particular area interests me alot, so i did as extensive tests as i could) and feels a bit better in my hand too (subjective, i know). Well worth the money, try if out in your local photo store and see for yourselves!
|
|
|
Jan 3, 2006
|
|
bbudman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 617
|
|
Review Date: Dec 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $365.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid Feel, Attractive Finish, Good Contrast and Colors, A real bargain considering the cost!
|
|
Cons:
|
Auto focus is noisy! Auto manual focus push pull ring. Big expensive filter option at 82mm!
|
|
|
I considered this lens purchase for a long time! After reading all of the reviews I decided that for the money it should be worth a try. I am very glad that I decided to risk it and make the purchase. For starters, the build quality is excellent when you take in to account what this lens cost and what it is capable of doing. It feels really solid in your hand and honestly looks pretty good as well. My copy of this lens has excellent optics, sharp and clear. The auto focus is not as fast as my Canon lenses, but then again for the cost who am I to complain? I did test a Canon 24-70 F/2.8L prior to making this purchase since I love my Canon 70-200 F/2.8L IS. It was impressive and had lightning fast auto focus, good color and saturation, but honestly I felt that the images were slightly on the soft side. I tested two copies and I am sorry to say I left the store a little disappointed because I really wanted the lens. After reading about the Sigma, I figured it was worth a try. I am no longer looking back and quite happy with the results I am seeing. The only negatives I have about this lens is the auto focus noise and speed. It reminds me of my cheap Minolta 35MM that I had in the early 90's. Not that it has affected the results of my photos, but I would easily spend $75-$100 more for the same lens with a quieter and faster auto focus motor. The other thing that I find amusing is the fact that you have to activate two switches to go to manual focus. If you wanted to have the push/pull ring, then Sigma should have left the AF/MF switch off and worked it in to the ring assembly instead. Again, this in no way affects the quality of your photos so I can't bash them for their decision, just offer a suggestion for future models. As for photo quality, impressive to say the least. It is slightly soft at F2.8, but not as soft as the Canon I tested. At F4 and above it is great! I did have to decrease the color and contrast settings in my camera back to their default settings while using the Sigma lens versus the Canon. For my indoor test, I found that the lens focused accurate and sharp with no need for a flash. Photos of newspaper text were also sharp and clear, almost as sharp as the 70-200 F2.8L IS, but note that I say almost! All in all, I feel that for the asking price, this is a bargain lens. Anyone considering it should at least try it and decide for themselves.
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2005
|
|
8lias
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 16, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $429.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
nice, really nice, very nice, extremely nice, super nice, did i mention it's NICE.
|
|
Cons:
|
I was an idiot to doubt its sharpness at first, then I could count the number of eye lashes on the photos, I called Sigma and apologized.
|
|
|
I was skeptical at first, due to reading to many posts regarding its sharpness, especially at f2.8. I didn't explore it's potential until I snaped away and fill up the 1g card, and then 1, 2, 3, 4...5....6....holy chile, I can count the number of eye lashes on my niece's face (and all of her freckles too). I realized that I have a very NICE lens, at a very NICE price, and a very NICEly built lens, it's my favorite lens so far.
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2005
|
|
incdigital
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 2, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 226
|
|
Review Date: Dec 1, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $340.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
SHARP LENS(better than my 28-70L 2.8 at all lenghts), Sharp @ 2.8, Good build for price, AF better than older standard zoom EX models (28-70EX 2.8), Color above average
|
|
Cons:
|
2 steps 4 MF, AF noise...but i always MF so this is no concern for me.
|
|
|
I got this for my fiance's 20D to replace a worn out 28-70EX 2.8 Lens...from the first picture i could tell this was a great deal. Best bang for the buck zoom besides the Tamron "Goldfinger". I find myself using it more than my beloveded 28-70L. I think ill be selling my "L" and getting this lens and another 550EX flash w/ the extra cash.
|
|
|
Dec 1, 2005
|
|
philipmccusker
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 29, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Nov 27, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $342.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice zoom range, sharp focus, f2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy Focus
|
|
|
ive had this lens for a couple of days now, Ive had no problems with the shots Ive taken over the couple of days - some motorsport and some portrait.
The Focus is a bit fiddly when switching from AF to Manual, and its a Little noisy for my liking.
I would reccomend it if you cant afford the Canon equivalent.
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
134
|
477416
|
Apr 3, 2014
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
88% of reviewers
|
$380.93
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.75
|
9.42
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
