 |
|
|
xke65
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 21, 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid construction, Sharp and well priced.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit stiff to zoom from 24mm. Takes big, expensive filters.
|
|
|
Well I was a bit worried after reading the reviews but have to say that mine is sharp at F2.8. Perhaps it's those Canon cameras :^). Better at every aperture than my workhorse Nikon 24-120 and I've always been happy with that. I was very happy with the Sigma 15-30mm I bought two years ago and this is every bit as good in my opinion. I already have two framed A3+ prints on my lounge wall taken with it.
|
|
 Jun 21, 2005
|
|
sorlo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 12, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 51
|
|
Review Date: Jun 13, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $360.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Well built, excellent picture quality, great bargain!
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy AF, a bit soft at F2.8
|
|
|
I got the new Macro version of the lense. The picture quality from this lens is real stunning! It's a little soft at F2.8 for my taste but this is not a big problem as I can change the camera setting or process the pictures with Photoshop. The built quality of this lense is superb. It feels heavy enough and balances perfectly with my 350D with battery grip.
However, this lense hunts quite a bit and the noisy AF is annoying at first (I'm used to it now).
Overall this is a great lense for the price and I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2005
|
|
sunilpunjabi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Jun 3, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $409.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Soild build, Hood included,
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft all around, gets better at f/5.6+, but still not great. HUGE lens/filter. Backward Zoom (from what I'm used to). Focus hunts too much.
|
|
|
I ordered this lens thinking that it would be a stand in for Canon L lens, on my 20D. BOY was I disappointed. I've had it for a few days now and I've taken about 300 shots out doors and indoors with it. All of the wide open shots were soft. I thought maybe it was a focusing problem, but I could not find any sharpness in the pictures that were soft.
The lens it self is built nice. It is HUGE, and I found the backward Zoom hard to get used to. (The lens gets bigger when you zoom out).
I ordered the lens from B&H, it will be going back there soon.
I guess “L” lenses are worth the extra $.
|
|
|
Jun 3, 2005
|
|
Beni
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 31, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 10177
|
|
Review Date: Jun 1, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Lighter than Canon, faster focusing than the previous 28-70 EX
|
|
Cons:
|
Very harsh contrast, stiff focus ring, awfully inadequate hood, huge filter ring size.
|
|
|
I had the Sigma 28-70EX f2.8 DF, the one with the distance window but I sold it off as the flare was so bad. This new Sigma (MACRO) is faster, quieter and has better flare control.
On the other hand the sharpeness, although in pure terms sharper than the canon, is very ugly. It seems that Sigma have tried to make this lens as sharp as possible through very high contrast. It looks like excessive USM does in PS, but all in all the sharpness does not look real or pleasing. It doesn't resolve as well as my 17-40L on the 10D either. I sent it back to the store after about 1000 frames over two jobs and am buying a 24-70L to go with my new 1Ds.
A lens is not just about the sharpness, the 'look' of the sharpness is also a factor and here Sigma falls on it's face.
|
|
|
Jun 1, 2005
|
|
chrislocksley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 6, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 1, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Cost! Sharp images and not overly heavy compared to other 24-70
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy AF, not as fast as USM/HSM focusing
|
|
|
New MACRO version: Slightly easier to handle than the Canon 24-70L although focusing feels slower due to the effort it seems to be making. The noise is the loudest AF of ANY lens I have ever tried, although I use it to shoot bands in low light and very high noise so it doesn't matter in the slightest.
82mm filters may set you back a few quid too, but this review is not negative at all - this is a fantastic lens.
The images are SHARPER, yes sharper than the Canon 24-70L I tried along with it. I had both for a week and the Sigma is noticeably better - something the "L" freaks out there will hate as it costs something like £500 or so less than the Canon.
If you want slightly softer pictures, but faster focusing, then spend the extra £500, but it is really a case of judging something on it's merits and not being snobbish about the manufacturer's name, and whether there is a red ring round the end. The Sigma is the better lens!
If you need to shoot in low light with crisp images, then this is the one to choose - and spend the £500 you saved on another lens!
|
|
|
Jun 1, 2005
|
|
lupogrip
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 19, 2005
Location: France
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great value, good contrast, very good sharpness, very good colors...
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy, big, but good handling, filter size 82mm...
|
|
|
I'm so disappointed when I read as much as differences between each review on 24-70 EX DF DG earlier version. I bought mine 2 years ago and I've got very good results in terms of sharpness, contrast and color scales. Maybe I've got a "good-one" model, but??? I use it on Fuji S2 pro...
I use it on f90x too and it delivers great results!
Whan I compare it with nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5, I don't see difference, really! Sometimes, the 24-70 gives best results.
|
|
|
May 19, 2005
|
|
aggarcia
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 40
|
|
Review Date: May 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, F2.8, Sigma EX series
|
|
Cons:
|
No HSM & AF is louder
|
|
|
I bought this lense to cover the 24-70 range. This is a well built lens. It was the fixed F2.8 across the whole range if needed. This lense is wide and heavy. Using the built in flash, the lens hood casts a shadow in the image. My only real complaint is that this len does not have the HSM. The lens have a noiser AF and is nto as fast as other lens with HSM. This is my standard lens. Another great offering from Sigma in their EX series.
|
|
|
May 19, 2005
|
|
lowlitedigital
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Mar 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 144
|
|
Review Date: May 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
fast af great color sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
filter size
|
|
|
this is every bit as good as my 24-70 L in picture quality . if i would have known about this i would have bought two of these instead of the 24-70 L and one of these it is truly outstanding . maybe i just got a good one / this is the newer macro version . dont hesitate to buy
|
|
|
May 2, 2005
|
|
DavidWEGS
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
$value, sharpness on the second one (I returned the first for rear focus issues) is flawless. F2.8. weight is a touch less than the 24-70/L and I like the feel of this one.
Fairly fast focussing
|
|
Cons:
|
noise.
|
|
|
this is another one for an assistant as I don't think that warrants the L galss. (until they are familiar with the care needing to be taken).
I got the first and returned it as it rear focussed a bit @ f2.8. It was exchanged (digital foto discount club) without issue or question :-)
This one is dead on at f2.8. and at least as good wide open as my Canon L.
WOW
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2005
|
|
shadowoa
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Oct 9, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1073
|
|
Review Date: Mar 6, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Very solid, fast focus and aperture.
|
|
Cons:
|
Mine was horribly soft below 35mm at all apertures. Nobody else seems to have this problem though so maybe I had a bad one.
|
|
|
I guess if it didn't have the softness problem at the wide end I would have kept it. Everything else was great about it.
|
|
|
Mar 6, 2005
|
|
BobC
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 23
|
|
Review Date: Feb 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $409.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, sharp, accurate, reliable
|
|
Cons:
|
Large filter size
|
|
|
I have used this lens for 13 months and it has never let me down. The focus is always sharp and on time. Unlike some, this lens does not hunt for me. Whatever I point at, this lens focuses correctly. I have been so impressed, I bought two more Sigmas to cover everything from 12mm to 400mm.
|
|
|
Feb 8, 2005
|
|
DEvianT
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 2, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid build
Constant f/2.8 throughout
Nice sharp image
|
|
Cons:
|
Huge filter size
Slow hunting AF
Noisy AF
|
|
|
I really do like this lens however the one big let down for me is the hunting on the quite slow AF.
The build is excellent. It's like a tank. The images from the lens are very sharp with only minor distortion at the wide end. Much like the 24-70 Canon suffers. It's excellent value for money and certainly one of the better lenses Sigma have made.
|
|
|
Feb 2, 2005
|
|
mdwhaley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 17, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Jan 22, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
f2.8, good range on a 10D
|
|
Cons:
|
Big, heavy, soft, af/mf double switch thing, cool colors compared to Canon lenses.
|
|
|
Well I never shot newsprint with this lens but I found it soft. Wide open even on a tripod at fast shutter speeds there was almost a halo effect around lighter colors (skin). Once stopped down it seems to go away, but then why have a 2.8 zoom lens. I can get sharper photos at 1.8 with either the 50 1.8 or the 85 1.8. Canon's 28-105 3.5-4.5 II is better than this lens in sharpness, auto focus speed and accuracy, zoom range, size and weight, and color rendition. The Sigma only beats it in contrast. Take the money you were going to spend on this lens and buy something with more range and or a prime.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2005
|
|
grahamimage
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 6, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $409.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Affordable price. Tack sharp even wide open! F2.8 over entire focal length
|
|
Cons:
|
wierd manual focus setup
|
|
|
I have been comparing this lens for about a month against the Canon 24-70 F2.8L and my final analysis is that the Sigma shoots better pictures! I don’t care what you read on other reviews this lens is truly a steal at $400 I shot tests of newsprint with both lenses and I believe that this lens is sharper at 2.8 than the Canon version! I thought that maybe I had a bad Canon lens so I took it back to the store and exchanged it with another one and to my amazement the Sigma still outshined the Canon! So I returned the Canon and kept the Sigma. I suggest you try it for yourself just be aware of the store’s return policy. Using a tripod set your ISO as low it will go (I shoot with a 10D so mine was set to 100) and take pictures of news print at all apertures and focal lengths a bit tedious but the results will amaze you!
Or…. You can just take my word for it and purchase this lens and save your time and money and just go shoot… I think that is what this is all about isn’t it? I mean Alfred Eisenstadt, the legendary LIFE Magazine photographer, didn’t believe in other people's lens tests. He tested his own new lenses by using them. If he liked it, he kept it.
Amazingly, Eisenstadt didn't think he needed someone else's lens test of someone else's lens to take great pictures. All he succeeded in doing was help define photography this century. Maybe he was too busy taking pictures to care what someone else thought about his lenses. How weird. Misplaced priorities, I guess.
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2005
|
|
harryset
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 23, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 325
|
|
Review Date: Jan 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $409.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Aperture, build, sharpness, reasonably fast focusing
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus noise, 2 step manual focus
|
|
|
Extreme step-up from my Sigma 24-135 2.8-4.5. Focuses reasonably fast for my purposes. Very sharp, good color. Have not found a soft spot, yet.
I like the size (82mm), weight and feel. Very secure feeling to have on the camera. I will have no problem trusting this for processional and recessional shots at weddings.
This lens is a steal at these prices.
|
|
|
Jan 8, 2005
|
|
cfsantos
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 24, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Dec 26, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp
Great color rendition
Very solid build
|
|
Cons:
|
Slightly buzzy AF motor
Size (not unexpected for a 24-70)
A bit stiff zooming when new
|
|
|
Recently purchased this lens after seeing the great reports of "macro" version of this lens. The reports were correct, this is a gem of a lens.
I comparison shopped between this and the similarly priced Tamron 28-75. What I can say is either I got the best copy out there, or the Sigma negative reviewers were really unlucky in the early 2003 copies of the lens, or (I suspect), Sigma has really focused on making this a whole new lens since it's re-release as a macro edition. This lens is outstanding!
I obsessed over a CF-card full of comparison shots between this, the Tamron 28-75 Di, the Sigma 24-60, the Sigma 28-70, and the Canon 24-70L. (Originally was going to get the Tamron after it's great review on photo.net this month).
What I can say is my results showed this Sigma as matching or even beating the 24-70L image-wise, and ever so slightly beating the Tamron 28-75 at full aperture (this will *not* be noticeable unless you really go out of your way though, the Tamron is outstanding in it's own right, just showed a tiny bit of fringing on some backlight letters), and it really wipes the floor with it's 24-60 and 28-70 cousins.
After testing it extensively, I'm very happy I bought it, the lens is so sharp and clean on my test, it comes almost indistinguishably close to my primes in this range, (the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the stellar Sigma 50mm f/2.8) in terms of color and sharpness.
I settled on it in the end over the Tamron because I liked the coverage down to 24mm since I'm shooting on a 300D. If I have anything to improve, it would be to make it smaller (it can be a beast to lug around, but so is the Canon 24-70), lighter, and to put in the HSM motor they've got in their 12-24. The HSM is the only thing missing for this to fully match the overpriced, somewhat overhyped Canon L.
This 24-70 now is a different beast with latest "Macro" version.
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
134
|
478786
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
