 |
|
|
PJ Fish
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 24, 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Dec 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fine product on par w canons 24-70 f2,8, The Tammy 28-75 and so on.Its fine and strong made with good sharpness and colours.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cons? Huh ?1.82 mm filters which comes w.nasty price...2.lack of HSM motor,therefore a little noisy and a little slow.3.
|
|
|
For some years ago i had this lens hooked up in a set up with the Sigma 12-24 DG,Then this Sigma 24-70 F2,8 DG,The Sig 70-200 F2,8(non DG) and the best of them all ;The Sigma 100-300 F4.(non DG).
I was then working at a small local newspaper and used this set up with my beloved Canon 10D.
The small newspaper could not afford The Canon L line to start with, so we chosed this combi,on my recomandation.
Fortunately all of the Sigmas where good and had no probs regarding front and back focus ;they were all good.
Later we changed the set up with all the Canon L Lens gear and compared all of them with the Canons ,we found that the Canon 24-70 L won with a small margin but only very small,the differ wasnt enormous at all,we also tested the Canon 70-200 F2,8 which also won but only with a very small margin and actually was best regarding colours compared to the Sigma 70-200 F2,8 ,in fact we all agreed at the newspaper that the Sigs 200mm was a little better.In general we found the focus speed also was better on Canons products.We sold the whole gang of Sigmas except the famed 100-300 F4.
Conclusion= this Sigma 24-70 is close to a high end product and if Sigma decide to manufacture it with a weathersealing and a HSM motor ill buy it tomorrow.
It is a great product and its up in the state of the art league in the class with the Tammy 28-75 ,Tokina 28-80 and Canons famed number uno the 24-70.
Well time move fast, and now that Nikon comes with a very impressive 24-70 F2,8 of what seems to could be a state of the art product in its own class,Sigma has to hurry with all the newcoming FF bodies from Nikon and Canon and so on, turning up the next few months and years.
|
|
 Dec 5, 2007
|
|
GC Montgomery
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 28, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 60
|
|
Review Date: Nov 28, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $425.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Image Quality (when I could get it to focus)
Overall build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
No fulltime manual focusing
Wish they made it with image stabilization
It's a big hunk of glass
Backward zooming but the Canon 24-70 does the same weird thing.
|
|
|
A friend who owns an earlier copy of this lens thinks I may have simply had a bad copy but I don't have time to wait on a replacemen. So, I returned it and placed orders for Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS and 24-105mm F4 IS lenses having been much happier with samples tried over the Thanksgiving Holiday. I've seen lots of my friend's work with this lens and it all looked tack sharp to me which was one of the reasons I bought the lens.
My biggest complaint was inconsistent autofocus (with my copy) and the fact that I just could not get a sharp photo at with shutter speeds below 1/125 second or apertures wider than F/4. I also had some issues with flare from street lights on night time shots but that was probably my fault...Didn't have the hood attached in the photos with flare.
I'm using a recent production 40D and could not get a consistent focus lock with this lens. I had to make the same shot three to four times to get one keeper. I know my hands shake, I know I'm a noob and I know digital is not forgiving of mistakes so I accept many issues may be my own fault. However, I don't seem to have problems getting sharp photos with simple 28 and 50mm F/1.8 primes or any Canon lens, including Canon's own 24-70mm lens, with this camera.
I really wanted this lens to work because I'd love to have a fast 24-70mm zoom and the price was excellent. When I manually focused and kept the shutter speed above 1/125 sec, I had a 50% chance at getting a sharp photo. I'm going to spend more time learning and may try again later. For now, I'm an IS junkie and with the exception of my primes and my 10-22mm, I plan to buy only IS lenses from here on in.
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2007
|
|
Dave Henderson
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 3, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: Nov 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
quality build, nice open and wide lens for the range, good fast lens, impressive looking
|
|
Cons:
|
a little heavy
|
|
|
this is my carry along lens, I am not a pro so it does a great job in my opinion thus far with my 20D.
I took some descent action shots of a night football game off hand and about 30 yards away and I was only shooting in "action sports" mode, I am sure it would've done better in manual but it was just a testing of it on a sports game. I wasn't set up to do it just showing my camera to a buddy and a kid ran a long TD, not bad at all considering.
I will only get better with it.
I like the contrast and colors thru it too.
I'll have to experiment with protraits and see how it does.
pleased with only a weeks of casual usage.
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2007
|
|
Phil Foster
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Oct 30, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, good contrast, good colour.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not keen on the hood, control of flare could be better but can be largely overcome with practice and good technique. Could do with a wider angle of view on a cropped sensor.
|
|
|
I'd like to get one thing straight. I have read a lot of issues with regard to the double action mucking about when trying to switch from auto to manual focus. I have a Nikon D80 and in normal use I have the lens set to manual focus. So long as the body is set to autofocus it will autofocus without issue. If I wish to switch to manual I only need to set the body switch to manual. So there is no need for a two step switch from manual to autofocus, at least not with a D80.
My biggest issue with this lens is flare control. Forget shooting directly into the sun but if you catch the sunrise just before it fully clears the horizon it remains under control. Conversly, if you wait for the sun to touch the horizon a little at the end of the day it will remain under control. It also helps to keep the front element of the lens and your filters spotless. In truth, for sunrises and sunsets I have switched back to my old Nikkor 18 - 70mm AF-S as flare control with this lens is far better in every respect. It also gives me a wider angle of view which the 24 - 70 loses out to on the D80s cropped sensor.
The lens hood is not very good but not useless, the AF motor is not silent but not overly loud. AF is quick and accurate.
I love the sharpness. Yes it softens considerably at f2.8 but nothing so bad as 10 seconds of very mild unsharp mask cannot correct. Above f2.8 it is pin sharp with really nice background blur (bokeh). Contrast and colour reproduction is very nice indeed.
Filters can be expensive with the 82mm filter thread if you don't shop around. But my Hoya circular polariser only cost me £28 new/delivered off eBay. Although the thread is 82mm the front element is quite a lot smaller. This means that I can load filters up to my hearts content and not see any vignetting. To test this I loaded up a UV, a CP and a Cokin adapter with 3 filters in the holder and I saw no vignetting at all. I personally like the design.
The lens handles well and is built well but there is a little barrel creep when held vertically. I never really have got used to the backward action of the zoom either but thats not really an issue.
This is a very good/excellent lens for 90% of what I do (I'll photograph almost anything) but sunrises and sunsets need a bit of practice or a different lens. I recomend it.
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2007
|
|
Teru Kage
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 29, 2007
Location: China
Posts: 23
|
|
Review Date: Oct 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness
Great focal length for mid-range portraits
Good color
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm filter
A bit too massive
Slightly expensive, but understandable for 82mm of f/2.8
|
|
This is a review of the Sigma AF 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro, Nikon mount.
I bought this lens because I wanted a good mid-range portrait lens that's wide enough to include the surrounding environment but also tele enough for head and shoulders shots. Would 2 primes be better optically? Probably, but quite often there just isn't enough time to swap lenses.
I'm pretty happy with the performance. The lens is a fast lens (focus and brightness-wise). The sharpness is very good; I've had studio shots where I could see individual strands of neck hair on the model.
In terms of cons, the 82mm filter really is a pain. It's an uncommon size, but luckily I only use UV and CP-L filters. Still, because of the size these filters don't come cheap. I'd prefer a simple 77mm thread size. Naturally, the money I saved from the 4 times as expensive Nikon version was more than enough to cover these costs. I'm not saying that the Nikon isn't good, but for a non-professional like myself, the Sigma is more than adequate.
Some studio/outdoor samples:
http://www.fotop.net/teruphoto/Cici/Cici_7091
http://www.fotop.net/teruphoto/20061118/Gogo_1545
http://www.fotop.net/teruphoto/Wendy20060514/Wendy_1843
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2007
|
|
Maciek W
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 23, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: Oct 25, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, coverage on 1.6x crop is ok, built quality, f2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft wide open, slow auto focus, weird manual clutch
|
|
|
You should save more and get the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L
instead of spending 300-400$ on this one.
For a starter lens, it's good.
But for more serious work, or pro work, it's just no good enough. I had mine for 2 years now, and after heavy use, the lens is giving up, and the auto focus is hunting.
But then again, if you dont have 1000$ to get the L version, you'll be satisfied for a while with this one.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2007
|
|
GraphyFotoz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 805
|
|
Review Date: Sep 20, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality Fast f2.8 Close Focus is GREAT
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood coulda been better HSM would be nice 82mm filter size but read below
|
|
|
Well I have had this lens for awhile now and simply love it!
Replaced my EX DG 28-70mm f2.8-4 with it and defiantly not sorry I did!!
Nice and sharp and does some great Macro!
Build is super...not lose or flimsy...EX finish is great.
So it's a lil big feels good in hand.
I find it hard not to leave it on all the time!!
Flower petal hood I don't care a whole lot for tho.
As for the 82mm well....
I look at it this way the bigger opening gathers more light.
Which it does quite well...works great in low light.
Rather have this than the 24-60mm non macro.
Macro really is nice to have when you need it.
From Landscape to Macro or if you do occasional Photojouralistic work it's great for them all!
Simply a great all around lens and a pleasure to use for sure.
UV and Circ Pol at 82mm is a tad costly but all you should need.
(82mm opening exposes a lotta glass so I'd recommend a quality UV to protect it!!)
Any other filter work can be done with CS3 at PP.
This lens will not disappoint you at it's price and I HIGHLY Recommend it!!
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2007
|
|
S Borthwick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 10, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, Comes with Lens Hood, Constant Aperture, Vivid colors
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor Design of Lens Hood, weight, backwards zoom, weird autofocus clutch ,82MM filter size
|
|
|
My lens is a Canon Mount...From the reviews I have read earlier copies of this lens seemed to have QC issues, I was nervous about getting this Lens, but glad I chanced it.
My copy has none of the focusing issues that previous reviewers complained about and it seems very sharp at both ends even at F 2.8, I agree that this lens is really good at F8. or 11. I found that this lens has good contrast and reproduces really vivid colors. The Lens hood is included but isnt all that great.
The Autofocusing is not HSM or Ultrasonic but I found the autofocusing accurate and not noisy enough to complain about... especially for the price. Sigma must be reading the reviews and fixed the quality issues or I got lucky and got a really good copy, either way I am very happy with this lens. I am not really sure why people who review this lens compare this lens to the Canon L 24-70 F 2.8, I feel the similarities end at the focal length and constant aperture, and price.
The Sigma lens seems to be built well, but is not on par with a Canon L series lens construction. I own a 70-200 F2.8 USM L series lens so I am familiar with L lenses. The Sigma is alot of lens for the money, I tried the Canon L version of this lens in a side by side comparison at a local camera shop, I could not justify the differences in the lenses to trade up to the L lens...
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2007
|
|
gazzajagman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 26, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 189
|
|
Review Date: Aug 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
f2.8, focal range, price, build is good too. Close focus distance is excellent
|
|
Cons:
|
MF clutch is a poor design. No HSM. Odd 82mm filter size. Useless hood.
|
|
|
The hood is a joke, my Tamron 17-35mm has a bigger hood. At 24mm it does little to prevent flare and has no effect at 70mm.
The AF is actually very fast and accurate. It's no HSM but it's no slouch either. The AF/MF clutch is a joke too, a very poor idea for a modern lens.
I seem to have got a good copy, on my 5D using the central AF point, I get sharp images. My copy is blisteringly sharp at 24mm and very sharp at 70mm. Over all I'm very happy. It's the cheapest zoom in my bag and it's the one that I use the most.
It's close min focus distance at 70mm is almost like a mini-macro lens. It can through the background out of focus so easily. It seems sharp both close up and at infinity, which is rare too.
Over the years I have tried 4 Canon copies, each was soft or had serious AF issues, this is the second Sigma copy that I've tried and I'm very happy with it.
I just wish that Sigma would sort out the clunky clutch and give us a cool HSM version.
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2007
|
|
Kris Hansen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 26, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 26, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $420.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, image quality (great sharpness, color and contrast)
|
|
Cons:
|
On a crop factor body, it could be wider...
|
|
|
I had been using the Sigma 18-125 for a long time, till I discovered the joy that is fast lenses. This lens is perfect for what I need.. Even at the same apertures, this lens is brighter than my old 18-125, which I felt was choking my 30D somewhat. I found that I was shooting at higher ISOs to compensate for the slow lens.
with the 24-70 f/2.8, this is not the case. I'm shooting at ISO 100 now, and loving it.
some people feel that this lens is slow to focus, and is loud.. Those people have never used this lens apparently. The focus is about half as loud as the Sigma 18-125, and maybe twice as loud as the HSM Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. It actually focuses as fast (if not faster) than that lens as well.
The ONLY gripe I have is, it seems to mis focus at 70mm once in a while..
I highly recommend this lens as a great alternative to the L version, and as a companion to the 70-200 f/2.8.
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2007
|
|
Reginald Queen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 17, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, Picture Quality Great Alternative to 'L' Lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Could be a little smaller.
|
|
|
I work in Concert Photography and as a Teenager theres no way I can afford the 'L' Canon version. I was fortunate to meet a very kind photographer at a concert in the past who let me try out his 24-70L as he was using a 70-200. Picture Quality on the Canon is better yes but by no means justifiable by an extra $700. and this is only at F2.8 after that they are basically identical.
In terms to other complaints I have big hands and have found it hard to handle to smallness of my Digital Rebel XT this lens balances it out nicely. And as I deal in Loud Concert photography I cant even hear myself let alone the Autofocus. And if its a quiet concert/theatre chances are they wont be moving around a lot therefore I can just use MF, Which isnt exactly rocket science to switch to.
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2007
|
|
Tony Chiu
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 30, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Jun 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, f2.8, Sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft at 70mm f2.8, Heavy
|
|
I bought the Sigma 24-70mm lens few days ago. The performance is very good. However, I noticed that there are some white dots on the edge of the front element. It looks like the colour of the EX finish. These dots do not show up on the pictures.
Is this an issue? Should I bring it back to exchange for a new one?
[IMG http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/2895/img8522xms9.jpg[/IMG]
|
|
|
Jun 1, 2007
|
|
gwhitegeog
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 16, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: May 19, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, fast f2.8 max aperture, very good optical quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy focussing, awkward manual focussing override
|
|
|
A great lens from Sigma. I seemed to get a good example - no softness or quality control issues. EX DG build quality is good. Focussing is a little noisy. I have found the optical quality to be very good, even at f2.8 and best about f11. The 24mm end is optically better than the 70 mm end. Zooming was a bit stiff but freed up over time. I don't have much need for this lens (I use the 24-105 most of the time on the 5D) - just occasional use - but that is why I bought the Sigma not the Canon version - with the money I saved I bought the EFS 17-85 to use with my 400D (Digital Rebel Xi?) and still had cash to spare. For the money, the Sigma is a steal.
|
|
|
May 19, 2007
|
|
Hudson Gardner
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 5, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 68
|
|
Review Date: May 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $336.98
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, AF speed, sharp at 24-40mm f/2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
Not usable at 70 f/2.8
|
|
|
This lens is really great for a general purpose, walk around lens. However, at 70mm, f/2.8 is very bad on close subjects where a lot of detail is wanted. F/4.0, however, and even 3.5 is a different story.
Fast AF, good color (warmish) and good build quality make this a great lens for the price. I just wish I had the money for the L...
|
|
|
May 14, 2007
|
|
mondas42
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 30, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: May 10, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good portrait lens and price
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy and dubious quality control
|
|
|
This is the second copy of this lens. The first was very soft and was sent back and replaced. The second version is very good with nice sharp images. The f2.8 accross the zoom range is very useful and I use it for my portrait shots. It is a little heavy and the unusual AF/MF takes a little getting use to.
My biggest problem is not with my lens, but with Sigma's quality control as this is the second sigma lens I have had to exchage due to soft images. However when you do get a good one, they take a lot of beating for the price.
|
|
|
May 10, 2007
|
|
TimesUP
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 6, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 652
|
|
Review Date: Apr 16, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $380.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Everything, weight, very soft untill 4.5 and higher, loud, contrast is not close to Canon quality, color is a bit off also.
|
|
|
Since I was not sure I was really going to be serious about photography I went the cheap route and bought this lens. don't make the same mistake I did. Yes I know "the price" but the price....OK so don't pay the $1000 + for the Canon 24-70 2.8 - I lucked out and picked up the older Canon version, the 28-70 2.8 for about $625. If you want cheap get the Sigma, if you want quality, color, contrast and sharpness or a little more get the Canon 28-70 2.8. Just do it!
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
134
|
478787
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
