 |
|
|
veroman
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Aug 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4468
|
|
Review Date: Jul 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
• Cheap
• Good Range
• Lightweight
|
|
Cons:
|
• Unsharp
• Poor build
• Susceptible to artifacts
|
|
|
Not bad for a cheap lens to use with a low-end camera or a low-resolution camera. But if image quality is important, don't even think twice about putting this lens in front of the likes of a Canon EOS 10D, 350D, 20D or better. It just doesn't cut it.
The pics it produces have all of the appearance of sharpness and good contrast when you first open the files full-screen size. But crop in or blow the image up a tad and you see where the shortcomings are, and they are not "pleasant" shortcomings such as correctable softness or fixable contrast. This lens seem to screw up all of the finer details and render them with permanent distortions such as blurring (smearing?), double outlines, ghosting and, of course, CA.
I didn't expect much for a $100 lens, but I did expect better than this. A used Canon 28-70 II f/3.5-4.5 is also less than $100, but it's 1,000 times the lens this one is. (Actually, the Canon 28-70 is very, very close in performance to the much more expensive L lenses; overall, an amazing lens).
What the Sigma 24-70 is good for is casual shooting...where image quality is low on the totem pole of priorities...and for taking along on vacations so that you don't have to worry too much about an expensive lens getting stolen or damaged. It's very light. Carrying it around all day is easier on your body than carrying a heavy lens, and it's focal range makes it good for casual walkabout stuff. It seems to focus fast, color is fairly accurate, and barrel/pincushion distortions are minimal.
Can't really recommend this lens for anything else. I put it on my Kodak SLR/c as an ultimate test. It failed miserably.
|
|
 Jul 3, 2006
|
|
atlantagreg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 26, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Feb 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $109.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
For the price ($109.00) it has a good build quality, fast enough focusing, decent images, and includes a lens hood.
|
|
Cons:
|
Fine detail on things such as hair, grass, leaves, etc., has a distinct digitized "patch-worky" mush look to them. Images can lack contrast and punch.
|
|
|
It's always hard to rate an inexpensive lens, because your mind TRIES to compare it to lenses that cost much more. Forgetting the price, if you put this lens up against any number of mid-range ($400+) lenses, then you would be disappointed due to the fact that fine detail such as hair and grass has that mushy digital patch-worky look to it. In a vague way when viewing at 100%, it kind of reminds me of the way HP camera images look when viewed at full size, only you get the benefit here of it being on a Canon (in my case) DSLR with much better iso capability.
You have to pull yourself back a bit though, and remind yourself that this lens costs just BARELY over $100.00, and for that price, you have to readjust the way you see it.
The key words here are "for the price", and for just over that hundred dollars, you get decent build quality, reasonably smooth focusing and speed, and a lens hood included. If you were to submit images made with this lens to a stock agency to sell, I'd say most likely they will be rejected due to the artifacting and lack of sharp details, but then, are you going to use a $100 lens for professional stock photography? I doubt it. For general "everyday" photos of the kids, pets, festivals, casual vacations, etc., this isn't that bad of a lens - about on par perhaps with many of the kit lenses you see included with DSLR packages. You get what you pay for and for the price, this is more than decent.
|
|
|
Feb 1, 2006
|
|
hcoo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 11, 2005
Location: Philippines
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $150.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap; better than kit lens; range; hood; weight
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
Good lens, its cheap and useful range. Good for general photography. Looks good with hood on. Im very satisfy with the quality of the lens for its category.
|
|
|
Jan 8, 2006
|
|
musicjohn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 14, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 16, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, weight, construction, price
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I got this lens after reading all of the reviews here. It was meant to cover the gap between the sale of my Canon EOS 350D kit-lens (18-55mm rubbish-lens) and the delivery of my Canon 17-40mm "L" and my Canon 24-105mm "L" lenses.
Wow, was I amased at the quality of the pictures I shot. Actually, from the first day I got the Canon EOS 350D (Digital Rebel in the States?) I was extremely disappointed with the pictures that I shot using the 18-55mm II kit-lens. As a matter of fact, at one stage I considered selling my 350D again, that's how bad it was. All results were soft, unsharp, no contrast, defenition and color.
So then I got this little Sigma beauty. Well, a whole new world opened up for me. All shots I took from the first day I got this lens are keepers. Razor-sharp, lots of detail, contrast and color, at all appertures.
Recently my Canon 17-40mm "L" and 24-105mm "L" have arrived. They are fantastic lenses too. But I can honestly say that the Sigma 24-70 is AS SHARP as both "L" lenses, and only at 1/10 of the price. I even dare say that the Sigma is a tat sharper wide open (f/3.5) than the 24-105 "L" at f/4.
Now I have decided not to part with my little Sigma lens and keep it as a "spare" just in case anything happens to one of my "L" lenses.
This one is an absolute winner, and I can recommend it to anyone who wants extremely good results at the price of a shopping-car full of groceries !!!
I will be setting up a gallery soon with sample pictures which I shot with this lens, so you can all see for yourself. I'll keep you informed.
John
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2005
|
|
lenyoso
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 8, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 102
|
|
Review Date: Nov 11, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $129.00
|
|
Pros:
|
inexpensive
light
sharp and good contrast esp at shorter focal lengths
|
|
Cons:
|
70 mm soft - very
|
|
Revised rating to 8 or even 7 (at 70mm)
After fooling around with this lens some more, I felt I had to revise my rating for you.
Sharp and very good contrast at the shorter focal lenghts esp 24mm. The far right side of the image does have some softness and aberration although I don't think it is noticeble until you are at 100%. As the focal length increases to 70 this gets somewhat worse with it most evident at 70mm. And at 24 it really is a good sharp contrasty lens as good as I get with my othe lenses. At 70mm I would be only happy with snapshots and 4X6 stuff so I shouldn't use it for something that is important to me. For the $$ I remain happy with the lens but yes I will replace it someday (I hope). I am an amatuer.
Oh yes - Crow is very tasty.
I will post shortly some comps that are better for you to see at:
http://www.pbase.com/lenyoso/miscellaneous
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2005
|
|
epmasini
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 24, 2005
Location: Brazil
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 24, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $12,000.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good sharpness and contrast, comes with lens hood and price
|
|
Cons:
|
until 5.6 most of the pictures are soft (Wide and end of tele)
|
|
|
For the price is a very nice option if you don't want to spend more money in canon 28-105 (3,5-5,6) or 24-85. I think this lens has an similar perfomance than the canon lens above, but not equal or near a "L" lens. If you are not a Pro, it's a good option on the market! And it is much better than the 18-55 mm of my Rebel!!
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2005
|
|
jamach
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 31, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 6104
|
|
Review Date: Oct 16, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $120.00
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor image quality, definitely no L class, not even average Canon class.
|
|
|
I read all the reviews about this lens and jumped on board. I should have saved my money. This lens is junk and no way near in any sense of the word to any L lens produced by Canon. It does not even belong in the same ball park as my 70-200F4L, or 200f2.8L, or many other Canon lenses. I had the 24-70L lens and this Sigma lens is no way even in the same planet. It is junk.
If anyone claims this lens is sharper than their L lens then their L lens has a problem and should be sent for repair.
It may equal the 20D 18-55 kit lens.
I reiterate that the only use this lens has is to maybe replace the 18-55 kit lens and waste money.
Consider that Sigma did not even include this lens in their current catalog.
Buy this piece of junk at your own risk. Shoot at F8 if you want. It won't matter.
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2005
|
|
lenyoso
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 8, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 102
|
|
Review Date: Oct 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $129.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
High contrast, very sharp, light and very inexpensive
|
|
Cons:
|
slow f-stop, and AF is slower than my two other lenses 70-200L f4 and Tamron 17-35
|
|
I have only had this lens a bit and have to say that it exceeded my expectations. The lens has high contrast and is really sharp for most of the frame (1.6X). I shot some into the sun looking for flare and it performed very well. Some full rez examples are at: http://www.pbase.com/lenyoso/miscellaneous
Depending on where you are in the zoom range seems to affect the sharpness on the edges that you see at 100%. Most manufactureres seem to be going for faster lenses. I needed a shorter and smaller diameter lens for my in camera (10D) flash to work - see hemip ant mimic. So far so good, and I am extremely happy at this point. Maybe one day I will be able to afford something even faster. Sharper? This lens performs perhaps as well as my 70-200 f4 L in terms of image quality. It does seem to have a bit more contrast. Mind you no tests just looking at the RAW pics straight from the camera in RSE.
|
|
|
Oct 8, 2005
|
|
IraGraham
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 622
|
|
Review Date: Aug 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $135.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast focusing on 20D, Price, a better lens range than the 17-70 Canon L for everyday use.
|
|
Cons:
|
None for the price.
|
|
|
I have many Canon L lenses but didn't want to pay the money for the Canon 24-70L at this time. I realize now how usefull the 24-70 range is. I would go as far to say that this lens is as sharp as the Canon 24-70L. I can live with not having the speed of the Canon for now. This lens really fits with my needs and budget. I have no complaints. This is coming from someone with the folowing "L" lenses: 135 2.0, 200mm 2.8, 70-200 2.8 IS, and 17-40 4.0. These are all top lenses and the Sigma competes with the best of them. I encourage anyone that demands top performance to purchase this lens. You will not be dissappointed!
|
|
|
Aug 5, 2005
|
|
kim a
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 20, 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jun 27, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Low budget, nice build, and a´good all allround lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Apatuere differ from my 50m f1,8 in manuel mode (24-70 says f8,0-50mm says f5,6- in auto mode it dosent matter)
(and my 50mm is still the best)
|
|
|
For the price this is a good allround standard zoom.
rough enough to survive a bike crash, rock music, rain, and other
demanding tasks-
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2005
|
|
kim a
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 20, 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jun 27, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Well build-for the price, a good all round lens. 36-105mm with D70
|
|
Cons:
|
?Apparture differ from my 50mm f1,8 (ex:24-70 may say f 8 - 50mm say 5,6 in manual mode - same set up - if you go auto it dosent matter)
(the 50mm f1,8 is still the best)
|
|
|
most of the time this lens do the job.
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2005
|
|
laphotogallery
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 7, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 99
|
|
Review Date: Nov 26, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $125.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, low price, fast focusing, non-rotating front element, included flower type lens hood.
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic mount, dim in viewfinder
|
|
|
I bought this lens to replace the kit lens on my N80. I was very impressed with how fast this lens focuses. The 24mm wide (true wide on a film slr) is great to have and really helped with a recent 30 person group shot inside a cramped corner of a church.
Sharp at all focal lenghts. I was pleasently surprised after getting back my prints using Kodak 400UC. Excellent contrast and color. No flare problems so far. The included flower shaped lens hood is great and gives a "pro" look.
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2004
|
|
letjin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 19, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 150
|
|
Review Date: Aug 7, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $120.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
color, sharpness, design, price
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
This Sigma lens is great. It has great range, and the pictures it produce are awesome. The lens also comes with hood, and its red line makes it look like a fake-L lens. Does not look cheap or flimsy.
The lens does not rotate when it focuses, so it makes it easy to use polarizers. I don't find any negative aspects of this lens except the 3.5-5.6 f-stop, but I could've paid about $250 more and got EX version. I don't have any complaints about this lens. Unless I start thinking 'this is only $120 lens and something expensive will make my pictures better,' I will keep this lens for a very long time. Just when looking at results, this make me think I have $600 lens...this lens is THAT good...
Awesome lens... if you only have $100 and need a lens to get started, get this one instead of Canon 50mm 1.8 II.
|
|
|
Aug 7, 2004
|
|
missionphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 10, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 265
|
|
Review Date: Jan 12, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $85.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, size, price
|
|
Cons:
|
Can't complain for $85.
|
|
|
Performance:
Excellent overall sharpness, sharper in the corners than my 24-70 EX at wide angles. Only a tad softer in the center. In good to excellent light my EX and HF are very, very hard to tell apart. The main drawback is night shooting and shadow detail, where the lens looks a bit grainy compared to the consistent clarity of the EX. Pretty slow at 70mm.
Build:
Excellent for the money. Very smooth operation and sure AF. Doesn't look or feel like a cheap lens.
Overall:
Fantastic bargain.
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2004
|
|
Paco Raap
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 108
|
|
Review Date: May 30, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $150.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, resonably priced, reasonably quick autofocus.
|
|
Cons:
|
Compared to the price none except it is nore really designed for manual focus.
|
|
|
I bought this lens together with a Canon D60 and it was my first one of Sigma.
I know it is no L-serie lens or what ever pro's like to use.
But for what it brings me it is OK..
Use it indoor and outdoor and since June 2002
It has done 5000 + pictures whitout a problem.
|
|
|
May 30, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
15
|
104986
|
Jul 3, 2006
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
80% of reviewers
|
$1,204.73
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.44
|
8.89
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
