Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 Macro EX DG, anybody with experience using it?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by CrackedButter, Feb 13, 2008.

  1. macrumors 68040

    CrackedButter

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    51st State of America
    #1
    Has anybody used this lens?

    It looks like a good lens but I'm wondering if anybody has had any first hand experience with it? I only have a Canon 50mm 1.4 lens and while I am looking for some flexiblility I just want to be sure this is the lens for me.

    I'm only a student so I don't *need* Canon's version really so I am happy to settle for this but please give me some pro's and con's.
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #2
    I too was looking at this but in the Nikon Mount, but after advice on a Nikon site the verdict was have a look at the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 instead, apparently the images are a lot sharper ;)

    hope this helps
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    I have that lens, and since I lost my camera bag, it is my only lens.

    I like it. It's soft wide open at 70mm, but other than that I have no real complaints. It's nowhere near as nice, I'd imagine, as the Canon version, but it's less than half the price too. The Tamron 28-75 does seem to get respect for being sharper, but it also sounds like a less useful range on a crop camera (which is what I have).
     
  4. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Fukuoka, Japan
    #4
    I recommend Tokina's 2.8/28-70 AT-X Pro SV: it was the cheapest version, but optically, it was better than its more professional brothers. It has received rave reviews and I loved mine. Built like a tank, too.
     
  5. macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location
    #5
    I have the Sigma.

    At 70 mm, the Sigma is soft at f/2.8, but at any other aperture, including f/3.5, the sharpness at 70 mm isn't so bad. At other focal lengths, the lens is pretty sharp even at f/2.8.

    The Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8 is supposed to be a bit sharper, but the difference isn't big. My friend has the Tamron, and a Canon 16-35 mm, and when he saw my photos from Japan, he commented on the sharpness of my photos (no sharpening applied to photos).

    I don't think it would be as good as the Canon version, and I'm sure it's not as good as the new Nikon 24-70 mm. However, the differences won't be too great.
     
  6. thread starter macrumors 68040

    CrackedButter

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    51st State of America
    #6
    How fast would you say the focus mechanism is? Reasonable or lacking somewhat?

    Same question for you as well, what is the focus mechanism like? I like its price but I don't want to compromise on its abilities and is this a loud lens?
     
  7. macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #7
    The focus mechanism is loud. I've never used other high-quality lenses, so I don't have much of a frame of reference about speed and accuracy. Seems pretty good to me.
     
  8. macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location
    #8
    The focus is quite fast, and I don't think it's too loud. It does make a noticeable sound, but I wouldn't call it a very loud lens unless you're used to quieter, but more expensive lenses.
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #9
    I tried this lens and ended up with the Tamron 28-75 that alot of people in this thread have recommended.

    For the price, you can't really go wrong with either. Try both out at a local store and see which you prefer to hold, how fast it focuses etc.
     
  10. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Fukuoka, Japan
    #10
    Autofocus was very fast and accurate on my F80. I didn't think it was loud.
    Manual focus is smooth like butter: the mechanism is nicely dampened and you can easily focus on the subject. The built-quality is pro-grade. (Mine dropped on concrete at 30 km/h -- which killed the camera, but the lens was fine. I sold it on ebay later on.)

    The only thing I didn't like was the AF-MF clutch: you have to pull the focus ring back to be able to manually focus. But you had to find the exact right spot -- which isn't really hard (just pull back a little while turning, you'll find the right spot by itself). New Tokina lenses don't have that problem anymore.
     
  11. thread starter macrumors 68040

    CrackedButter

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    51st State of America
    #11
    I found the Tokina and Tamron versions of these lenses online, they look good but are not massively different in price to the sigma one. Thanks for the advice guys, I'll make a purchase soon.
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    #12
    As usual, I'll give my opinion, and, after that, get flamed... :p But I do think it could be useful, since I've owned two 28-70 f/2,8.

    -Sure, they look nice if you look at the specs (specially the 2.8), but, since they're (according to actual owners of the current 24-70) a little on the soft side at 2,8, you wouldn't benefit from that. So don't fall for the 2,8, since your practical quality aperture would be limited to 3,5. Aperture isn't everything.
    -They aren't very well built: too much low quality plastic, and their fragile "pro-finish" only looks good in the pictures.
    -They're VERY prone to get fungi. I really don't know if it's because the sealing is worse (if there is any), or because they lack a coating, but I've had fungi problems on 3 out of the 4 Sigma lenses I've had (one of the 28-70, a 105 Macro, and a 70-300), while my Nikkors, kept under the exact same conditions, still look like new.
    - The Nikons were very Noisy, I don't know about the Sigmas for Canon.
    - They were too heavy and big.

    On the contrary, I've heard and read many good things about the Tokina.

    In my opinion I think you'd be better getting:
    - A good non-2,8 zoom (if you don't own one already)
    - 50mm 1,8 ($84) for low light/small DOF

    or, if you already have the zoom, get
    - A 28 f/2,8 ($169.95) or a 24 f/2,8 ($280)
    - A 50mm f/1,8 ($84)

    and eventually, add later to that a second hand 80 f/1,8. ($250)

    Any of these two alternatives will prove to be better quality wise than the Sigma, better for low light, smaller and lighter. Save yourself money and get a Canon (or Nikon) from the beginning.
     
  13. thread starter macrumors 68040

    CrackedButter

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    51st State of America
    #13
    You probably get flamed because you don't read? Though i appreciate what you said. :) I have the Canon 50mm at F1.4 and I don't own a zoom lens, everything I do at the moment with my EOS 3 is with a 50mm, I'm looking for some flexibility on the cheap.

    I do own a Mamiya 645 Super medium format camera with a 28mm lens equivalent though. I use it hand held due to its size.

    Anyway, besides that. What lenses did you own, you said you own 2 of them but didn't state the brand. Are you talking about the Tamron or/and the Sigma at the beginning, near the middle you said you heard good things about the Tokina, so I can only assume you meant the other 2.
    What is a 'good non-2.8 zoom'?
    Also as I said at the start, the Canon is out of my price range, I can't afford to spend 4 times the price for the same lense as a student. My name isn't James Nachtwey just yet! :p
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    #14
    Sorry! Sometimes it's like I'm dyslextic :D

    So I've had two Sigmas 28-70 f/2,8 (it was the model before they increased the zoom range to 24mm and the one before it.), a 105 macro (quite sharp, but slo-o-ow and noisy focusing, and it extended too much, I have the new Nikkor now) and a crappy 70-300.
    Now, I've just decided to skip the 2,8 standard zoom, since it's too big for a normal use. Instead, in this zoom range, I have a 18-70 (which I never use), a 18-200 (which I use a lot), and a 28-85 for the film camera (which I never use)

    I guess in a certain way it's better to let your learning curve evolve naturally, and that means a standard zoom is necessary up to a certain point. Like I said, right now, I mostly skip this zoom range, and have always a 12-24 and a 105 on the cameras.
     

Share This Page