28-70mm F2.8-4 DG what do you Think?

[finnschi]

I found this lens the SIGMA 28-70mm F2.8-4 DG does anyone know how good it is?

I only have the 18-55 EF-S Kit lens on my Eos 20D, and i am on a budget so would thi lens be ok? please help me guys

 

[luminosity]

It's an old lens. Sigma has produced both the old 24-70 and new 24-70 HSM since the 28-70's release. The new 24-70 has turned out to be an outstanding lens if you get a good copy.

 

[yoak]

Hi
I just bought the fairly new Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 and for the price is a very good lens. It dosen´t hold f2.8 very long though, mostly when full wide.
It´s a good step up from the stock lens and has an ok range as well.
PS I have the 20D too. I got this Sigma AND the cheap 50mm Canon f1.8 to have a low light lens as well.

 

[finnschi]

Well I think the 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM is way to expensive for my needs ( MRSP 1500$?!?!?) .

But I think i fell in Love with the SIGMA 28-70mm F2.8 EX DG this one retails for around 250€ on ebay and this is a very good value for a 2.8 Zoom lens (espacially considering its 2.8 ALL the way!!) much better than the 70$ Sigma 28-70mm F2.8-4 DG

what do you think=

 

[yoak]

I should think so, I miss 2,8 all the way. I was in a great hurry to buy the lens and that was what fnac had in store in Paris when I was there on a job.
I needed the wide end more than the f-stop at the time

 

[OreoCookie]

I'd recommend you get another focal length range. 28-70 mm on a crop sensor is not very appealing and the lens is not that great.

Why don't you have a look at Tamron's 17-50 mm f/2.8. Reviews consistently put it on par with Canon's own 17-55 mm f/2.8 lens -- which is more than twice as expensive!

They have just announced a new version with IS, but I guess it'll be some time until it is available. Even if it is just as good as its predecessor, it's a very good lens, a bargain. (Although IS is not that useful for these focal lengths.)

 

[flosseR]

I have to side with Oreo here. I have a lot of Sigma lenses but on a crop sensor 24 or 28 - something is not very appealing.
the 17-50 from tamron, which does have outstanding optics for the price, would be a MUCH better choice given that you will actually be shooting 28-80mm

//F

 

[GoCubsGo]

Well I think the 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM is way to expensive for my needs ( MRSP 1500$?!?!?) .

But I think i fell in Love with the SIGMA 28-70mm F2.8 EX DG this one retails for around 250€ on ebay and this is a very good value for a 2.8 Zoom lens (espacially considering its 2.8 ALL the way!!) much better than the 70$ Sigma 28-70mm F2.8-4 DG

what do you think=

You're wrong because I just bought one. The Sigma 24-70 HSM (the new one) is $900 shipped from Amazon.com. The $1500 is the price tag (actually it's under the price tag) of the Nikon.

I agree, 28-70 is NOT an appealing focal length range. Sure, you think 4mm is nothing? What's 4 x 1.5 (if shooing Nikon). That's 6mm. 6mm is quite a bit. Your 24 mm will be 36 mm and your 28 will be 42. 36 is at least fairly desirable walk-around lens but 42 mm is a step above where I would think you do not want to be.

Invest in glass ... it will outlast your bodies.

 

[luminosity]

Jessica: How is the Sigma 24-70 HSM for you?