Is a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 worth it?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by thomahawk, Jun 25, 2009.

  1. thomahawk macrumors 6502a


    Sep 3, 2008
    Osaka, Japan
    On craigslist some guy is selling one for $380

    People tell me its best to stay with Canon Lenses all the way. and dont use other brands.

    However a Canon 24-70 is near $1000 i beleive and theres no way i can afford it. the focal length and the speed is perfect for me. but im wondering if buying this sigma worth it or should i save save save for the canon version
  2. TheReef macrumors 68000


    Sep 30, 2007
    NSW, Australia.
    I can't comment on the Sigma, but have a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, and it's amazingly sharp.

    I've got a mate who a pro and says it's better than his L grade lens, so just saying don't dismiss 3rd party brands altogether do the research.
  3. juanm macrumors 65816


    May 1, 2006
    Fury 161
    FWIW, a few years ago, I had several good lenses (Nikon 80-200 2,8 AFS, Sigma 28-70 2,8, Sigma 105 Macro, a light and cheap 18-70 Nikon, and so on) I had to leave stored for two months in a tropical island, in a less than ideal place.
    Two months later, every Sigma lens I had was full of spiderwebs (mold) while every Nikon was perfect (and they still are, almost five years later). I don't know if it was the coating, the lack of weather sealing, or what, but it certainly was the end of 3rd party lenses for me.
  4. miloblithe macrumors 68020


    Nov 14, 2003
    Washington, DC
    I bought a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 of eBay in a moment of crazed spontaneity for $200. It's been a great buy and a really nice lens. My understanding is that one of the issues around the Sigma as compared to the Canon is that Canon's quality control is probably better. A "good copy" of the Sigma should perform nearly as well optically as the Canon. In terms of build and durability, the Canon probably wins as well, although the EX Sigmas are hardly poorly built. The AF on the Canon is probably a fraction better too, and has the much nicer approach to switching from AF to manual and has full time manual override of AF (HSM).

    But here's the simple fact, if you can't afford the Canon, it's irrelevant. I'd rather have the Sigma over the Tamron because I think 24-70 is a nicer range than 28-75 on a crop camera. Ask the seller to send you some pictures he's taken with the lens to see if you can evaluate from that whether he/she has a good copy, and ask when you meet (assuming it's a local sale) to be able to spend 5-10 minutes testing the lens. Any honest seller should agree to that. Also inquire as to the age of the lens and conditions under which it's been kept.

    Also try to determine exactly which model of Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 this is. There have been several. It's probably this one:

    I assume you've also read reviews of the lens. Here are some good ones:

    Lastly, apparently you should not leave this lens on a tropical island.
  5. Abstract macrumors Penryn


    Dec 27, 2002
    Location Location Location
    It's a fantastic lens. I own the older version (which is the one you're looking at), and it's a bit soft at 70 mm f/2.8, but even stopping down to f/3.5 will help dramatically. However, that's an issue with the Canon as well, according to reviews. They all have this problem, but it's more than usable at 70 mm and f/2.8.

    Oh, and the lens feels VERY sturdy.

    I met someone who works at a major camera store in Canada, and while I was asking him about his new Sigma 50 mm f/1.4, which he says is far better than the Canon and previous Nikon version, and better than the new Nikon 50 mm f/1.4, he just bought the newest Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 v2 (the HSM version). He says it's unbelievably sharp. He couldn't stop raving about it, because the Nikon version is twice as expensive, and doesn't appear to be better, according to his experiences.

Share This Page