Anyone own D90 + Sigma 24-70?

Y15HAL

Y15HAL

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,721
Name
Vishal
Edit My Images
Yes
Just wanted to know if anyone has a Nikon D90 paired with a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG (Non-HSM)?

I bought one not long ago (used, from here), and to be honest, not too chuffed with the quality of it......seems a little soft to me...

I used to have a sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 and that used to produce good sharp pictures. The 24-70 seems to miss-focus at times....Taken a few pictures and when uploading onto the laptop, am very disappointed at times....

I hope i haven't got a soft copy! :'(:thinking::shake:
 
I used to have that Sigma, I used it on my Minolta film body. It was c**p!!
 
I used to be happy with mine until I got my first L lens, now not so sure.
It is capable of some very sharp images, but as you say it can lose focus very easily.
Don't forget that f2.8 gives virtually no dof when focussing up close, the slightest movement from you will throw it out of focus. My biggest issue is with contrast - or lack of it.
 
I`ve been thinking about a sigma 24-70 for so long but always put it off cos i dont want to take a gamble and end up with a soft version and mainly because i have the sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 HSM and that is razor sharp no matter what i just cant seem to part with it.
 
Philx1979 said:
I`ve been thinking about a sigma 24-70 for so long but always put it off cos i dont want to take a gamble and end up with a soft version and mainly because i have the sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 HSM and that is razor sharp no matter what i just cant seem to part with it.
Click to expand...

I had the non-hsm version of the 17-70, and even that was razor sharp compared to this....which leads me to believe i have a soft version! :bang::bang::bang::bang:
 
I had a D90 and the non HSM 24-70. I never had a problem with it to be honest.
Took 90% of all my photos with it.
Might be worth sending to Sigma for Calibration.
 
It's by far my most used lens on the D90, absolutely love it. They are quite well known for having a few soft examples out there though and I think it can be a bit pot luck.

I've had no such troubles with mine thankfully, it's hardly ever off the camera. Do you have any examples?
 
Couple of examples....

SS2.jpg


SS1.jpg


Taken straight from the camera, just resized, no other PP involved....

These were both at f4....so IMO, should be sharper than they are.....
 
Hmm, yeah, but that's what software is for - very few pics come out the camera ready to print or view....

209nf6d.jpg
 
Dekhog - I understand images coming straight from the camera are not ready to use and require some PP, but in the past, very rarely have i had to sharpen a picture.....Usually have just adjusted tones, contrast, brightness etc....

This was straight from my 17-70:

2-1.jpg


Noticeable difference in quality IMO.... :(

Guerillaphoto - Thanks for the info matey.....Do you have any samples mate straight from the camera?
 
Yeah, I've got the 17-70mm myself, and would probably only change it for a Nikon 17-55mm F2.8, so I also know how good it is.... I wouldn't even consider the focal range of that Sigma for a cropped body anyway, so will never have one myself....

And the picture above definitely does need sharpening....

 
Last edited:
The uploads of the wedding couple show the kind of problems I had with this lens. Like I said, I was using film so there was no chance of trying to patch things up with sharpening etc.

To be any use the lens has to project a sharp image onto the film/ sensor and this one obviously doesn't do that.
 
Dekhog, i understand that the picture i posted from the 17-70 needed sharpening too, i just uploaded them all as straight from the camera, and the difference is noticeable.....

Deasy......Yep, looks like i've got myself a soft copy!! :(

I wonder if calibration would sort the issue out.....?
 
Calibration would only sort it if it's a focus issue, and not just a 'soft' lens....
 
I understand what DekHog is saying, the image of the little girl does need a bit of sharpening, but those pics of the bride and groom are terribly soft, I'd never be happy with that even as an out of camera RAW file.
 
Tell me about it Dave, not happy with it at all! had high hopes for this lens, but have been let down big time! :(

When i first used the lens, i thought it was user error, and maybe i missed focus....but this was the second time and i can't believe this could happen again, as its not happened before.....

Looks like a dud lens! :thumbsdown::bang::nono::thinking::shake::'(
 
Looking at it with a clear head it's even worse, that's terrible IQ.
 
used to have that siggy but your copy is very, very bad :( . colours are very pale, and overall the image is soft. I mean this lens (normal copy) isn't sharp as samurai sword, but it's ok.
 
2 ideas you could try.

my lens is soft until 5.6, try shooting at 5.6 of f8 and see if the images come out soft.
do a test shot with an object in the room on a tripod.

do 2.8, f4, 5.6, f8, and then do a long shot.
if you upload them then you can see if its a soft lens.

I have a sigma 18-50 which is very soft at 2.8, even soft at 4, but at 5.6 its pin sharp.
 
It IS terrible, i know! I'm fuming!! I know it didnt cost the earth, but still forked out my hard earned cash for it though!

DMAN, tell me about it! the more i take images and review them afterwards, the more frustrated im getting! :(

I should have just bought the Siggy 70-200 and stuck with my old Sigma 17-70!

Thanks Dave, i'll try and do some tests as suggested.....i reckon its all going to be a waste of time though! :(
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top