Getting annoyed with my Sigma

Amp34

Amp34

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,859
Edit My Images
Yes
Right I have had my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for coming on to a couple of years and when it is sharp it is SHARP, but when it is soft it is usually because it misfocuses... When I try and focus on something it regularly seems to spend a couple of seconds hunting, sometimes only to back focus, now assuming this isn't technique, it's starting to annoy me (although sometimes it really is rather soft without misfocusing). This has been brought on a large portion by yesterday, where a huge portion of my shots with it seemed to have either misfocused or not been very sharp (in broad/harsh daylight).

Now I am inclined to say it has been doing this all the time I have had it, but i'm not sure, maybe I have knocked it? Anyone else with a 24-70 have similar problems?

With this in mind it is also a bit of a pain focus speed wise, just slow, and it's 82mm filter ring is annoying (considering my other two most used lenses are 77mm), both of which I knew when I got it. All of this has started me thinking at looking at another lens to replace it as it has become my least favorite lens in recent times (perhaps because when I first got it I was comparing it to the kit and 75-300 IS, and now it is compared to the Tokina 12-24 and the 300 f/4L).

So in that vein I've had a quick look round and to be honest can find no lens in this catagory that really fits the bill as well as the 24-70. What I want from a replacement would be:

Fast - f/2.8
Fast - AF
Reasonable range, preferably around the same as the 24-70 (considering I have a 12-24)
Reasonably small, with a 77mm thread
Similar price to the 24-70

Now although I have the 75-300 IS I don't really use it much so without this lens there would be a huge gap from 24-300mm to fill (I don't want a single lens to fill that though). I would also prefer to steer clear of ef-s fits too if possible.

With all of that in mind all I can see is either the 17-50 Tamron, or nothing really (unless I decided to go for a couple of primes?)

So yeah, long post, jist is what to replace the 24-70 with?:lol::cuckoo:

Thanks
 
Unfortunately, Canoon have the monopoly on guaranteed Canon-compatible lenses. Stigma have to reverse-engineer Canon's protocol by which the lenses talk to the camera. They have got this fairly famously wrong in the past, and if your lens has indeed been doing this all the time you've had it, I can't help but wondering if this is the cause.

You state that what you want from a replacement is: good, fast, small & cheap.
Suggest you consider again & pick any two of those criteria!
Sorry, but I fear that might be the only answer (or, if you're lucky, pick any three!)

Stroller.
 
Actually tbh thinking about it after I posted (and testing the lens) it isn't as bad as I made out, but it can be a pain at times and i'm really starting not to enjoy using the lens.

And as for picking two, to an extent you are true, although with photography equipment it's a bit of a weird set of electronics, where bigger is usually more expensive!

When I first got the lens I went through the same ideas and chose the 24-70 over all else that was available, which is why I think it's going to be difficult getting a replacement. My other choice was primes, maybe two or three, which would probably not take up too much space/weight over the 24-70. (Weight and size is important as I need it for travel).

If I decided to go all out for a change maybe I should go for something like:

Tokina 11-16 > Tamron 17-50 > Canon 85 f/1.8

or

Tokina 12-24 > Canon 50mm f/1.8 (??) > Canon 85 f/1.8

But the former would be quite a lot of money and the latter would leave me a bit empty focal length wise (and using the 50 f/1.8 hmmm).

I would prefer to stick to a zoom for my "walkabout" lens but any suggestions as to what sort of prime/zoom combination I could use would be good. (Budget wise I guess about £300 max, unless I replaced the 12-24 as well, in which case around £500 ish, used is fine).
 
17-50 is crop format only, ie EF-S equivalent :thinking: Not that there's anything wrong with this at all, only benefits actually (unless you ever want to use it on a full frame camera, of course). With crop format lenses like EF-S you get more range, lower f/number, less size/weight and lower prices than full frame equivalents.

The 17-50ish range looks favourite, and personally I would find the overlap from 17-24 would be a benefit and save a lot of lens changing on walkabout, but that's just my preference. Pick of the bunch there is Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS. I have one. Fab lens :) Or Sigma/Tamron.

This reverse engineering thing. It is a fact, but not usually one that troubles most people. If your current lens is not behaving as it should, Sigma should be able to either re-calibrate the focusing, or update it with a re-chip. I think I would try and sort it out with Sigma first - they are used to this kind of problem ;)
 
I know the 17-50 is crop format, I intend to upgrade to full frame at some point, and it is one of the reasons I am put off the lens, although the benefits you list are a plus, you also get more pronounced edge softness with ef-s specific lenses (and I have to say I am a bit of a sharpness whore:bonk:).:)

The overlap I can see as a good thing, what I have problems with though is that about a fifth of the focal length is being repeated (not necessarily a bad thing) leaving a huge gap between 50mm and 300mm (not that there is a huge amount of difference to 70mm but it is less). Unfortunately the 17-55 is a bit out of my price range at the moment or I may have seriously considered it.:)

With regards to sending it back to sigma, the more I think about it the less I see it as a fault, but more the lens characteristics, I think it has been the same since I got it (new). I'm also starting to just dislike it a bit, for example the manual focus ring, just annoying.

Looking through some random images at focal lengths, I'm inclined to say as well that it's not correct or my style of shooting. Most are at 24 and 70mm, and the rest pretty much spot on 35mm and 50mm, which to me implies I use it at 24mm because I can't be bothered to change to the 12-24 sometimes:bonk:, 70mm because I want more length, and then almost slap bang on prime territory with the rest (slap bang in the middle of the lens range?).

With that in mind maybe some kind of collection of 12-24/17-50 zooms and 35/50/85 primes or maybe a 50-150 fast zoom (prices being appropriate)?
 
Do you really want to be changing lenses that much?

Would something like a 24-105 f4 L be worth considering?

It is seriously liberating not having to change lenses all the time - might be worth trying!

Cheers,
James
 
Amp34 said:
I know the 17-50 is crop format, I intend to upgrade to full frame at some point, and it is one of the reasons I am put off the lens, although the benefits you list are a plus, you also get more pronounced edge softness with ef-s specific lenses (and I have to say I am a bit of a sharpness whore:bonk:).:)

The overlap I can see as a good thing, what I have problems with though is that about a fifth of the focal length is being repeated (not necessarily a bad thing) leaving a huge gap between 50mm and 300mm (not that there is a huge amount of difference to 70mm but it is less). Unfortunately the 17-55 is a bit out of my price range at the moment or I may have seriously considered it.:)

With regards to sending it back to sigma, the more I think about it the less I see it as a fault, but more the lens characteristics, I think it has been the same since I got it (new). I'm also starting to just dislike it a bit, for example the manual focus ring, just annoying.

Looking through some random images at focal lengths, I'm inclined to say as well that it's not correct or my style of shooting. Most are at 24 and 70mm, and the rest pretty much spot on 35mm and 50mm, which to me implies I use it at 24mm because I can't be bothered to change to the 12-24 sometimes:bonk:, 70mm because I want more length, and then almost slap bang on prime territory with the rest (slap bang in the middle of the lens range?).

With that in mind maybe some kind of collection of 12-24/17-50 zooms and 35/50/85 primes or maybe a 50-150 fast zoom (prices being appropriate)?
Click to expand...

Sounds like a classic dilema :) One I also faced recently, and I've now commited to crop format. In the cold light of day, the benefits of full frame are (for me at least) hypothetical most of the time, but the downsides of size, weight, zoom range, f/number and high purchase cost are omnipresent. And crop is getting better all the time - every new generation has more pixels and less noise - and the gap is narrowing.

I would say you should really bottom-out the full frame question, and commit to one format or the other, and work towards that now. With that cleared up, the answer to your questions is much simplified.

One thing I would say is that crop format lenses are not less sharp than full frame (when used on crop cameras). A couple of mine, EF-S 60mm 2.8 macro and EF-S 17-55mm 2.8, are a match for any full frame equivalent, at any price. There are plenty of other examples.
 
Moos3h said:
Do you really want to be changing lenses that much?

Would something like a 24-105 f4 L be worth considering?

It is seriously liberating not having to change lenses all the time - might be worth trying!

Cheers,
James
Click to expand...

I would love a single lens that I didn't have to change all the time but there appears to be none that don't sacrifice IQ for range (eg the 18-200's). Constantly changing lenses has always been one of the main offputs for going with primes, my other worry, size and weight have been mainlu alleviated, as it appears I could get a couple of "good" primes for around the same weight and sixe as the 24-70.:shrug:

HoppyUK said:
Sounds like a classic dilema :) One I also faced recently, and I've now commited to crop format. In the cold light of day, the benefits of full frame are (for me at least) hypothetical most of the time, but the downsides of size, weight, zoom range, f/number and high purchase cost are omnipresent. And crop is getting better all the time - every new generation has more pixels and less noise - and the gap is narrowing.

I would say you should really bottom-out the full frame question, and commit to one format or the other, and work towards that now. With that cleared up, the answer to your questions is much simplified.

One thing I would say is that crop format lenses are not less sharp than full frame (when used on crop cameras). A couple of mine, EF-S 60mm 2.8 macro and EF-S 17-55mm 2.8, are a match for any full frame equivalent, at any price. There are plenty of other examples.
Click to expand...

Very true, and as I like wildlife shooting the crop helps there too. To be fair though, crop and full frame lenses arent really going to come into this decision (so I can defer my choice:lol:) as I have no other real option other than the 17-50 or primes in my price range. It all comes down to the range, I would be loosing 20mm of length which means I will need even more something to fill the gap.

I didn't say crop lenses aren't as sharp, just that they don't enjoy the "sweet spot" as some reviewers call it, which means that a lot of wider angle crop lenses in particular have very weak edges compared to their centres.:)

I'm still tempted by the idea of a 17-50 and an 85/105mm prime, just the cost for both would be more than I want to pay. I have also heard the 17-50 also has problems with focus speed and accuracy (which is one of the main reasons I want to get away from the 24-70), although it seems like a large majority of the third party lenses seem to be lagging way behing the 1st party lenses in that respect.
 
Photogaz said:
My new Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 HSM is spot on with focus and sharpness.
Click to expand...

Would love to see some samples (wide open), close up and at distance.

I had one and it was so bad Sigma UK advised me to get a refund (which I did..!)

Seeing a LOT of mixed stuff... mostly negative I'm afraid.
 
I'm sorely tempted to get a cheap 50mm f/1.8 for a play around, I had a play with one in a sho yesterday, and although it was built like rubbish the focus was sharp and accurate and it seemed interesting to play with. Then if I did decide I got on with it I could sell the 24-70 and get another prime....
 
Would it not be worth having it looked at by Sigma, to see if anything can be done, rather than replacing :shrug: From various threads on here in the past, Sigma seem to be very approachable ?
 
Although sharpness is one of the issues I think most of the problem is the focus, which is just part and parcel with sigma lenses (something I knew about the lens before I bought it). I'm also getting fed up with some of the features, such as the frankly stupid manual focus ring, fine in theory, but stupid in practice, it sticks out loads and it's rather big, all compounded by the fact you still need to switch the AF/MF button at the bottom, as well as pulling the focus ring down.
 
Amp34 said:
Although sharpness is one of the issues I think most of the problem is the focus, which is just part and parcel with sigma lenses (something I knew about the lens before I bought it). I'm also getting fed up with some of the features, such as the frankly stupid manual focus ring, fine in theory, but stupid in practice, it sticks out loads and it's rather big, all compounded by the fact you still need to switch the AF/MF button at the bottom, as well as pulling the focus ring down.
Click to expand...

andyred's suggestion is a good one; send the lens back to Sigma and see what they can do. They get this problem every day and some people have had their lenses transformed by a little tweak. You really need the lens to be in A1 form to sell it on.

But it seems like you've fallen out of love with it. I know what you mean, and when that happens it's time to change ;)
 
As I said before, the more I check previous images the more I think it isn't a problem with the lens as such, just that I don't like it as much any more, as you say fallen out of love with it.

How long is the Sigma warranty? And how can I check if it is still in warranty? As I don't really want to be faced with a largeish bill only to be told it is fine...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top