new sigma 24/70 f 2.8 EX IF DG HSM

puddleduck said:
With you two guys both sending them for adjustment, and me getting a refund.... hmm!

Not heard from anyone with a good one yet!

The price of these has tumbled (less than £550 from HK) so if they can be made good, its a bargain..
Click to expand...


other than the focus issue on my 5dmk2 (fine on my 20D) its a great sharp lens. could be a problem with the 5dmk2 as I've seen several other accounts of significant front focus with them.
 
POAH said:
not on your nelly does the tamron 28-75 outperform the sigam 24-70 HSM :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Would love to see some evidence for that - if folks are going to use :cuckoo: icons I really would hope they can back this up...

You can't though.. your lens is off for adjustment isn't it ;)
 
puddleduck said:
Would love to see some evidence for that - if folks are going to use :cuckoo: icons I really would hope they can back this up...

You can't though.. your lens is off for adjustment isn't it ;)
Click to expand...


no, my lens is does not focus on the 5dmk2 100% of the time but does on the 20D, the lens shows sharp in focus areas. I've no problem sending my lens to sigma to get it corrected. you've not heard of the problems with the 24-70 L lens then. The tamron is a decent lens just not as sharp as the new sigma 24-70 HSM.

all of the shots I've posted are sharp

3414308277_8ac3816aa5_o.jpg


eyes1s.jpg
 
my tamron 28-75 was many good things (espesh the price) but it weren't sharp, however I use primes a lot and the only zoom I have used so far that competes is my 80-200L (the only L glass I have ever used)
 
I don't shoot everything at f2.8 but it does show you how sharp and how well the sigma resolves the detail when used on a 5dmk2

shot on a D60 the lens won't have to resolve as much as it would on the 5Dmk2

note the review http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/418-tamron_2875_28_5d

like I said I'm not saying its a bad lens, its been shown to be sharp on a APS-C format camera but its not good enough for a 5Dmk2.


puddleduck said:
f/8 :lol:

This is a Tamron 28-75 wide open straight from the camera..

http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/LensTests/CSC_2966.JPG

Have you used a Tamron 28-75 as you seem very convinced that 24-70 is better.. but the evidence in the thread isn't convincing..
Click to expand...
 
malla1962 said:
Think I would rather have my 24-70L thanks.:D
Click to expand...


me too.... though I still have to test my new baby:p

edit:

Quick test shot at 70mm f2.8. Please click the pic for large image. Middle flower is the focus point.

 
Just wanted to dig this thread up from the dead and see if people have had any better experiences 6 months on?...
 
Ted said:
Just wanted to dig this thread up from the dead and see if people have had any better experiences 6 months on?...
Click to expand...

Still rubbish.

Tried one on my Sony A900 recently - junk.

Photozone telleth the truth.

"On our FX test camera, the lens did not really show impressive performance, however on DX the results are a lot more solid and convincing."

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/475-sigma_ex_2470_28_hsm_dx?start=2

Two out of two :gag:

I've used these on the D700 and Sony A900 now, and the lens stinks. Sigma put in HSM, but forgot its all about the optics IMHO.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Maybe it'll be the push Canon need to finally release a 24-70L IS to try and distance themselves from Sigma again. Good as the Canon undoubtedly is, I still baulk at spending around £1k on a walkabout lens which doesn't have IS.
Click to expand...

buy a sony and the zeiss 24-70 if IF is soooo important to you - how did you cope with no IS on lenses
 
shows what it is like on a nikon not the sony. no problems with mine on my
5D2 - optics are different to the non HSM and the lens is better

puddleduck said:
Still rubbish.

Tried one on my Sony A900 recently - junk.

Photozone telleth the truth.

"On our FX test camera, the lens did not really show impressive performance, however on DX the results are a lot more solid and convincing."

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/475-sigma_ex_2470_28_hsm_dx?start=2

Two out of two :gag:

I've used these on the D700 and Sony A900 now, and the lens stinks. Sigma put in HSM, but forgot its all about the optics IMHO.
Click to expand...
 
POAH said:
buy a sony and the zeiss 24-70 if IF is soooo important to you - how did you cope with no IS on lenses
Click to expand...

What's with the attitude!?

I never said I *need* IS, merely that I find it hard to justify spending four figures on a 24-70L which lacks it, especially when the cheaper 24-105L has it.

It's desirable, not a necessity.
 
Vertigo1 said:
What's with the attitude!?

I never said I *need* IS, merely that I find it hard to justify spending four figures on a 24-70L which lacks it, especially when the cheaper 24-105L has it.

It's desirable, not a necessity.
Click to expand...


the cheaper 24-105 is an F4 lens not an f2.8 lens. the 24-105 is also newer than 24-70 f2.8 (which does not have a great QC history).
 
Vertigo1 said:
What's with the attitude!?

I never said I *need* IS, merely that I find it hard to justify spending four figures on a 24-70L which lacks it, especially when the cheaper 24-105L has it.

It's desirable, not a necessity.
Click to expand...

There's a reason why the 24-70 cost more, even when its older, not IS and shorter range.

A stop of light, built quality, and picture quality.

Not to mention why most Wedding photographers prefer the 24-70 over the 24-105. If the 24-105 can cut it, and its cheaper, they'd ALL be using it instead and the 24-70 would never sell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top