Sigma 24-70 2.8, experiences?

S

Stew.

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20
Name
Stew
Edit My Images
No
Has anyone experience with this lens? What are your thoughts?
 
I know there are a few version out there I had the ex DG DF (old one now) for the price I paid it was reasonable but slow to focus, heavy and with an 82mm filter size! I got some nice shots but there was some quite obvious fringing on some shots too which is why I sold it on. This info is in online reviews too. Used in right conditions I could get some lovely shots but I couldn't rely on it all the time for me....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I loved mine, quick to focus and got some great pics from it.

only think i didn't like was the noise from the motor but then again it was half the price of the HSM model so has to be expected.

i just sold it due to lack of use to another member on here, already thinking i should of kept it. oh well, 50mm f1.4 instead i think
 
i not sure which version you looking at, but i think the new HSM version is pretty good but for the price brand new i will look into a used Nikon 17-55, 28-70 or 24-70 or if you canon can look into a used L 24-70 instead.

Performance is ok and does the job but nothing exciting, the sharpness wide open could be a personal taste, third party lens always have a soft focus problem for me. How bad is it depend on which copy you got .......

Altho i don't shoot wide open at the max focal length but when i do i get very bad result .........

At the end of the day you get what you paid for ........

If you treat the lens like 24-70 f4 and use the f2.8 at last resort then it will perform very good.
 
I had one (a-mount), not bad, some fringing, colours not as nice and overall not as sharp as the Minolta 28-70/2.8G that I now use, but that's a really good lens and obviously not available for your D700 :p
 
Girlfriend has an older 28-70, it's quite loud and slow but otherwise alright.
Friend had the newest 24-70 with was a lot quieter, images she took with it always looked good.
Considering you can pick some versions up for under £200 then you can't really complain about the quality too much. Equiv Canon or Nikon lens would be 3 or 4 times the price.
 
I didn't have a very good experience from this lens, had 2 copies and the AF was pretty all over the place, didn't matter what body I used it on. When they were in focus then the photos were sharp enough, I just couldn't ensure it was going to do OK. I would personally go with the Tamron 28-75 if going budget f2.8 lens in that focal range, otherwise look at the slightly wider options designed for crop sensors.
 
Thanks for the info guys, sounds like one to stay clear of :/
I've only ever really used Nikon brand lenses, are Sigma generally always low end products? Obviously the price point would suggest so, but it isn't always the best indicator...
 
There are some really good lenses by Sigma and one that comes into the stunning category which is the Sigma 70mm f2.8. This is what the SLR Gear website says about it "...being one of the sharpest lenses we've tested to date."

Other really good lenses are the 100-300mm f4 (no longer made), 120-300mm f2.8 (OS and older non-OS version), the 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 are very good, especially the 85, and nearly all the Macro lenses perform really strongly as well.

I'm really happy with my 17-70mm f2.8-4.5, that's a good sharp piece of glass and one I will keep for my wife to use with her 500D.

So yes, you can get some good, sharp Sigma glass, but it's knowing what to look for.
 
I had a pretty old one (before the EX or DG designations came into force if I remember rightly) on my 5DII, it was a bargain and needed a bit of tweaking from Sigma, but when I got it back I was pretty happy.

It wasn't the sharpest lens wide open, but it was very usable. Stopped down I was very happy. For me the biggest annoyance was the 82mm filters, so I moved to a Tamron 28-75 so I could use my existing ones. It certainly wasn't as good as a Canon or Nikon 24-70, but for a quarter of the price it was never going to be!

In response to your last question, it's a huge 'NO'. Sigma lenses are certainly not low end products! Some are, and some aren't, much like the bigger names. The lower-end lenses like the 24-70s and the 17-50s are usually not quite as good as the bigger names, but are much cheaper. Some are better than the Canon/Nikon equivalents (the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 comes to mind straight away). Some sigma lenses don't have equivalents from the big names either (like the awesome 120-300 f/2.8).

Of course they've made some absolute shockers over the years too though, and I don't think their quality control is as good as Canon or Nikon, but it's nowhere near as bad as the internet would have you believe :D

Chris

If you need further advice that Sigma aren't just low end, have a look at one of these :D
 
mark1616 said:
There are some really good lenses by Sigma and one that comes into the stunning category which is the Sigma 70mm f2.8. This is what the SLR Gear website says about it "...being one of the sharpest lenses we've tested to date."

Other really good lenses are the 100-300mm f4 (no longer made), 120-300mm f2.8 (OS and older non-OS version), the 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 are very good, especially the 85, and nearly all the Macro lenses perform really strongly as well.

I'm really happy with my 17-70mm f2.8-4.5, that's a good sharp piece of glass and one I will keep for my wife to use with her 500D.

So yes, you can get some good, sharp Sigma glass, but it's knowing what to look for.
Click to expand...

Thats great, I'll check out the 17-70 too I think.

chris321 said:
I had a pretty old one (before the EX or DG designations came into force if I remember rightly) on my 5DII, it was a bargain and needed a bit of tweaking from Sigma, but when I got it back I was pretty happy.

It wasn't the sharpest lens wide open, but it was very usable. Stopped down I was very happy. For me the biggest annoyance was the 82mm filters, so I moved to a Tamron 28-75 so I could use my existing ones. It certainly wasn't as good as a Canon or Nikon 24-70, but for a quarter of the price it was never going to be!

In response to your last question, it's a huge 'NO'. Sigma lenses are certainly not low end products! Some are, and some aren't, much like the bigger names. The lower-end lenses like the 24-70s and the 17-50s are usually not quite as good as the bigger names, but are much cheaper. Some are better than the Canon/Nikon equivalents (the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 comes to mind straight away). Some sigma lenses don't have equivalents from the big names either (like the awesome 120-300 f/2.8).

Of course they've made some absolute shockers over the years too though, and I don't think their quality control is as good as Canon or Nikon, but it's nowhere near as bad as the internet would have you believe :D

Chris

If you need further advice that Sigma aren't just low end, have a look at one of these :D
Click to expand...

Thats cool to know, thanks. Yeah the 82mm filter fitment is gonna be a bit of a hassle if i choose Sigma.

Yeah, I've dont a bit more scouting about and there is quite a few saying the build quality is a bit poor, but i guess people are more likely to post bad experience than good in general...

haha that 200-500 2.8 is nuts!
 
I use a sigma 24-70 2.8.
I find it a nice step up from a 18-55 kit lens for the price.
Yes the build quality and optics are not up to Nikon 24-70, but it still takes great pictures.

I got mine after I picked up a bargain D2x and the 18-55 kit lens from my D50 felt a bit daft on that body.
Lens cost £220 off eBay, and pairs nicely with D2x while I save into the FF/Nikon glass fund.

If you have a spare £1000 buy used Nikon 2.8 VR I. If not then buy used sigma and save up for Nikon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top