Sigma 24-70 f2.8 - X-ordered-X - Arrived !!

Jelster

Jelster

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,986
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
OK, so I haven't seen one yet, let alone actually put one on the camera to get an idea of what it was like, but the reports & reviews were so good I decided to go down the Sigma route.

Most UK places were asking £275'ish, but on 1 Stop Digital it was just £219, including delivery which seemed a bargain (some UK places wanted over £300 !!). I ordered it on Sunday morning and it was despatched yesterday, so hopefully it will be here by the weekend.

When it arrives I'll do some test shots and give it a quick review, but I'd like to run it next to the Canon at some point to see how the image quality compares. It's big and heavy, and I'm not looking forward to purchasing a couple of 78mm filters either; but if it's as good as I've read then I'll be happy.....

I really can't get on with the 18-55 EF-S that came with my 350D, it just seems so noisy and soft when I use it on the 40D. So that will have a home on the 350D as a camera for the Mrs (although it doesn't seem as bad on the 350...) and I may even contemplate selling it on as a kit to pay for something else.

I'll stick some shots up here when it arrives - I'm just looking forward to playing with it now.

Steve
 
I recently bought the 24-60 F2.8 and think it's fantastic.

Have fun with it. :)
 
Jelster said:
OK, so I haven't seen one yet, let alone actually put one on the camera to get an idea of what it was like, but the reports & reviews were so good I decided to go down the Sigma route.

Most UK places were asking £275'ish, but on 1 Stop Digital it was just £219, including delivery which seemed a bargain (some UK places wanted over £300 !!). I ordered it on Sunday morning and it was despatched yesterday, so hopefully it will be here by the weekend.

When it arrives I'll do some test shots and give it a quick review, but I'd like to run it next to the Canon at some point to see how the image quality compares. It's big and heavy, and I'm not looking forward to purchasing a couple of 78mm filters either; but if it's as good as I've read then I'll be happy.....

I really can't get on with the 18-55 EF-S that came with my 350D, it just seems so noisy and soft when I use it on the 40D. So that will have a home on the 350D as a camera for the Mrs (although it doesn't seem as bad on the 350...) and I may even contemplate selling it on as a kit to pay for something else.

I'll stick some shots up here when it arrives - I'm just looking forward to playing with it now.

Steve
Click to expand...

For the money a good quality lens but brace yourself - its a 82 mm filter not 78mm ;) - I've swapped to the Cokin system now so i only have to buy adapter rings
 
The 24-60mm seems to edge the 24-70 for IQ in testing - i had the Sigma 24-70 for 18 months and never had any complaints about its performance, just a tad heavy for a holiday walkaround lens but thats the price you pay for f2.8!
 
I find it to be a nice lite lens to carry around my salf and the IQ is top notch your love the lens m8:thumbs:
 
The image quality is indifferent in comparison with the Canon 24-70. In fact, I would even go as far as saying the Sigma wins.

But the canon beats the Sigma in every other place - build quality, weatherproofing, looks, autofocus speed.

I recently got the 24-60, and I'm very pleased with it, so I hope you will be with your purchase :)
 
You should get it well before weekend.. there mega fast normally

Jelster said:
but I'd like to run it next to the Canon at some point to see how the image quality compares.
Click to expand...

It doesn't.. I have had all manner of simga lenses and none compare to a canon L on a canon body... just my opinion but I have tried both :) I still ahve my sigma 70-200 and wouldnt swap that for a canon..

the trouble with sigma lenses is its hit and miss getting a good one.. if you get a good one then your winning.. but theres more bad ones about :(

make sure you test it in all apertures taking a picture of somehting like a brick wall... look for it being very soft to one side or the other..
 
KIPAX said:
It doesn't.. I have had all manner of simga lenses and none compare to a canon L on a canon body... just my opinion but I have tried both :) I still ahve my sigma 70-200 and wouldnt swap that for a canon..
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand here.
Are you saying that Canon L are better?
Because you then go on to imply that the sigma 70-200 beats the canon 70-200 hands down :thinking:
 
foodpoison said:
Not sure I understand here.
Are you saying that Canon L are better?
Because you then go on to imply that the sigma 70-200 beats the canon 70-200 hands down :thinking:
Click to expand...

no i dont.. i say i wouldnt swap mine... the sigma 70-200 is so good its not worth the swap for the little difference... the sigma 24-70 to canon 24-70 was well worth it as was the sigma 17-?? cant remember :) to canon 17-40 was even more worth it and the sigma 120-300 to canon 300 was well worth it.. all my sigma to canon L easy peasy well worth it..

just saying the sigma 70-200 which i consider to be the best sigma lens i ever had isnt worth the swap... which backs up the rest of my post stating if you get a good one then.... :)
 
KIPAX said:
no i dont.. i say i wouldnt swap mine... the sigma 70-200 is so good its not worth the swap for the little difference... the sigma 24-70 to canon 24-70 was well worth it as was the sigma 17-?? cant remember :) to canon 17-40 was even more worth it and the sigma 120-300 to canon 300 was well worth it.. all my sigma to canon L easy peasy well worth it..

just saying the sigma 70-200 which i consider to be the best sigma lens i ever had isnt worth the swap... which backs up the rest of my post stating if you get a good one then.... :)
Click to expand...

I should hope there is a big difference as the sigma 24-70 is approx £244.00 where as the canon 24-70 l is approx £746.00.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
I should hope there is a big difference as the sigma 24-70 is approx £244.00 where as the canon 24-70 l is approx £746.00.
Click to expand...

That's just the point... It is said that the image quality on a "good" Sigma is equal to, if not better than the Canon. However, as Kipax goes on to explain, the quality control at Sigma is not as good, so you may get a good one, but you may also get one that isn't as good as the Canon.

What the additional £500 gets you is better quality control as you can rely on all of the Canons being of a very similar standard. It also gets you better weather sealing and arguably better build quality.

I don't know whether it's worth the £500 difference though - that's like an additional 200% more.

Steve
 
Just picked it up from the post office depot - not as big & heavy as I expected.... Have to go out with Mrs Jelster this morning but I'll get some pictures up before the end of the day.

Steve
 
I have the same lens and love it, it never comes of my camera now.:D
 
I just got the canon 24-70.

Not had time to use it just yet, got it for 665 from Kerso and will get another 50£ cash back.

The lens is very heavy, very well constructed and the focusing is incredibly quiet.

I was recommended the sigma lens, but I decided on something proven as I didnt like the talk of "getting a good copy".... also Sigma didnt buy the license for the AF and instead reverse engineered it.. therefore it can have problems with some canon bodies. (so I read somewhere)
 
LadyLens said:
Will be really interested to see how you get on with this lens. My Nikon Kit lens is the much loved 18-70, but at some point would love to upgrade that to the f2.8 version [24-70], but a Nikon one is over £1000 :eek:
Click to expand...

Remember, it's only as good as the Canon version, not the Nikon. ;)
 
Jamougha said:
Remember, it's only as good as the Canon version, not the Nikon. ;)
Click to expand...

:lol: Of course!


However, IS the Nikon Version FOUR Times better in IQ, seeing as its some four times more expensive? :suspect: I suspect not somehow.... as has already been said, Sigmas problems are QC - so far I have been lucky, 2 Sigma lenses, 2 that made it with some build quality, so I suppose I shuld be wary of third time unlucky! :bonk:
 
Great lens, big, heavy and a real looker, I love my one and it takes pretty good images too, you will love it I'm sure ;)
 
LadyLens said:
Will be really interested to see how you get on with this lens. My Nikon Kit lens is the much loved 18-70, but at some point would love to upgrade that to the f2.8 version [24-70], but a Nikon one is over £1000 :eek:
Click to expand...

Almost every photo in this set was taken with the sigma 24-70: http://www.msphotography.net/nnwedd08/index.html

I love the lens to bits, its sharp even at f/2.8, at f/5.6 to f/11 i can't tell the difference between it and my 50mm. AF isn't perfect, but i hardly ever have a problem with it as i use the 50mm in very low light. Better value than the nifty fifty imo.
 
LadyLens said:
:lol: Of course!


However, IS the Nikon Version FOUR Times better in IQ, seeing as its some four times more expensive? :suspect: I suspect not somehow.... as has already been said, Sigmas problems are QC - so far I have been lucky, 2 Sigma lenses, 2 that made it with some build quality, so I suppose I shuld be wary of third time unlucky! :bonk:
Click to expand...

Well if you want the same IQ as the Nikkor 24-70 then you can get it with the 16-85 VR. No, not joking; have a look at the tests on photozone.de, and others get the same results. There are obviously a lot of other trade-offs between the two, but not all of them go in favour of the 24-70.

I doubt that the cost, weight and inconvenience of the Nikkor 24-70 is justified for many amateurs. For pros I'm certain it is. That's why there's pro gear and amateur gear. :)
 
At the end of the day the Sigma beats both the canon & Nikon hands down in price. So to me Sigma is the winner and no matter how you look at it all so the Sigma IQ is just as good as the Canon and some say better. But I cant say that not used the Canon and I dont know about the Nikon.

Thats just my input bang for buck with IQ to match Sigma for the win
:thumbs:
 
I hear such positive things about this lens that I am seriously considering it. I did have the Nikon 17-55 2.8 in mind but this would save a fair bit of cash to put towards a 70-200 2.8

Does any nikon owners have both the sigma 24-70 and nikon 17-55 with any thoughts?
 
:| Had one hated it took it back..could have been bad copy I guess but soft as butter wide open did like the build quality and feel of it though.
 
Not had a lot of time to do much with these, but here's a sample. All taken hand held at Richmond Park earlier today.

IMG_33211.jpg



IMG_3317.jpg



IMG_3230.jpg



IMG_32021.jpg


Edit: This one is at 24mm, not 70.....

I hope to do a "brick wall" test tomorrow.
 
I'd been thinking about this lens for my D80, then read your post and thought that's it i'm having one. My only concern is the amount you can read about the quality control. Is it really just a case of pot luck, or are they generally good, but with the odd bad one. The bad ones being the ones that people post more about? Hope that makes sense:thinking:
 
I think they are all great lenses ive got a 24-70 and 70-200 f 2.8 and a 50-500 and take some great shots with them. Got all three for the price of just one nikon.

But must say would love to have all nikon to go with my d300-just makes sense doesnt it to have the same make-but damn that would cost me about £4000
 
hate to say it but the shots do look quite soft to me :shrug:
 
olv said:
hate to say it but the shots do look quite soft to me :shrug:
Click to expand...

That's because Jelster has used a **** ton of compression in the jpeg conversion and because the light on the day sucked. It has nothing to do with the lens. If you can see a difference in sharpness between two lenses on an image downsized to 800x700 then one of them is certainly defective.

To get a feel for the absolute quality of the lens we would need a low-compression, full sized shot at f/2.8 with the edges and corners in focus.
 
Well I haven't had a good play with it yet, but here's another from yesterdays walk around Richmond park.

This is a 100% crop, taken from the RAW file, no sharpening but I have played with the levels a bit.

Fern2.jpg


F6.3, 1/250 sec at 45mm, ISO 200.

I don't think that's soft....

Steve
 
I did this the othere day as above cracking lens and sharp to me only edit was the color picking thats it
Sorry Jelster not trying to jack ure thred just trying to input on it

1-1.jpg
 
I've had the Sigma for about a year now.:thumbs:
(I had to send the first one back, due to it being to soft though!)

It is a cracking lens, but I will upgrade to the Canon when I can afford it.
(Btw it also hunts quite a bit in low light...:thumbsdown:)

Spence
 
There will always be those who will not be in favour of a certain lens or lens brand that goes with-out saying but it's the try 1st before you buy if you can, but of course you have it now :thumbs: and the majority on most forums rate this Lens very highly and it's been around for along time now. Now that you have it i hope it rewards you as it has for me with some very nice shots :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top