Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG DF on the D Rebel?

[Sam North]

I was wondering if anyone here was using the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF on the D Rebel/300D, or had any thoughts on this Sigma lens or how it handles on the 300D body.

I know that it falls behind the L glass, but I know of several pros who use it at mid-apertures without any problems.

Good forum!

Sam

[PaulB]

If a lens of f2.8 maximum aperture is only really usable when stopped down to "mid-apertures" why do you intend to pay the asking price for it?
I know it is brighter for viewing, but only that advantage................it seems perverse to me.
Now you know why L lenses cost more than Sigma EX Aspherical DG DF lenses.

[Sam North]

Hello Paul

Thanks for the reply.

No, not really perverse...

I can't afford L glass - that's a main concern I have. I've done quite a bit of spending: a £20,000 car, an £1100 computer, £400 worth of software, £900 camera... You get the picture. This lens with Hoya filter costs £360, the Canon wuld cost me almost twice that.

Some of the pros I'm referring to prefer to use middle apertures on this lens to optimise results, but most agree it's acceptable quality generally.

Another issue is the range - 24-70 with image sensor cropping is useful to me for landscape photography. It's what I'm used to with 35mm.

Finally, a decent zoom partly gets around the problem of lens-changing and getting dust and dirt on the sensor.

Sam

[Cadwell]

There are many reasons why Canon "L" lenses cost more. Optical quality is one of them, badge snobbery is another...

[PaulB]

Cadwell,
It is not badge snobbery at all - it is pure necessity. I NEED the best lenses (note: not would LIKE) to work with.
A lens is just a tool and if you work with any tool all the time it pays to buy the best you can.
Also lenses will outlast the current crop of DSLRs - I hope to be still using my L lenses on my 1D MkV in 2010!
My 300/2.8L is around ten years old and still gives stunning images (even if it doesn't look like new anymore!), will a Sigma XYZ still work as well after ten years of been well used?

Sam,
I understand the finance part of it - all too well.
But bear in mind what I have replied to Cadwell (above).
And given the problems with earlier (not much earlier - under a year old) Sigma lenses with the latest Canon bodies, can you be sure that the Sigma lens you buy today will even work with a Canon DSLR brought out next year? The answer is NO.
As Sigma reverse-engineer the lens mount and electronics to get their lenses to work on Canon bodies they are always playing catch-up and coming from behind, however good the 'bangs for bucks' I could not take that chance.

[Cadwell]

Cadwell,
It is not badge snobbery at all - it is pure necessity. I NEED the best lenses (note: not would LIKE) to work with.
A lens is just a tool and if you work with any tool all the time it pays to buy the best you can.
Also lenses will outlast the current crop of DSLRs - I hope to be still using my L lenses on my 1D MkV in 2010!
My 300/2.8L is around ten years old and still gives stunning images (even if it doesn't look like new anymore!), will a Sigma XYZ still work as well after ten years of been well used?



Perhaps not in your case, Paul, but in a lot of cases I think it might well be. This is something that Canon know well. After all, why make the lenses visually different if the "badge" isn't important? The little red ring... no technical reason for that, is there? Doesn't make the slightest difference to the quality of photo... same way the spoiler on the back of my car is only really any use as a handle to open the boot (trunk) with, doesn't produce a pounds worth of downforce.

I haven't seen comparative MTBFs for the "L" series and the high end Sigmas... it would be interesting to do so... mind you, given the fact that you can sometimes buy three of the Sigmas for the price of the comparative Canon "L" series, does that really matter too much? If the Sigma breaks just buy another one.... same argument goes for future camera compatibility.

Don't get me wrong here. I have some "L" series glass... but I question MY motives for buying it as much as anyones....

[Belmondo]

My two experiences with Sigma lenses were less than satisfactory. In one case, it was an ERROR 99 message, and the other, it was the complete inability to autofocus ---a lot of hunting, but no focus. On the contrary, I’ve bought several Canon lenses, and never had one that failed to function properly, first time, every time, directly out of the box.

Having purged that little outburst from my system, it seems only fair that I should moderate my remarks by pointing out that there are many among us who’ve had just the opposite experience. They love their Sigma lenses and take absolutely brilliant photos with them. The 24-70 appears to be one of those that are most loved by their owners.

In spite of my experience with Sigma so far, I’m not yet prepared to burn my bridges. I still would be willing to try one that looked interesting, especially some of their longer versions. I also must confess a certain fascination with the 12-24. I’d love to try one of those for a few days.

To Sigma’s credit, they have been very good about re-chipping older lenses to keep them compatible with Canon’s interface changes, so that would not scare me away. They’re certainly worth a look, and if they do the job, it does re-kindle the question, “Is Canon really worth that much more?” Guess it all depends.

Thos.

[kahfluie]

While I don't have a Digital Rebel... I received my Sigma 24-709 f2.8 last week. I really had to think long and hard about it because I had read good and bad, and the "bad" made me wonder if it was worth it. I couldnt afford "L" glass. I'm glad I got the Sigma. Maybe I received a good copy, but it has worked really well on my 10D. No regrets or complaints on my end. Would I trade it in for "L" glass... sure.

I will say that the sigma 24-70 does hunt a lot under low lighting conditions.... lots of people don't like the dual focus (switch AND pull the focus ring back). It is kind of awkward... but it really doesnt bother me once I get in the groove. I like the lens. As I said before, it's done very well for me. People also complain about softness at both ends... I haven't had that problem... even wide open. Colors come out sharp... and the focus is good. I haven't had to do much post processing on any shots using either of my sigma lenses.

Now the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 - that is a beast I am very proud of!! :D

You can read some reviews on the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=97&sort=7&thecat=29

[Tom W]

Cadwell,
It is not badge snobbery at all - it is pure necessity. I NEED the best lenses (note: not would LIKE) to work with.
A lens is just a tool and if you work with any tool all the time it pays to buy the best you can.
Also lenses will outlast the current crop of DSLRs - I hope to be still using my L lenses on my 1D MkV in 2010!
My 300/2.8L is around ten years old and still gives stunning images (even if it doesn't look like new anymore!), will a Sigma XYZ still work as well after ten years of been well used?



Perhaps not in your case, Paul, but in a lot of cases I think it might well be. This is something that Canon know well. After all, why make the lenses visually different if the "badge" isn't important? The little red ring... no technical reason for that, is there? Doesn't make the slightest difference to the quality of photo... same way the spoiler on the back of my car is only really any use as a handle to open the boot (trunk) with, doesn't produce a pounds worth of downforce.

Well, as an identifier, it does serve a purpose. I'd hate to plop down the $$$ for "L" glass and get something else. At least with the red stripe, I know what I've got.

Of course, two of my lenses have gold USM stripes, one has no stripe, one is a Sigma, and only one has a red stripe (and it isn't the most expensive in the catalog by any stretch).

As for the spoiler, you just aren't driving fast enough. :D

I haven't seen comparative MTBFs for the "L" series and the high end Sigmas... it would be interesting to do so... mind you, given the fact that you can sometimes buy three of the Sigmas for the price of the comparative Canon "L" series, does that really matter too much? If the Sigma breaks just buy another one.... same argument goes for future camera compatibility.

I think that there are a few very good Sigma lenses that come real close to Canon's top glass. Most of them are priced quite well - 1/2 to 2/3 the price of their "L" counterpart. If I didn't think they were at least somewhat reliable, I wouldn't have one. Price notwithstanding, if I can't keep the lenses for a long period of time, they aren't worth their price. There's high-end Canon glass for older manual focus cameras that still commands premium dollar. That's worth consideration as well.

Don't get me wrong here. I have some "L" series glass... but I question MY motives for buying it as much as anyones....

I have one "L" lens as well, and I have no regrets about purchasing it. It is a fine lens, capable of producing pictures well beyond my capabilities.

[Cadwell]

As for the spoiler, you just aren't driving fast enough. :D


Probably true :lol: but then my car can't quite hit 150mph even with a tail wind (I've tried) so downforce isn't gonna do me much good anyway ;)

[Tom W]

As for the spoiler, you just aren't driving fast enough. :D


Probably true :lol: but then my car can't quite hit 150mph even with a tail wind (I've tried) so downforce isn't gonna do me much good anyway ;)

I have to retract my statement - you are driving fast enough - barely... :D

[Sam North]

I’ve used a Sigma lens before – the 28-70mm f2.8. I’ve had it for about 7 years. It won’t work continuously on the 300D without being re-chipped. I might get this lens done anyway. It’s been through the wars but works perfectly. As a dedicated amateur I found it to be noisy, but well constructed and surprisingly sharp. In fact, it’s the main reason why the 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG DF really interests me, apart from the 24mm end with the 1.6x cropping. The only thing I didn’t like about it was the lack of resistance from the focus ring – the exact opposite, I hear, to the 24-70! It was so bad I had piece of tape stuck to the lens cap to use if the camera was pointing up or down.

Paul, L-glass would be best for the photographer who NEEDS critical sharpness. However, I’ve found sharpness to be a relative term these days, now that we have intelligent sharpening techniques available in programs like Photoshop and PHOTO-PAINT. A poor lens will lack more than sharpness, that’s true, but a lens like either of those mentioned above, with subtle use of image-editing software and sharpening software, will deliver excellent prints not dissimilar to L-glass. But I understand why a pro will need the best he can afford. And there’s no doubt that some elitist-minded folks just don’t make the photographic grade but feel good about the L-glass on their pro cameras!

Sigma has been making lenses for quite some time now and they know that their latest “new-standard zoom lens” will be, for many, a useful alternative to the Nikon/Canon versions. In fact, Sigma say the 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG DF got 95% in a test by a well-known and respected UK photography magazine.

I like your approach to this Thos! I for one am prepared to give it a go and keep it on my 300D for a few years to come.

Sam




http://azone.clubsnap.org/home/links/reviews/sigma24-70/index.html

http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Zoom/Sigma,24-70mm,f-2.8,EX,Aspherical,DG,DF/PRD_88759_3128crx.aspx

[PaulB]

Cadwell,
With that badge as an avatar I would have thought that you knew that aerodynamics do make a difference at slow speeds and really begin to make a difference at 60mph.

Sam,
I need sharpness out of the camera, I don't have time to spend more hours than necessary tweaking pictures which are 'almost there', (I will if I have to but would rather not have to), not when there might be 300/400 of them! In my experience Sigma make some excellent, some good, some passable and some not so good lenses - sadly mostly they vary like that within the production run of the same lens, or so it has seemed to me when I have tried to buy one (I really, really wanted to buy a 15-30mm but the early samples I tried were not up to it for sharpness, contrast or colour rendition compared to my 28-70/2.8L - I bought a 16-35/2.8L instead (I still want to try a 12-24mm Sigma though, when I can find one, perhaps at Focus 2004?).

As for MTF comparisons try here:

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

[Sam North]

Thanks for the link Paul - very interesting and it puts the 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG DF just about where I would expect it to be.

You're right about the need to get results without tweaking - an impossible scenario when you've a mountain of images to get through. However, I don't and I do enjoy wringing the best out of my shots. I'm used to the quality of my prime 35mm f2 ("3.50 (4) = good") so the "3.32 (3) = good" with the Sigma will keep me more or less where I'm at without the extra changing of lenses that soils the 300D sensor.

I'm not entirely convinced by the arguments for shooting and editing RAW (see my site) but either way my workflow is relaxed and fruitful.

When digital SLR cameras really get their wings (3-4 years time?) and if I'm not kicking up the dasies, I'll have saved up for a better one, and pro L glass too, ideally the Canon EF 2.8 24-70mm USM L.

I've read around and concluded that Sigma's wider zooms left too much to be desired.

Sam

http://www.theimageplane.net

[Cadwell]

Cadwell,
With that badge as an avatar I would have thought that you knew that aerodynamics do make a difference at slow speeds and really begin to make a difference at 60mph.


Absolutley. I am also aware that very few road car spoilers have any beneficial aerodynamic properties whatsoever, mine included.