sigma 24-70mm as a walkaround

[alexknudsen]

I have the 300d rebel, and im looking to get a new lense

is the sigma 24-70mm a good walkaround lens???

[El Duderino]

Personally, I don't think it's wide enough on a Rebel.

[LightRules]

I have the 300d rebel, and im looking to get a new lense

is the sigma 24-70mm a good walkaround lens???

Fine lens but may not be wide enough on your 1.6x. If you have the kit lens, set it at 24mm and don't allow yourself to go below. See if you're okay with that focal length as a starting point. If so, it's a nice lens. Otherwise, look at some of the wider options.

[4x4rock]

I used it as my walkaround on my 20D for almost 2 years. As everyone said, it's not wide enough but I didn't find it as a limitation. In fact, I used the tele end more often than the wide.

While walk around, the range I mostly used was probably in the 50-70mm.

[shybull]

I have this lens and I'm very happy with the image quality but it is a little big and heavy. I also have the Sigma 10-20mm and which one I use depends on where I'm walking and what I'm photographing. I also have the Canon 70-200 f4 IS so I'm covered from 10-200. If you don't mind carrying a little weight it's a very good walk around lens.

[angryhampster]

It's my normal walkaround. I do not consider it to be heavy.

[ed rader]

I have this lens and I'm very happy with the image quality but it is a little big and heavy. I also have the Sigma 10-20mm and which one I use depends on where I'm walking and what I'm photographing. I also have the Canon 70-200 f4 IS so I'm covered from 10-200. If you don't mind carrying a little weight it's a very good walk around lens.


the sigma weighs about the same as the canon 24-105L and 17-55 IS and is significantly lighter (1/2 lb) than the canon 24-70L.

ed rader

[Hellashot]

The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 does better from the test I've seen, plus far more people use and talk about the Tamron than the Sigma.

[Layston]

I personally love my Sigma 24-70. As far as theTamron - I disagree with Hellashot (no offense) - I don't think more people use the Tamron necessarily. However, I would say that 28mm would DEFINITELY not be wide enough for me on my XT.

I debated long and hard about getting a "better" 18-XX than the kit lens. Then I went and used ExposurePlot and looked at the actual focal lengths I was using. I found that even though I thought I needed wide, I was shooting around 50mm a lot. I still wouldn't want to be restricted the a minimum of 28 on the XT, but the 24 has been pretty good.

I think the Sigma 24-70 is an excellent walk around lens, but I also wouldn't like it as much if I didn't have the grip. The lens is big and the grip helps stabilize things. Hope that helps....

[Hellashot]

As far as theTamron - I disagree with Hellashot (no offense) - I don't think more people use the Tamron necessarily.

I rarely hear people asking about a Sigma 24-60/70 but they ask so much more about the Tamron. Sorry.

[Chad McCan]

The Tamron 17-50 is the choice here. On a 1.6x crop body, the 24-70 is too wide. I had 2 of them, and they were sharp, but failed to focus in low light.

[asylumxl]

i find 24-70 a good range personally, but horses for courses and all that. like a previous poster said, set your kitlens to 24mm and see if you find it a limitation.

[Layston]

Personally, I made a conscious decision to buy only lenses that were full frame compatible. It's a personal restriction and I don't expect anyone else to agree with my choice. However, I still shoot film and enjoy doing so. Because of this, I don't want lenses laying around that can't be used on my film cameras. Also, some day (when I win the lottery) I want a full frame DSLR so spending the money now on crop only lenses like the Tamron 17-50, the Sigma 18-50 or the Canon 17-55 IS didn't seem approriate.

That being said, I've been very tempted by the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and some of the ultra-wides (Sigma 10-20, Tamron 11-18, Tokina 12-24) but have resisted...

If you don't care about FF compatibilty, I'd jump at the Tamron 17-50. Or if you aren't as concerned about the constant 2.8, the Sigma 17-70 gets rave reviews.....

[ed rader]

I rarely hear people asking about a Sigma 24-60/70 but they ask so much more about the Tamron. Sorry.

yeah i agree that the tamron is a more popular lens.

ed rader

[RikWriter]

I found the Sigma 24-70 to be a very nice lens, and I think it would make a good walkaround. If you don't think it would be wide enough, you might consider the Sigma 17-70 instead.

[thekid24]

As far as the Sigma brand goes I do not know, but as for the focal range I like my 24-70L and its on my camera 100% of the time.

I see some say that for a 'walk-around' lens it has to be wide, why? Not sure, maybe 'walkaround' is supposed to cover a good portion of the focal length, again not sure why that is.

I try to associate 'walk-around' as being able to hadle conditions, namely light.
Anything from WALKing into a museum/low lit area to ever changing cloud coverage.

Like it was wisely suggested, keep the kit lens on 24mm and see if you like it. If you tend to go wide then 24 isnt for you.:D

Good luck:)

[ed rader]

As far as the Sigma brand goes I do not know, but as for the focal range I like my 24-70L and its on my camera 100% of the time.

I see some say that for a 'walk-around' lens it has to be wide, why? Not sure, maybe 'walkaround' is supposed to cover a good portion of the focal length, again not sure why that is.

I try to associate 'walk-around' as being able to hadle conditions, namely light.
Anything from WALKing into a museum/low lit area to ever changing cloud coverage.

Like it was wisely suggested, keep the kit lens on 24mm and see if you like it. If you tend to go wide then 24 isnt for you.:D

Good luck:)


yeah i agree. when i hear someone say "24mm isn't wide enough on a crop camera" i used to scratch my head and wonder if they have a DSLR.

but i've heard that so many times over the years i usually scratch a bit lower now ;) .

ed rader

[thekid24]

yeah i agree. when i hear someone say "24mm isn't wide enough on a crop camera" i used to scratch my head and wonder if they have a DSLR.

but i've heard that so many times over the years i usually scratch a bit lower now ;) .

ed rader
LMAO....just make sure you clean your hands.

But yeah I dont know I guess its the age of EF-S when the option to go wider is there. Even though I have used the canon 10-22, and it was nice, there were way more shots that I wished I had more reach on my lens.

*scratches low*
Dang gotta go:p

[LightRules]

yeah i agree. when i hear someone say "24mm isn't wide enough on a crop camera" i used to scratch my head and wonder if they have a DSLR

Yeah, of course you're right: Canon's best selling "standard zoom" lens is their 38mm-112mm.

[ed rader]

LMAO....just make sure you clean your hands.

But yeah I dont know I guess its the age of EF-S when the option to go wider is there. Even though I have used the canon 10-22, and it was nice, there were way more shots that I wished I had more reach on my lens.

*scratches low*
Dang gotta go:p

the problem with an UWA lens, imo, is after you've taken a shot or two you're stuck with a very short lens on your camera. unless of course you like shooting in that range or you're doing nothing but landscapes.

there's times i'd like more WA than 24mm (5d) but not much more and not often enough to carry an UWA lens with me.

i've already figured out that if the lens i have on my camera is close enough i won't switch lenses back and forth for a shot or two, and i'll bet the majority of UWA lenses don't get used that much :D .

ed rader

[condyk]

I think the best all around lens that isn't to pricey is the Sigma 17-70mm, but that assumes you want to shoot stuff like buildings where you need wider much of the time. I had the Tamron and the 24-70mm Sigma and both are fine but neither is wide enough and so you really need a widey in the bag to cover their ass when necessary ;-)

[thekid24]

Well I didnt want to get the thread off track byt geting on the topic of 'when 24mm used to be wide enough':p

Some think 24 isnt wide enough
Some think it is.

Its purely suggestive at this point.
To the O.P., if youre still on the line at this point, you can always pull out around $60 or so from the 'new lens' fund/save up to rent the lens and see. Always better than puttin all eggs in one basket without have a proverbial basket:p

[Master Mason]

I was seriously looking at this lens, when I was needing to justify the cost to my wife. Now that she is about to become the ex wife, I no longer needed to justify a thing to her and bought the canon version.


I did the walk around for a day with nothing lower than 24 thing, and found little to anything that I really felt handicapped with. And I still have the 18-xx either in the kit or the sigma I have, so if I needed it, I still have it.

At some point will probably pick up a UWA, but I think this is a great walk around range for me.

And the only complaint I ever really heard was the motor was noisy. Appearently some folks get soft copies, but sigma is really good at fixing them from everything I had read.

[angryhampster]

Keep in mind than thousands and thousands more people got good copies than soft copies ;)

The AF motor is a bit noisy, but you get used to it and don't even think about it after a while.

[alexknudsen]

so should i go with the 17-70mm is it as good quality wise?? is it more money???

[angryhampster]

so should i go with the 17-70mm is it as good quality wise?? is it more money???



it's slower and the build isn't as sturdy. The choice is yours :)

[scott stokes]

I have used the tamron 28-75 for 2yrs on my 10d and 30d and loved it.the tamron has been on my 30d untill recently and i got a very good deal on the canon 24-70 from a friend i hope to pick it up next week.

[jrjphoto]

I'd say 24-70 might be too long for your camera on the short end, so I'd say go with the wider 17-70mm as a walkaround. However, the 17-70 has a variable aperture of f/2.8-4.5 so if you can live with your shots getting darker as you zoom in, then go for it. Otherwise, I'd say consider the Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L USM. And here's why:

I had the same dilemma at one point and I considered the following lenses:

Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L USM ($1200)
Sigma 24-70 EX DG MACRO ($600)

My research showed time and again that you get what you pay for and though it has a nice price tag, the Sigma was inferior to the Canon in both build and image quality.

However, I didn't have $1200 on me at the time. Also, I knew that my 20D offered a 1.6x FOV crop factor which would push the focal length past walkaround and into portrait. Not a bad thing, but also not nearly wide enough for what I would want the lens I'd buy to facilitate. A change in options was needed.

17mm seemed appropriate as that would become near 24mm on my 20D. Therefore, I considered the following:

Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L USM ($700)
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM ($1000)
Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 DC MACRO ($590)

Again, my research nixxed the Sigma as being inferior to either Canon lens. So it was down to the two Canons.

Do I need IS for anything?
No, I shoot mostly bright outdoors, studio strobe lit and low-light sports, each of which could not use IS.

That f/2.8 sounds pretty good, though.
Yeah, but it's an EF-S mount and my next camera will either be a 5D or a 1-series, neither of which utilize EF-S and I don't want to invest in a technology that I won't be using during the next ten years. My 20D's shutter will probably last another two years and I expect to replace it before then with another body.

Besides, the EF-S is STILL A CONSUMER LENS and suffers from the plastic build and an image quality that certainly is not as good as the L lens I'm also looking it. Plus, it's more expensive because of the wider aperture and IS function.

I'm thinking I'd get more mileage out of the 17-40 f/4 L USM. It's better built, has superior image quality, is durable, lets in enough light to hand hold in an ambient-lit room at ISO 800 and it'll do just fine with certain styles of portraiture at the short end. Plus, it's pretty cheap for a pro lens and very much within my price range.

So, I went with the 17-40 f/4 L USM lens as my general purpose lens and have been so impressed that I've decided to never buy another consumer general purpose lens. Ever. Never ever.

Does this mean I won't buy a sweet little fisheye lens from a Russian manufacturer?
Not at all. In fact, I already own one.

What about a LensBaby?
Are you kidding? Those things are super sweet and I want one!

But, these a specialty lenses, not general purpose lenses. General purpose lenses don't leave the camera bag and sometimes don't dismount the camera for days on end. Therefore my general purpose lenses are all Canon L-series. They're simply better lenses, and that's it.

However, altthough you do get what you pay for, there's nothing wrong with living within your means and buying what you can afford. It's why I went with the 17-40 rather than the 24-70, ultimately. It's also the same process that led me to decide on the 70-200 f/2.8 rather than the more expensive, IS-enabled younger brother.

Sigma is pretty darn good and though not as great as Canon, still sees a lot of professional use. So if I didn't need to worry about image quality (because I make giant prints) I'd go with the Sigma and save some beans, deffinately. Then I'd go to Red Lobster with the money I saved... :)