PDA

View Full Version : Sigma 24-60mm F2.8 EX DG


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10

JackProton
11th of February 2009 (Wed), 21:51
Except mine is a result of me dropping it :(

This is unfortunate. Hopefully Sigma can fix you up without too much pain.

Tee Why
12th of February 2009 (Thu), 00:03
Yup, the gravy train is over, but it was a nice sweet ride for many while it lasted.
:)

malorie_d
13th of February 2009 (Fri), 23:21
Heres a few of mine. It was pretty much glued to my cam. these are all just random things i found on my facebook from that was taken with it

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2123/87/44/503479776/n503479776_1235634_4575.jpg

http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2123/87/44/503479776/n503479776_1232221_8158.jpg

http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2123/87/44/503479776/n503479776_1232216_6999.jpg

DStanic
16th of February 2009 (Mon), 09:58
I'm defintaly keeping mine, even if I end up getting a lens like a 17-55 or something. I almost wish I had bought 2 of these. :lol:

Great walkaround lens, even better on my 35mm. Wish I had a 5D or 1Dx to put this one. :)

bauerman
16th of February 2009 (Mon), 10:28
I'm defintaly keeping mine, even if I end up getting a lens like a 17-55 or something. I almost wish I had bought 2 of these. :lol:

Great walkaround lens, even better on my 35mm. Wish I had a 5D or 1Dx to put this one. :)

Good point on the buying two of them.......should have done that myself. Could have maybe used on one my film body as well.

I'm excited to eventually get a 5D or other full frame body and actually get 24mm on the wide end - that is for sure.

DDCSD
16th of February 2009 (Mon), 12:13
There is one out of Hong Kong for $280.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-24-60mm-f-2-8-EX-DG-IF-Aspherical-Lens_W0QQitemZ170302252544QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamer a_Lenses?hash=item170302252544&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1234|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A13 18|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50

JackProton
16th of February 2009 (Mon), 12:26
The 24-60mm is still available through SIgma4Less.com for $280+shipping (approx $16.50 to the Midwest).

bauerman
16th of February 2009 (Mon), 13:00
$280???? Man I am LOVING the fact that I paid $180 for this lens. And if I ever decide to sell it.......I should get my money back and then some. (Shun the thought.)

DStanic
16th of February 2009 (Mon), 15:09
I saw a USED one at Henrys for $450 !!!

bauerman
16th of February 2009 (Mon), 15:20
I saw a USED one at Henrys for $450 !!!

The sad part of that is that someone is going to walk in there and get talked into purchasing that lens at that price.

griptape
16th of February 2009 (Mon), 15:26
The sad part of that is that someone is going to walk in there and get talked into purchasing that lens at that price.

Well... That is the retail price.

bauerman
16th of February 2009 (Mon), 20:54
Well... That is the retail price.

Retail? Who pays retail? ;)

The retail price on my SUV was like 24K.........I did not pay anywhere near that - thankfully.

I'm sure the used market for this lens will not approach $400 anytime soon luckily. I want a larger audience to have and appreciate this lens.

griptape
16th of February 2009 (Mon), 21:06
I'm sure the used market for this lens will not approach $400 anytime soon luckily.
I seriously doubt many of us will be letting ours go any time soon. I'd be surprised to see them on the used market any more than the magic drainpipe. Considering it even works on full frame, even if the next xxD is full frame (which by the way, I HIGHLY doubt), or we upgrade to the xD series, this lens can still keep up. And honestly, had I paid $400 for it, I wouldn't be disappointed.

malorie_d
16th of February 2009 (Mon), 21:38
I love mine! I use it a lot more than my 24-70L when im just walking around. Just because I take OVER care of my equip... HAH

lexi73
16th of February 2009 (Mon), 22:07
I'm defintaly keeping mine, even if I end up getting a lens like a 17-55 or something. I almost wish I had bought 2 of these.

I do have a 17-55 and i still use this lens!!! granted it does not get as much action as my 17-55 i still love this lens! glad i got it when there were many and at a good rate....don't think I'll ever let it go, It was too good of a deal to begin with.

bauerman
16th of February 2009 (Mon), 22:37
And honestly, had I paid $400 for it, I wouldn't be disappointed.

That is probably the highest compliment paid to this lens that I can remember in this thread. And I wholeheartedly agree.

Tee Why
16th of February 2009 (Mon), 22:44
I guess cheapma isn't as cheap now since it's going for $280 and up.
Glad I got mine for under $200.
:)

JackProton
17th of February 2009 (Tue), 00:11
So now its the "Sobma"?

mitsu13gman
18th of February 2009 (Wed), 15:15
Well, count me among the owners for this little gem.

My copy is front-focusing pretty aggressively (I couldn't adjust it out completely with MFA,) so it will need a trip to Sigma at some point for calibration, but otherwise it's stellar.

Attached pic was taken around 1/50s or so, f2.8.

I'm most surprised by the focusing with this lens. Granted, it's a bit off at the moment, but it achieves lock almost instantly, even in VERY poor light and low contrast situations. I would say it's actually better than my 70-200 in this regard. It's also very quick and reasonably quiet to focus.

Overall, I think this will make the perfect walk-around lens after cal. It's light enough (I really didn't want to deal with the 24-70L's weight) and fairly compact, but it's still big enough to balance out the 1D3's larger body. The Canon 35 f/2 isn't nearly as satisfactory in this regard - it really feels like you're just holding the body.

Anyway, very happy with the new (to me) toy. Hopefully I'll have some nice shots to put up soon, but for now, here's my bass guitar - I had focused on the last full fret, so you can see how far it's off...

bauerman
20th of February 2009 (Fri), 15:09
A few from the Old Idaho Penitentiary with my 24-60mm...all at f/2.8...

http://jbauer.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p964327280-5.jpg

http://jbauer.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p546259882-5.jpg

http://jbauer.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p702695255-5.jpg

http://jbauer.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p644234832-5.jpg

dow
20th of February 2009 (Fri), 15:14
A few from the Old Idaho Penitentiary with my 24-60mm...all at f/2.8...



http://jbauer.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p546259882-5.jpg





Hmmm... That's some focus test you got there. :D

Great pictures. Really thought provoking.

bauerman
20th of February 2009 (Fri), 15:17
Hmmm... That's some focus test you got there. :D

Great pictures. Really thought provoking.

Thanks - yeah a little different than the 4 Duracell's in a row on the kitchen table!

JackProton
20th of February 2009 (Fri), 17:22
Thanks - yeah a little different than the 4 Duracell's in a row on the kitchen table!

Wow! Those are really NICE shots -- very vivid and evocative.

DuraCELLS -- doh!

mitsu13gman
21st of February 2009 (Sat), 10:06
Well, after going through some bigger hoops, I was able to get the lens to calibrate.

Here's the same basic shot, with the focus fixed:

I'm extremely happy because the gentleman I spoke with at Sigma asked me to send my body in with the lens for calibration. I really didn't like the idea of sending this body to someone other than Canon, not to mention being without it for nearly a month!

Anyway, happiness ensues. Can't wait to get out and play with it today!

bauerman
21st of February 2009 (Sat), 11:51
DuraCELLS -- doh!

Nicely done Jack!

dow
21st of February 2009 (Sat), 12:37
Well, after going through some bigger hoops, I was able to get the lens to calibrate.

I'm extremely happy because the gentleman I spoke with at Sigma asked me to send my body in with the lens for calibration. I really didn't like the idea of sending this body to someone other than Canon, not to mention being without it for nearly a month!

Anyway, happiness ensues. Can't wait to get out and play with it today!
What did you do to get the lens calibrated to your camera? I know that you said that Sigma wanted you to send your body in, but you posted the first shot two days ago, and the calibrated shot today. I figure that isn't time enough to send something around the block, much less to Sigma and back. :)

Thanks.

DDCSD
21st of February 2009 (Sat), 12:39
What did you do to get the lens calibrated to your camera? I know that you said that Sigma wanted you to send your body in, but you posted the first shot two days ago, and the calibrated shot today. I figure that isn't time enough to send something around the block, much less to Sigma and back. :)

Thanks.


Exif states 1DMkIII, so I assume he used the micro-adjust.

DStanic
21st of February 2009 (Sat), 18:46
JPGS straight out of the camera (landscape picture style). As much as I want to use my other lenses, this damn thing seems to be super-glued to my camera. :p


Nice and sharp at f/2.8

344159


Tack sharp at f/4. (shot at ISO800, might have been even sharper if at lower ISO).

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3588/3298159419_6253d5f0e0_b.jpg

100% crop

344163

mitsu13gman
22nd of February 2009 (Sun), 11:35
What did you do to get the lens calibrated to your camera? I know that you said that Sigma wanted you to send your body in, but you posted the first shot two days ago, and the calibrated shot today. I figure that isn't time enough to send something around the block, much less to Sigma and back. :)

Thanks.

Derek is correct. What I found was that the single-lens adjustment in the 1D3 could not bring the front-focus within spec, but by going to the all-lenses adjustment and going from there I was successful. This was done entirely within the body - Sigma was not involved.

Mike

bauerman
2nd of March 2009 (Mon), 08:24
One week since anything was posted in this thread............need to get things going again.

From just before Christmas this year........

Canon EOS 20D, f/7.1 @ 46 mm, 1/125, ISO 100

http://jbauer.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p1046372900-4.jpg

dow
2nd of March 2009 (Mon), 08:36
AAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!

It's the icy gloves of DOOM!!!!!!!

RUN AWAY!!!!!!!

AAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Great shot :D

bauerman
2nd of March 2009 (Mon), 08:45
AAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!

It's the icy gloves of DOOM!!!!!!!

RUN AWAY!!!!!!!

AAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Great shot :D

Thanks! Dad actually got in trouble on this day for letting dear daughter get her white gloves all muddy. :(

In2Photos
12th of March 2009 (Thu), 15:21
This thread has been a little inactive. I think I'll take it to the top.

1DMKII, 60mm 1/125, f/5.6, ISO 200
http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/110000944/original.jpg

brecklundin
12th of March 2009 (Thu), 16:07
i2s:

that is a wonderful shot. How did you light it? I do see your flash fired but it looks so nicely diffused. Right now I am finally trying to understand lighting....I just really love the effect in the shot...such a "serious" look for a "serious" leetle girl...cute...I still think your avatar is still such a fun shot too.

My other reason is my best buddy's leetle boy is now officially a toddler and wobbles around on legs when seem to wiggle in all three dimensions at once...hahaha...but I am going to go visit them for a few days either this month or next and promised to take some photo's. I am actually really looking forward to it...but want to be ready as I can. Prolly will fill up 4 8GB cards and give poor Justin a flash burn!! hahahaha....

In2Photos
12th of March 2009 (Thu), 16:26
i2s:

that is a wonderful shot. How did you light it? I do see your flash fired but it looks so nicely diffused. Right now I am finally trying to understand lighting....I just really love the effect in the shot...such a "serious" look for a "serious" leetle girl...cute...I still think your avatar is still such a fun shot too.

My other reason is my best buddy's leetle boy is now officially a toddler and wobbles around on legs when seem to wiggle in all three dimensions at once...hahaha...but I am going to go visit them for a few days either this month or next and promised to take some photo's. I am actually really looking forward to it...but want to be ready as I can. Prolly will fill up 4 8GB cards and give poor Justin a flash burn!! hahahaha....

Thank you very much.

I use my 430EX and Stofen Omnibounce. I usually bounce the flash off the ceiling. The Stofen helps to throw some of that light forward and can even out some shadows as well as adding some catch lights to the eyes. Most of the time the shadows are very soft. In this shot there is more than I typically have because a bathroom is more of a confined space so I am closer to my subject. If I were further away the shadow under her chin would likely disappear completely.

If you need some tips on flash check out Curtis' Flash 101 in the lighting section. They were such a valuable resource for me when I was trying to learn flash. And practice, practice, practice!

DDCSD
12th of March 2009 (Thu), 16:56
Great shot Mike!

i2s:

that is a wonderful shot. How did you light it? I do see your flash fired but it looks so nicely diffused. Right now I am finally trying to understand lighting....I just really love the effect in the shot...such a "serious" look for a "serious" leetle girl...cute...I still think your avatar is still such a fun shot too.

My other reason is my best buddy's leetle boy is now officially a toddler and wobbles around on legs when seem to wiggle in all three dimensions at once...hahaha...but I am going to go visit them for a few days either this month or next and promised to take some photo's. I am actually really looking forward to it...but want to be ready as I can. Prolly will fill up 4 8GB cards and give poor Justin a flash burn!! hahahaha....


Here is an awesome site for using flash:
http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/

brecklundin
12th of March 2009 (Thu), 17:22
i2s:

I never though about the fact it is in an all white room. Nice idea thanks!! I have been doing a lot of experimenting as well as assembling a number of DIY diffusers and what now. So all the info I can absorb will help!! But you shot gave me a cool idea for sure!

And thanks for the reminder about the 101 lessons here in the lighting forum. I have it book marked but get so caught up on other things...easily distracted by shiny...that I forget to come back and read more. :D

DDCSD:

Thanks for the site. I have Light: Science and Magic to help me understand the theory as well as looking at lighting differently, and also visiting Strobist as well as reading here, but have not run across the site you posted....nice interesting info there too... :)

bauerman
12th of March 2009 (Thu), 19:20
Here is an awesome site for using flash:
http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/

In my opinion - the Planet Neil flash photography techniques website is where people should start. Strobist can lead people at times to ooodles of equipment they don't need or will ever use consistently.

DDCSD
12th of March 2009 (Thu), 19:49
In my opinion - the Planet Neil flash photography techniques website is where people should start. Strobist can lead people at time to ooodles of equipment they don't need or will ever use consistently.

I agree. I think that most people just want to know how to use their flash better on-camera. Figure that much,then go strobist.

I actually don't think that they are all that related. Different methods for different uses.

brecklundin
12th of March 2009 (Thu), 20:10
I read some of the Planet Neil site and it is nice. IN addition to Light: Science & Magic I also have read Peterson's Understanding Exposure and a couple of his other books as I like his style. Plant Neil is sorta similar to Peterson's books, so I like it too.

I agree that the Strobist site is mostly geared toward hardware and how to use it to fit a budget or simply because you want to make the most of the lighting gear you have access to at any given microsecond. Luckily I am the kinda DIY sorta person so that is the main thing I take away from my visits there. I read the LS&M flickr group for ideas on how to best light certain items. In fact, using my 24-60 and just some CFL trumpet style 5400k bulbs, I worked on a variation of dark-field lighting (used light bounced from beind a white panel then some shaped lighting using balck painted cardboard) for this shot:

http://brecklundin.com/POTN/misc/IMG_2611.jpg

It is not where I want it yet...I need to work on the composition more. But between the wonderful optics in my lens and the understanding I am finding from all these resources I am starting to be able to bring out the quality of my items...in this case it is a piece of Baccarat. Before the info I have gleaned I would never have been able to get a shot to relate the sorta soft/oily feel that Baccarat glassware (lead crystal) has. FYI, I added the vignetting in PP...

Ya know, I think this has me in the mood to go work on that shot some more...this time with a black background and maybe a bit more light to reflect back into the shot from the white behind the plack panel...we'll see...but to me that is the fun, it costs nothing to try it out.

Sorry this whole post is sort of OT for the thread...will stop here but just wanted to thank ya both for the info!! :D

_Craig_
16th of March 2009 (Mon), 18:11
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3466/3360466390_7c3df882cf_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3541/3361389648_36d852bd0a_o.jpg

C+C welcome as always :)


Craig

brecklundin
16th of March 2009 (Mon), 19:32
Craig,

I LOVE that second shot. Where I live in California we have coastline like yours but I can never get the shot I want. Thanks for posting the sort of shot I am hoping to be able to get someday.

The only thing for me would be a personal thing and the would be a bit better exposure for the sky but that is completely a personal preference as I bet your shot has the sky in it's proper color. I just like a deeper/richer blue is all. But that might lose a fair amount of forground detail, yes?

_Craig_
16th of March 2009 (Mon), 19:47
Thanks for the kind words.:) This was literally my first time shooting anything like this, and id only had the 24-60 for about a day beforehand.

I do agree with you on the sky, i really would like to try and get the blues a bit richer there, but like you said i was starting to lose some of the the foreground detail.
I didnt spend a lot of time on PP however so i am going to go back and do a little more tweaking.

Craig

brecklundin
16th of March 2009 (Mon), 20:00
I just peeked at the EXIF and see ya used f/5, 1/4000 & ISO800. Do you think if you dropped to somewhere between f/8-f/13ish and down to ISO100 then adjust the shutter speed you will get a nice exposure. I have found I can easily go down to 1/60th handheld with this lens. I think it being not too light and not too heavy make it easy to handhold as long as I keep those elbow in, kinda like hitting a baseball! hehehehe...

What really has been a super reference for me has been Understanding Exposure by Peterson. My skys improved so much and for some reason I don't lose much detail in darker parts of the foreground.

I don''t have a landscape I've taken using the 24-60 so I won't post the one I have from my 10-20. It was just overnight after reading the book the shots improved 1000000%. Funny too because the same info can be had here but reading it in a book made it sink in....finally!! hahaha...

Still super shot especially for the dry run!!

_Craig_
17th of March 2009 (Tue), 12:13
I just peeked at the EXIF and see ya used f/5, 1/4000 & ISO800. Do you think if you dropped to somewhere between f/8-f/13ish and down to ISO100 then adjust the shutter speed you will get a nice exposure. I have found I can easily go down to 1/60th handheld with this lens. I think it being not too light and not too heavy make it easy to handhold as long as I keep those elbow in, kinda like hitting a baseball! hehehehe...

What really has been a super reference for me has been Understanding Exposure by Peterson. My skys improved so much and for some reason I don't lose much detail in darker parts of the foreground.

I don''t have a landscape I've taken using the 24-60 so I won't post the one I have from my 10-20. It was just overnight after reading the book the shots improved 1000000%. Funny too because the same info can be had here but reading it in a book made it sink in....finally!! hahaha...

Still super shot especially for the dry run!!


Funnily enough, i just looked at the exif before coming on here and seeing your suggestion, and realised thats probably where the problem lies. Shame really, i think was focusing a bit too much on getting to grips with the lens and ended up slacking a bit when it came to concentrating on my settings. Especially when i noticed i was only using f/5!
Luckily i only live about 15 minutes away from where i took that picture so i will probably head back down at the weekend and try taking some more shots. Hopefully it will be a bit less windy this time as well.....most of my concentration was actually focused on trying to stay on my feet haha.

I also own the Peterson book and found it a great reference. It has definitely being my most valuable resource since getting more into my photography.


Craig

brecklundin
19th of March 2009 (Thu), 21:31
One of the main uses I grabbed this beauty for was to shoot product shots of our collections as well as crap we sell on eBay. Here are a couple examples using the lens on some 1:16 scale 60s era doll furniture (EXIF is intact for each shot):

http://brecklundin.com/POTN/24-60/petiteprincess-20090008.jpg http://brecklundin.com/POTN/24-60/petiteprincess-20090011.jpg

http://brecklundin.com/POTN/24-60/petiteprincess-20090002.jpg

I know these are not artistic but they are a big improvement from previous attempts at these very small pieces. So maybe someone else who is hunting a nice lens for similar shots will find them interesting. ??

ItsMike
24th of March 2009 (Tue), 00:24
Mine is in the Mail (Nikon Version) !!!

griptape
24th of March 2009 (Tue), 07:07
Mine is in the Mail (Nikon Version) !!!
Eww, gross. (Just kidding). I imagine it's the same glass (just different mount and AF system), so let us know how you like it.

brecklundin
25th of March 2009 (Wed), 15:13
Mine is in the Mail (Nikon Version) !!!

what, exactly is this "Nikon" thingy of which you write?

jon71203
28th of March 2009 (Sat), 19:15
quick question....picked up this lense about a month ago and am loving it.
i noticed today that if i point the camera (with the lense) at the floor and start to move the lense, gravity works its magic and the lense zooms all the way in on its own. is that supposed to happen??? wondering

brecklundin
28th of March 2009 (Sat), 19:26
jon:

yeah, unfortunately this lens does have "zoom creep". I find if I go below a 45-degree angle I am better off holding the zoom ring to make sure it does not happen. As long as I am using AF that's cool, but if using manual focus it's a balancing act for sure.

I am not sure if Sigma will service this or not. But I think it is just an issue with the lens.

bauerman
28th of March 2009 (Sat), 19:34
Zoom creep is not an issue that they can fix I doubt. The 24-6mm does have a zoom lock button to prevent this....

brecklundin
28th of March 2009 (Sat), 19:51
Yeah, I never have read anything about a factory "fix" for lenses with creep. But, on my 24-60 the zoom-lock only works with the lens fully retracted so it is on no use while shooting at anything by 24mm or when I have the lens stored. Not sure if your's is different?

DStanic
28th of March 2009 (Sat), 20:26
I've owned mine for about 8 months now, it's got a little bit of zoom creep but it's not bad, not enough for me to notice. Perhaps it will get worse over time, I dunno. A guy I met bought a used one from Henrys and it had zoom creep real bad (the focus ring was also quite loose).

DDCSD
28th of March 2009 (Sat), 22:19
quick question....picked up this lense about a month ago and am loving it.
i noticed today that if i point the camera (with the lense) at the floor and start to move the lense, gravity works its magic and the lense zooms all the way in on its own. is that supposed to happen??? wondering

Yep, it happens.

theyangster
7th of April 2009 (Tue), 15:06
I recently bought this lens used from a local POTN'er, I am impressed with its color reproduction

using a single umbrella and speedlight, I got these images from the weekend, I was like...wow

There should be minimal PP on these, pretty sure I only adjusted for white balance.
EXIF should be intact

Cyrix_2k
7th of April 2009 (Tue), 15:59
I still love my copy. I took with this with a CPL, but I did bump the saturation in post.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/Cyrix_2k/FtMcHenryBMW-1.jpg

brecklundin
11th of April 2009 (Sat), 16:35
boy this lens just sucks...don't ya think? I mean it cost under $1500 so no way it could be any good, right? Ask around they will all tell you as much.. ;)

Took this one today and found I need to go buy some ladybugs...I gots lots of critters living in my planter boxes!! BTW, the flower is about the size of a quarter...maybe just a bit larger.

1/500, f/5.6, ISO 100, No Flash, Zoomed to 60mm...25mph wind, just an average day around here:

brecklundin
11th of April 2009 (Sat), 16:47
here is a 100% crop and you can see the creepy-crawlies...ick!!

http://brecklundin.smugmug.com/photos/510271259_zEV7R-X2.jpg

DStanic
11th of April 2009 (Sat), 20:11
This lens really was wonderful at the wedding I did last summer

View the whole set:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dstanic/sets/72157616484956384/

39mm f.2.8
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3350/3423048064_9883459057_b.jpg

super sharp at f/4 60mm
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3550/3422236741_88df7f86d7_b.jpg

In2Photos
11th of April 2009 (Sat), 20:41
Some from a couple weeks ago at a wedding.

1/125, f/2.8, ISO1600
http://www.mdsportsphoto.com/photos/504894014_tEw6C-L.jpg

1/160, f/2.8, ISO800
http://www.mdsportsphoto.com/photos/504976569_EezhP-L.jpg

1/1250, f/2.8, ISO100
http://www.mdsportsphoto.com/photos/504975905_VwghR-L.jpg

brecklundin
11th of April 2009 (Sat), 23:10
i2p:

ha!! that last one is really creative. Love how he found his carry-out. Guess they were outta boxes? ;)

Plus look how sharp it is wide open...nice!

In2Photos
12th of April 2009 (Sun), 20:24
i2p:

ha!! that last one is really creative. Love how he found his carry-out. Guess they were outta boxes? ;)

Plus look how sharp it is wide open...nice!

Thanks! I was hoping people would "get it" without me having to explain it. :lol: When I told the bride and groom about the idea they were very cool with it.

The Sigma is very sharp. I was blown away when looking at the shots stopped down as well. The color is very good too. Overall a spectacular lens for the money!

bauerman
30th of April 2009 (Thu), 14:49
How about a little dessert?

http://jbauer.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p282456908.jpg

turbodude
4th of May 2009 (Mon), 12:54
so i assume this lens has gone up in Price. Since i cant find it anymore for the original price i paid. Anyone? Im switching to Noink and would like to purchase this lens as a back up.

bauerman
4th of May 2009 (Mon), 13:29
so i assume this lens has gone up in Price. Since i cant find it anymore for the original price i paid. Anyone? Im switching to Noink and would like to purchase this lens as a back up.

Yeah - I don't know that you are going to find it new any longer.....your best bet is going to be used through buy and sell boards or possibly KEH. And yes, I think that prices are up on the lens as it is such a good performer and supply is more scarce now......

Charliephoto
12th of May 2009 (Tue), 09:50
Hi guys, just aquired this lens used, as my name suggest i`m new to this hobby but still want to share some shots i took with it yesterday, your C&C will help me learn , so don`t be shy with it.

Charliephoto
12th of May 2009 (Tue), 12:08
Here ar a few more

In2Photos
12th of May 2009 (Tue), 12:16
slrnewbe

Your shots all appear just a little soft, the mascot being the softest. But the mascot was shot at 1/10 of a second so I would expect that. The composition of your shots could use a little work as well. Rather than shooting down on the flowers try shooting them at a lower level. This often provides us something to follow in the photo. The images also look a little flat. They need some ooomph from some post processing. One more thing, try shooting at a better time of day. Outdoor shots often looks better with early morning or late evening light (know as the golden hour). It isn't as harsh as mid day sun.

Keep at it, the best way to learn is to read up, take shots and post for critique. That is how I got started as well as many others here. :)

Charliephoto
12th of May 2009 (Tue), 12:30
slrnewbe

Your shots all appear just a little soft, the mascot being the softest. But the mascot was shot at 1/10 of a second so I would expect that. The composition of your shots could use a little work as well. Rather than shooting down on the flowers try shooting them at a lower level. This often provides us something to follow in the photo. The images also look a little flat. They need some ooomph from some post processing. One more thing, try shooting at a better time of day. Outdoor shots often looks better with early morning or late evening light (know as the golden hour). It isn't as harsh as mid day sun.

Keep at it, the best way to learn is to read up, take shots and post for critique. That is how I got started as well as many others here. :)
Thanks for the CC , much appreciated, there was almost no PP done

brecklundin
13th of May 2009 (Wed), 12:12
slrnewbie:

That flower field would be really nice if you catch the light when the shadows are longer and try as i2p suggests get closer to their level.

I live in a town once famous for flower fields, there was around 100,000 acres of them every spring as a large seed company grew here. But the best shots I remember seeing over the years were usually at something other than the "I'm standing beside a flower field" angle. Some I REALLY liked played around with the DOF so if you can get a good angle and still get close enough to see the whole field at whatever flocal length keeping it at f/4 or below (though 5.6 might work depending) then target a single bloom you might get something very nice and distinctive. Not that I have come close to such great stuff yet...hehehehe...I blame that we now are lucky if there are 200 acres of those fields every year for our, coughcough, Flower Festival. Kinda sad really...now they grow veggies under the "Better Food via Chemistry & Genetic Engineering" program {yes that is a made up name, but you get the idea... :D} from companies such as Monsanto.

Still it is getting time to try yet again...the time of day thing is hardest...I do not believe time actually exists before noon-thirty or so...it's a lie designed to mess with our brains...hehehehehe...

Jason C
13th of May 2009 (Wed), 19:28
I now miss my copy of this lens (on extended loan). I'm dying to throw it on the 1D!

bauerman
13th of May 2009 (Wed), 20:16
I now miss my copy of this lens (on extended loan). I'm dying to throw it on the 1D!

It's MADE for the 1D Jason!!!!

:D

In2Photos
13th of May 2009 (Wed), 21:39
It's MADE for the 1D Jason!!!!

:D
I'll second that!

DDCSD
13th of May 2009 (Wed), 22:36
Word. I'm finding it to be fairly flare resistant for concerts as well. It lives on my MkIIn.

http://www.derekcecilphotography.com/photos/532343739_uUx58-O-2.jpg

DDCSD
13th of May 2009 (Wed), 22:39
Tracks pretty good in low light as well.

http://www.derekcecilphotography.com/photos/524246631_Ba4X8-O.gif

dow
13th of May 2009 (Wed), 22:41
Wow, and I thought coneheads were a myth :D

brecklundin
13th of May 2009 (Wed), 22:52
DDCSD:

Those are great examples of how good this lens can me!! Of course that MkIIn helps a tiny bit also, huh? :)

bauerman
13th of May 2009 (Wed), 23:00
Wonderful concert shot - great exposure of some dramatic lighting.

DDCSD
13th of May 2009 (Wed), 23:03
DDCSD:

Those are great examples of how good this lens can me!! Of course that MkIIn helps a tiny bit also, huh? :)

It sure doesn't hurt!

I keep thinking about getting the 24-70L, but when I get such good results with my 24-60 I find many more things that I can spend my money on first.

Having this lens on a 1 series camera really brings out the best in it and makes up for it not having HSM. If it could still be had for $200, I'd recommend buying a 1dMkII and it over the 24-70. :)

DDCSD
13th of May 2009 (Wed), 23:11
Wonderful concert shot - great exposure of some dramatic lighting.

Now the credit for that definitely goes to the MkIIn. I usually shoot concerts in AV mode at -2/3 to -1 EC.

DDCSD
13th of May 2009 (Wed), 23:16
Wow, and I thought coneheads were a myth :D

He's not nearly as fierce as he looks. They're a really good band, just released their debut album on Universal Records.

Check them out. Got to speak with them a bit during the other acts that night, really nice guys.
The Veer Union (http://www.myspace.com/theveerunion)

brecklundin
13th of May 2009 (Wed), 23:18
It sure doesn't hurt!

I keep thinking about getting the 24-70L, but when I get such good results with my 24-60 I find many more things that I can spend my money on first.

Having this lens on a 1 series camera really brings out the best in it and makes up for it not having HSM. If it could still be had for $200, I'd recommend buying a 1dMkII and it over the 24-70. :)

I too have looked at "The Brick" a few times, and even used my neighbor's for an afternoon. I have to say it is a GREAT lens but the only real difference in the thing for me was the build (weather sealing and such is not to be discounted as a big plus). I got no better shots from it than my 24-60...for a grand less.

I like your idea of a Mk IIn w/24-60 over the 28-70L. Even at the current prices for whatever new stock might be floating around out there. It was a shame we did not know it was being D/C'd...I would have bought a 2nd copy new while Cameta still had them.

In2Photos
14th of May 2009 (Thu), 07:57
It sure doesn't hurt!

I keep thinking about getting the 24-70L, but when I get such good results with my 24-60 I find many more things that I can spend my money on first.

Having this lens on a 1 series camera really brings out the best in it and makes up for it not having HSM. If it could still be had for $200, I'd recommend buying a 1dMkII and it over the 24-70. :)
I can't justify the 24-70L. For the difference in price I could buy a 135L! and keep the 24-60. I will only get rid of the 24-60 if I can find a replacement that is wider and longer with similar IQ, something like 17-20 at the wide end and 75-90 on the long end. Of course, it must work with the MKII so it should be full frame compatible. I don't see one of those coming any time soon!

Charliephoto
14th of May 2009 (Thu), 11:08
Wet day today, so i`m trying another shot indoors in a effort to learn this lens & camera.

Jason C
15th of May 2009 (Fri), 00:52
It's MADE for the 1D Jason!!!!

:DThat'll teach me to loan out equipment to young aspiring photography friends of the family...It's been six months. ;)

bauerman
15th of May 2009 (Fri), 08:36
That'll teach me to loan out equipment to young aspiring photography friends of the family...It's been six months. ;)

The guy that you loaned it to is obviously just as enamored with it as you are. He's probably moved out of state by now and kidnapped it for good....

Jason C
15th of May 2009 (Fri), 12:18
The guy that you loaned it to is obviously just as enamored with it as you are. He's probably moved out of state by now and kidnapped it for good....Actually, HE is a SHE, and she has a very good photgraphic eye.

When she is not doing her teenage girl thing, she's snapn' my 10D w/24-60 like crazy.

bauerman
15th of May 2009 (Fri), 12:34
When she is not doing her teenage girl thing, she's snapn' my 10D w/24-60 like crazy.

That is some fine equipment to learn photography with - for sure.....

bric-a-brac
19th of May 2009 (Tue), 18:36
I've recently been debating selling this lens to help fund something wider. between you guys and knowing how tough it would be to get another copy once mine is out of my hands, I'm really thinking twice.

brecklundin
19th of May 2009 (Tue), 18:46
You could save a few months or so for a 10-20 it's a wonderful complement to the 24-60 for me...plus it's just a FUN lens to play with...and there is a 10-20 f/3.5 due out later this year...might be waaay cool.

http://sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3360&navigator=6

DStanic
21st of May 2009 (Thu), 16:46
You could save a few months or so for a 10-20 it's a wonderful complement to the 24-60 for me...plus it's just a FUN lens to play with...and there is a 10-20 f/3.5 due out later this year...might be waaay cool.

http://sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3360&navigator=6


That's what I have too. The 10-20 is a bargain used and I love the color/sharpness, I wouldn't bother to wait for a new version!

I had the opportunity to use a 17-55 IS for the weekend, and it's a sweet lens. If I end up buying one, I will still save my 24-60 because it is a gem and works on my 35mm (and if I ever get a 5D).

In2Photos
27th of May 2009 (Wed), 19:58
Went to the park today and got a couple shots I liked.

http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/113060320/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/113060321/original.jpg

brecklundin
30th of May 2009 (Sat), 03:33
Here are a few shots to show this can be a nice lens for product shots not just fun shots:

http://brecklundin.smugmug.com/photos/549853187_ggz5h-L.jpg

http://brecklundin.smugmug.com/photos/549852078_AAj7z-L.jpg http://brecklundin.smugmug.com/photos/549855316_m73ss-L.jpg

It really has become my most used lens. So much so, I am going to probably sell my 55-250IS in get a 70-200IS f/4 instead. Once was a time I did all my product shots with the 55-250 but the IQ on this 24-60 is so much better, anymore I never even use the 55-250 unless I am out of the house. So, why not get something a lot sharper for those times. makes sense to me anyway... ;)

Vertigo1
1st of June 2009 (Mon), 17:59
Can I ask, has anyone here sent their 24-60 into Sigma for calibration and, if so, what were your experiences?

My copy is razor sharp at f/4-5.6 and above but noticably less so at f/2.8. I've enquired with Sigma UK about calibration and they've said they can take both the lens and my body and take test shots, then send those to Sigma Japan who will return a new circuit board for them to re-test with. All sounds a bit involved but apparently it's needed on this lens as it's an older model (something about the circuitry not being programmably I believe).

Am wondering whether to send it in. Thing is, it's so sharp at f/5.6 and above I'm almost scared they'll make things worse and reduce the sharpness. If I could get f/2.8 improved without fear of losing sharpness at smaller apertures I'd jump at it.

Can anyone post some example 100% crops of the exact same subject but at f/2.8, and f/4 or f/5.6 so I can compare the difference with mine?

Cheers :)

JackProton
2nd of June 2009 (Tue), 13:33
Am wondering whether to send it in. Thing is, it's so sharp at f/5.6 and above I'm almost scared they'll make things worse and reduce the sharpness. If I could get f/2.8 improved without fear of losing sharpness at smaller apertures I'd jump at it.


That sounds typical of this lens. Its not at its very best wide open. If you're not seeing a problem with the focus being off, I'm not sure I'd bother with sending the lens in for service.

CAL Imagery
2nd of June 2009 (Tue), 20:11
I'll contribute a few from the Columbus Zoo. These are from facebook, so it's poor IQ.
http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs043.snc1/4405_868590535565_12433063_48556170_895632_n.jpg
http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v4405/28/123/12433063/n12433063_48556169_5841216.jpg
http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs043.snc1/4405_868591758115_12433063_48556220_3753920_n.jpg

brecklundin
3rd of June 2009 (Wed), 01:53
Can I ask, has anyone here sent their 24-60 into Sigma for calibration and, if so, what were your experiences?

My copy is razor sharp at f/4-5.6 and above but noticably less so at f/2.8. I've enquired with Sigma UK about calibration and they've said they can take both the lens and my body and take test shots, then send those to Sigma Japan who will return a new circuit board for them to re-test with. All sounds a bit involved but apparently it's needed on this lens as it's an older model (something about the circuitry not being programmably I believe).

Am wondering whether to send it in. Thing is, it's so sharp at f/5.6 and above I'm almost scared they'll make things worse and reduce the sharpness. If I could get f/2.8 improved without fear of losing sharpness at smaller apertures I'd jump at it.

Can anyone post some example 100% crops of the exact same subject but at f/2.8, and f/4 or f/5.6 so I can compare the difference with mine?

Cheers :)

Here is a 100% crop at f/2.8. You can see the DOF is super thin but one bit of the flower is very crisp. I was trying to get the center but it was a bit windy and the flower must have moved a bit. Still nailed the focus on that one part. And I knew the DOF was going to be super thin and got the effect I wanted:

http://brecklundin.smugmug.com/photos/553579976_4qkMB-XL.jpg

Maybe my copy is pretty good, but I am pleased with the results I get at 2.8...might not be the norm though. However, I think some don't get it that the DOF is very small wide open, so any movement at all can make this shot look soft. How about posting some of your shots to see?

brecklundin
3rd of June 2009 (Wed), 01:58
BTW, here is the full image, I knew I would want to crop it should I get the shot I wanted...but the image is exactly as I expected for a wide open shot. It's not soft but rather it's the DOF and the spacing of the flowers.

http://brecklundin.smugmug.com/photos/553586295_vsVic-XL.jpg

Vertigo1
4th of June 2009 (Thu), 02:57
Did some tests against an ISO12233 test chart. 100% centre crops, tripod with remote release, conversion from RAW with no sharpening whatsoever.

Whilst I appreciate that most lenses are softer wide open, this one seems to suffer even more than it should. It's not too bad at 24mm but at 60mm, f/2.8 is pretty much unusable unless you're going to be resizing it right down.

It's not the AF missing either as I also tried manually focusing via live view at maximum magnification and couldn't get it any sharper than the AF.

It's also underexposing slightly at f/2.8, the histograms show this very clearly.

60mm f/2.8:
http://www.iconia.org.uk/pics/sigma/60mm_f2.8.jpg

60mm f/5.6:
http://www.iconia.org.uk/pics/sigma/60mm_f5.6.jpg

60mm f/8:
http://www.iconia.org.uk/pics/sigma/60mm_f8.jpg

24mm f/2.8:
http://www.iconia.org.uk/pics/sigma/24mm_f2.8.jpg

24mm f/5.6:
http://www.iconia.org.uk/pics/sigma/24mm_f5.6.jpg

24mm f/8:
http://www.iconia.org.uk/pics/sigma/24mm_f8.jpg

brecklundin
4th of June 2009 (Thu), 03:55
bowing out...not into the grooup measurebation thing... ;) Dunna wanna get any fungus from it.

Vertigo1
4th of June 2009 (Thu), 04:03
Not quite sure what you mean by "measurebation" but I was just posting some examples to garner opinions from others on the softness of mine at f/2.8 :(

brecklundin
4th of June 2009 (Thu), 04:09
oh, man, I'm sorry, I was teasing...just to lighten the idea your's might not that sharp at 2.8...I knew what ya was doing. I don't have any tools to test so we could compare. Are there any online I can print? maybe not the exact same, but close enough that I can give it a shot tomorrow some time. it's 2Am here and I am ready to snooze. :D

As for the exposure, are you certain it is the lens and not the body? There is no exif on your shots so and ideas would be just like throwing darts at a board while blindfolded. ;)

Vertigo1
4th of June 2009 (Thu), 04:16
No worries :)

I wasn't really asking others to perform similar tests to compare - I actually took these images to send to Sigma UK and figured I'd post them here in case anyone had any opinions.

I don't think there's any doubt that mine is very soft at f/2.8 compared to some others here which look very sharp wide open, I'm more interested in whether this can be fixed by a calibration at Sigma or whether that's just the way this copy is :)

Only way I'll know for sure is by sending it in for service, which I'll do when I get back from Le Mans.

Charliephoto
4th of June 2009 (Thu), 09:42
Here is a couple with the 24-60, C&C welcome, sorry for the human distraction in the frame, but it was crazy buzy & PP is not my favourite past time :)

sinosoul
4th of June 2009 (Thu), 17:57
The Cameta deal is no longer avail. I haven't been able to find this used much anywhere. A local one is available @ $240 after "haggling". Should I pull the trigger?

Jason C
4th of June 2009 (Thu), 20:09
The Cameta deal is no longer avail. I haven't been able to find this used much anywhere. A local one is available @ $240 after "haggling". Should I pull the trigger?Canoga Camera had some new ones, but for $299.

brecklundin
4th of June 2009 (Thu), 20:46
I would rather spend $50 more on new with that 4yr warranty. No way that is not worth it, espcially if the used lens turns out to have front focus issues.

bauerman
4th of June 2009 (Thu), 21:30
The lens is easily worth $240 or $299.......so just take your pick.

brecklundin
4th of June 2009 (Thu), 22:25
gotta agree there...I actually bought mine used and am thrilled with it...

warne
7th of June 2009 (Sun), 13:58
Can I ask, has anyone here sent their 24-60 into Sigma for calibration and, if so, what were your experiences?

My copy is razor sharp at f/4-5.6 and above but noticably less so at f/2.8. I've enquired with Sigma UK about calibration and they've said they can take both the lens and my body and take test shots, then send those to Sigma Japan who will return a new circuit board for them to re-test with. All sounds a bit involved but apparently it's needed on this lens as it's an older model (something about the circuitry not being programmably I believe).

Am wondering whether to send it in. Thing is, it's so sharp at f/5.6 and above I'm almost scared they'll make things worse and reduce the sharpness. If I could get f/2.8 improved without fear of losing sharpness at smaller apertures I'd jump at it.

Can anyone post some example 100% crops of the exact same subject but at f/2.8, and f/4 or f/5.6 so I can compare the difference with mine?

Cheers :)

Had to send my back to Sigma UK for front focus issue the camera took 3 months to get back as it had to go off to Japan as you have rightly pointed out but it is now pin sharp. If you can afford to lose the lens for upto 3 months then I can assure you that the lens comes pack pin sharp.

Vertigo1
8th of June 2009 (Mon), 05:31
I could probably afford to lose the lens for a few months but not the body too. Wondering how much additional improvement I could expect from sending the body too or whether the lens alone should suffice.

liupublic
19th of June 2009 (Fri), 23:51
Sent mine in for focus issue @ CRIS service center in the Arizona. Took a little bit over 2 months. Be very careful. This is a discontinued lens with severe parts shortage. You might never see it again after you send it in service.

I still need to do some focus test to make sure that it is working now.

zelseman
22nd of June 2009 (Mon), 03:47
I just sold mine for $250, and i miss it already. I needed something more wide however. But if I ever go full frame, I am going to buy another one.

JackProton
22nd of June 2009 (Mon), 17:23
I just sold mine for $250, and i miss it already. I needed something more wide however. But if I ever go full frame, I am going to buy another one.
They appear to be discontinued now. :(

bauerman
24th of June 2009 (Wed), 10:31
They appear to be discontinued now. :(


They have been discontinued for quite some time by my estimation - not a new happening. I think that they were discontinued sometime prior to the start of Cameta's famous sale through Amazon.....

JackProton
24th of June 2009 (Wed), 11:39
They have been discontinued for quite some time by my estimation - not a new happening. I think that they were discontinued sometime prior to the start of Cameta's famous sale through Amazon.....

That may well be true though the web site only fairly recently listed it as discontinued.

bauerman
24th of June 2009 (Wed), 11:42
Cameta and maybe one other outlet were the only ones that I knew of that had new stock even a year ago. Sigma needs to make more lenses like this one - great performance and build quality in a compact form factor at an affordable price. Novel idea........

Mike Deep
24th of June 2009 (Wed), 12:32
From earlier this month...

http://mikedeep.smugmug.com/photos/572875326_nCrkL-L-1.jpg

lexi73
26th of June 2009 (Fri), 08:30
I'm glad i got mine while the price was still good! I'll be honest though, I don't use mine much at all...my 17-55 IS is used in its place 98% of the time. Even though it's not used much I have no plans on selling it. if i ever go full frame it will work great! and at only $200 its not worth trying to sell it.

keep up all the pics everyone!

Jason C
11th of July 2009 (Sat), 01:23
After a 9 month vacation, I am getting back my 24-60! I can't wait to slap it on the 1D. Pics to follow.

bauerman
11th of July 2009 (Sat), 11:03
After a 9 month vacation, I am getting back my 24-60! I can't wait to slap it on the 1D. Pics to follow.

You finally got the hostage back! Now the fun begins...........;)

Jason C
12th of July 2009 (Sun), 01:01
You finally got the hostage back! Now the fun begins...........;)Tentative hostage release date is July 17...:)

DStanic
12th of July 2009 (Sun), 09:26
Tentative hostage release date is July 17...:)

Well I hope you have fun with it on both your croppers and 1D. :)

Jason C
12th of July 2009 (Sun), 11:38
Well I hope you have fun with it on both your croppers and 1D. :)The Sigxty never really liked my 40D, but performed well on my 10D. It has yet to be mounted on my 1D, so I do look forward in using that setup.

bauerman
12th of July 2009 (Sun), 18:09
My Sixty and my 1D are in the middle of a very loving and meaningful relationship......

Cliff666
16th of July 2009 (Thu), 07:31
i am impartial to this lens i honestly dunno if i like it or not at f2.8 i used it for a dinner event, f2.8 wasnt sharp at all highly dissappointing it was effective at f5 and only was able to use f5 because i jumped the ISO to 500 in order to take a shot. =/ it does create nice bokeh but i am selling mine, i need it for portraiture work and weddings/events/ect this lens is not helpful for me. anyone interested letme know. comes w/ caps and hood no box

bric-a-brac
16th of July 2009 (Thu), 12:18
i am impartial to this lens i honestly dunno if i like it or not at f2.8 i used it for a dinner event, f2.8 wasnt sharp at all highly dissappointing it was effective at f5 and only was able to use f5 because i jumped the ISO to 500 in order to take a shot. =/ it does create nice bokeh but i am selling mine, i need it for portraiture work and weddings/events/ect this lens is not helpful for me. anyone interested letme know. comes w/ caps and hood no box

I use this lens for weddings all the time and have no arguments with it. Love it, as a matter of fact. I don't think you're going to get "razor" sharp images with any F/2.8 zoom wide open, it's just a fact of life, but I've found this lens to be more than just "acceptable" wide open.

as with any shallow depth of field, you have to be careful to make sure that you nail your point of focus. Often I've seen people accuse lenses of being slightly soft when in reality their PoF had shifted; probably not even their fault- could be a subject taking a small step back inadvertently, or the camera being left in AI Servo accidentally and catching a shoulder after the photographer focused on the eyes... it can be anything, but really, I think you need to give this lens another shot.

bauerman
17th of July 2009 (Fri), 12:04
i am impartial to this lens i honestly dunno if i like it or not at f2.8 i used it for a dinner event, f2.8 wasnt sharp at all highly dissappointing it was effective at f5 and only was able to use f5 because i jumped the ISO to 500 in order to take a shot. =/ it does create nice bokeh but i am selling mine, i need it for portraiture work and weddings/events/ect this lens is not helpful for me. anyone interested letme know. comes w/ caps and hood no box

It's kind of disconnected to state in this post that you are having trouble with the lens and not getting sharp results at f/2.8 but then the picture that is being painted in your for sale posting for the lens is at least slightly different and more about the "range does not work for you"....

DStanic
17th of July 2009 (Fri), 21:30
this lens is sharp at f/2.8, but for shooting a group or something like that it's better at f/4 (at least my copy).

bauerman
18th of July 2009 (Sat), 10:29
this lens is sharp at f/2.8, but for shooting a group or something like that it's better at f/4 (at least my copy).

That is ANY lens - not just this one. You don't normally try to shoot groups of people at f/2.8 as its too narrow of DOF. I shoot groups more around f/8 given enough available light.....

Jason C
21st of July 2009 (Tue), 01:01
Tentative hostage release date is July 17...:)Hostage negotiations fell through...
Tentative new release date; first week of August.

bauerman
21st of July 2009 (Tue), 08:26
Hostage negotiations fell through...
Tentative new release date; first week of August.

It's just going to keep slipping - I have seen it a hundred times before! ;)

DDCSD
21st of July 2009 (Tue), 12:52
Beware of Stockholm Syndrome!

Mike Deep
21st of July 2009 (Tue), 17:39
Some new shots from my trip to CNY last week.

f5.6
http://mikedeep.smugmug.com/photos/597906053_87AXD-L.jpg

f5.6
http://mikedeep.smugmug.com/photos/597907130_sqKwx-L.jpg

f8
http://mikedeep.smugmug.com/photos/597964518_dMX47-L.jpg

f5.6
http://mikedeep.smugmug.com/photos/597972393_NtgfV-L.jpg

f2.8
http://mikedeep.smugmug.com/photos/597952568_FjW7T-L.jpg

f2.8
http://mikedeep.smugmug.com/photos/597997568_BPaib-L.jpg

DDCSD
21st of July 2009 (Tue), 18:32
Nice shots Mike!

Jason C
2nd of August 2009 (Sun), 02:24
It's just going to keep slipping - I have seen it a hundred times before! ;)10D and Sigxty will be in my grubby hands tomorrow--confirmed.

bauerman
2nd of August 2009 (Sun), 10:52
The blessed reunion is on the horizon........

Jason C
2nd of August 2009 (Sun), 22:36
The Sigxty is back! I've been a busy camper today, so I have only taken images of a Wife's plant (my current 'flash' project). Real world photos to come in the future.

1D__Sigxty__f/2.8__DPP__No Sharpening added__No flash:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2536/3783071843_10bbb1e073_o.jpg
10D__Sigxty__f/2.8__DPP__No Sharpening added:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2663/3783071851_ca14496f8a_o.jpg
1D__Sigxty__f/2.8__DPP__Sharpened
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2673/3783071837_cfa7c5ec96_o.jpg
1D__Sigxty__f/18__DPP__Sharpened
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3529/3783071845_7ea2e3e06f_o.jpg
10D__Sigxty__f/11__DPP__Sharpened
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3495/3783071861_e4303c07b8_o.jpg

Mike Deep
12th of August 2009 (Wed), 21:19
I made a lightbox and intended to use my Series 1 90/2.5 macro in it, but with no hood to use on it the flare was unacceptable. So the Sigma stepped in for some test shots.

http://mikedeep.smugmug.com/photos/613309280_JWTZD-L-1.jpg

Wawrzysz
5th of September 2009 (Sat), 03:59
very good lens the 24-60, slightly soft at 2.8 very good from f4

Mike Deep
5th of September 2009 (Sat), 17:24
http://www.mikedeep.com/photos/618577139_ZTWTi-L.jpg

http://www.mikedeep.com/photos/618577285_ACjGE-L-1.jpg

http://www.mikedeep.com/photos/638435651_gVBgG-L-1.jpg

DStanic
5th of September 2009 (Sat), 22:55
The only thing I'm not liking about my lens is the zoom creep (wasn't a problem when new, but it's apparent now). So walking around I use the "lock" switch on the lens but then I have to remember to switch it back.. a pain.

Cyrix_2k
8th of September 2009 (Tue), 10:49
From DC:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/Cyrix_2k/Capital.jpg

DDCSD
8th of September 2009 (Tue), 18:18
Very cool shot Cyrix.

It would be a great addition to the "Best Night Shots" thread here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=205834

Cyrix_2k
8th of September 2009 (Tue), 20:37
Thanks, added. I love my 24-60!

DDCSD
8th of September 2009 (Tue), 22:04
Thanks, added. I love my 24-60!


Just saw them! That second shot you posted there is great as well.

DStanic
5th of December 2009 (Sat), 22:46
Just wanted to say how I'm still happy with my 24-60. It's been my work horse lens for over 2yrs now. For $220 ($300 Canadian after all the extras) it's been a great lens to me. I suppose I might consider myself lucky to own a good sharp copy. I had pre-ordered the new Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC to replace it (was not sure if I was going to sell this lens or keep it, since it would work well on full frame) but after bad reviews on the Tamron (and no return policy) I cancelled the order. I'll buy the Tamron if/when it's available in store, as long as it's $650 and I can return it if I don't like it.

I've been shooting with the 24-60 in the mean time and it has never let me down. Sure, the AF is not all that quick but it's fairly accurate. It's not the sharpest lens in the world wide open but still definatly useable (and quite sharp f/4 and above). I've used it for wedding work and it does just fine (but I got alot more keepers using the Canon 17-55 due to the IS). So I will end up keeping this lens as a backup since I sold my 18-55IS and realize it would be stupid to have just one standard zoom (if it fails).

In2Photos
23rd of December 2009 (Wed), 13:42
A recent photo. 1DMKII, 60mm, 1/125, f/3.5, ISO 800

http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/120067645/original.jpg

Mike Deep
24th of December 2009 (Thu), 01:19
Nice shot Mike! Good to see this thread back. Sorry if I go a little nuts with the pictures here.

http://www.mikedeep.com/People-and-Places/San-Antonio-TX-Nov-2009/2009112715181030D11550/729674810_iuPBh-L-1.jpg

http://www.mikedeep.com/People-and-Places/San-Antonio-TX-Nov-2009/2009112817151535021751/729677926_bzfkG-L.jpg

http://www.mikedeep.com/People-and-Places/San-Antonio-TX-Nov-2009/2009112719565830D11666/729676926_aEEyG-L.jpg

http://www.mikedeep.com/Low-Light/Bonfires/2009112800540130D11713/729115984_ty4pt-L.jpg

http://www.mikedeep.com/People-and-Places/Crazy-Unprintable-Photomerge/2009111416271535029942-29949/713998303_7nBHf-X3.jpg

http://www.mikedeep.com/Sports/2009-12-14-Powered-Paragliding/2009121417120730D13374/743708342_dUBMy-L.jpg

http://www.mikedeep.com/People-and-Places/2007-2009-Florida/2009121323084630D13185/748602173_v7VHn-L.jpg