Sigma 24-60mm F2.8 EX DG

[orinth]

There isn't an archive thread yet for this lens, so I figured I would start one.

I just got this lens last week. I haven't had a chance to shoot a ton with it, but I like this one. Straight out of the camera.

60mm f/2.8 iso800 1/250

http://chrismartin.smugmug.com/photos/207306573-L.jpg

[LightRules]

There isn't an archive thread yet for this lens, so I figured I would start one

I'm surprised it isn't in there. It's a good lens. Here's to others posting some of their pics too.

[orinth]

Random photo w/ 100% crop

60mm
f/8
1/25 s
iso800

http://chrismartin.smugmug.com/photos/211753417-L.jpg

100% crop
http://chrismartin.smugmug.com/photos/211753356-O.jpg


oh and my sisters dog
http://chrismartin.smugmug.com/photos/207416175-L.jpg

[Eagle Eye]

You all get to posting so I can compare with the 17-70! So far they look great. Kinda wish I would not have missed the 199.00 deal......

[orinth]

Apparently I'm the only person that owns this lens :P

[Mr. Clean]

You might be, which is crazy. It's an awesome lens for the price. Hard to beat. I'd love to see more samples too!

for what it's worth...

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/1146/sigma-24-60mm-f28-ex-dg-af.html

[JackProton]

Jpeg straight from camera

[JackProton]

Jpeg straight from camera

[JackProton]

More unprocessed jpegs

[angryhampster]

Unprocessed/overcompressed? :lol:

[JackProton]

Only have Irfanview on my work machine.

[Dylanlewis2000]

Just seen this for 199 too, seems awesome for the price, when you consider the canon equiv is £700 or more... any more oppinions on this lens? Is it sharp?

[Dorman]

Looks like a great optic for the price. It seems an odd focal length though

[Dylanlewis2000]

Just read a review which said optiumum sharpness was at f/22! Seems a bit low for me

[angryhampster]

Just read a review which said optiumum sharpness was at f/22! Seems a bit low for me



Perhaps on a 35mm camera. On a cropped digital it will diffract at or before f/16.

[JackProton]

Just read a review which said optiumum sharpness was at f/22! Seems a bit low for me
Optimum sharpness at f22? That's from the PopPhoto review and their tests at the minimum focusing distance. I'm not sure if this is referring to corner sharpness only or to some combination of center and corner sharpness. I also can't figure out if their test was done on a full-frame or a crop camera. Anyways, if you look at their Subjective Quality Factor charts, you'll see that the lens' best IQ is achieved around f5.6 or so. My own experience would bear this out -- f2.8 is quite usable, f4 is very, very good and f5.6 is very, very, very sharp.

[S.Horton]

.......that's nice. Very nice!

[Dylanlewis2000]

Would love to see more images from this camera, as i wouldnt mind having a lens like this... f2.8 seems too good to miss at £200 lol

[orinth]

Here are two of one of my cats, athena.

Both are f/2.8, iso1600, 60mm. No PP, straight out of the camera.

first one is 1/160s
http://chrismartin.smugmug.com/photos/220366957-L.jpg

and second one is 1/100s
http://chrismartin.smugmug.com/photos/220366971-L.jpg

[S.Horton]

^^ I find that compelling, color cast aside, because at that price, that is simply impressive.

Could be the Nifty Sixty zoom?

There could be a strong case to buy this in lieu of the kit lens.

EDIT: Orinth, request permission to repost your cat shots with cast removed and one sharpening pass applied. I'm floored. Do you always get that kind of IQ across the zoom range and f-stops?

EDIT 2: Played with most of the photos posted; this lens has a distinctive look to the images which is, IMO, amazing for $400 US. Sure, the 24-70 L is better, but the price difference is huge. Just huge.

[S.Horton]

Reviews:
http://www.photographyreview.com/mfr/sigma/35mm-zoom/PRD_323601_3128crx.aspx

[orinth]

^^ I find that compelling, color cast aside, because at that price, that is simply impressive.

Could be the Nifty Sixty zoom?

There could be a strong case to buy this in lieu of the kit lens.

EDIT: Orinth, request permission to repost your cat shots with cast removed and one sharpening pass applied. I'm floored. Do you always get that kind of IQ across the zoom range and f-stops?

EDIT 2: Played with most of the photos posted; this lens has a distinctive look to the images which is, IMO, amazing for $400 US. Sure, the 24-70 L is better, but the price difference is huge. Just huge.


go for it.

I haven't had a chance to do any PP since I RMA'ed my video card on my desktop which is where all the software is. I'm stuck with my laptop till the end of the week.

[kcbrown]

How's the low-light focusing of this lens? How's the focusing speed?

I'm also curious how it compares with the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro, since the latter is almost the same price from what I've seen...

[-spam-]

Just posting to get this in my subscribed threads. I havnt had much of a chance to use mine yet but from the few times i have, i love it. It focuses very well in lowish light too. Just has a bit of trouble keeping up with moving stuff on AI servo sometimes.

Will go and get some photos with it tomorrow for the thread.

[S.Horton]

go for it.

I haven't had a chance to do any PP since I RMA'ed my video card on my desktop which is where all the software is. I'm stuck with my laptop till the end of the week.

Rezzed the eye color a notch; I'm just shocked at the IQ of this lens at the price. Most impressive.

http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/220982657-L.jpg

[Dylanlewis2000]

Any chance of having 100% crops?

[JackProton]

How's the low-light focusing of this lens? How's the focusing speed?

Low-light focusing is very good on an XTi using the center focusing point. Focusing speed is pretty good but definitely not up to USM/HSM.


I'm also curious how it compares with the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro, since the latter is almost the same price from what I've seen...
Reviews appear to put them on par or a bit more in the 24-60's favor in terms of sharpness. The 24-60 doesn't use the clunky Sigma DF focus mechanism, has a more reasonable filter size and is smaller and lighter.

[-spam-]

Okay, as promised, a couple with the lens. Might try for a few more tomorrow.

Wide open...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2023/2010304458_d24aa44b7e_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/-spam-/2010304458/in/set-72157602240507588/)


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2102/2014011415_c8311a6850_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/-spam-/2014011415/in/set-72157602240507588/)

[-spam-]

A few more now ive started using this lens a bit more

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2343/2036387872_f305eefb7e_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/-spam-/2036387872/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2299/2036358841_bbd54b3cd6_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/-spam-/2036358841/in/photostream/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2171/2037183646_d978dccf7c_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/-spam-/2037183646/in/photostream/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2341/2037379030_6e4a20f693_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/-spam-/2037379030/in/photostream/)

[JackProton]

Nice shots -Spam-!

[mven74]

very tempting! :)

[orinth]

I take way too many pictures of my cats, especially this one because he is fat and lays around all day. This was when he was laying in the bathroom sink...

60mm, f/9, iso1600, 1/25s

http://chrismartin.smugmug.com/photos/229365084-L.jpg

[condyk]

Looks decent ... there are lots of unsung heroes in the lens world because it's only the usual suspects that get recommended, often by folks who've never owned the lens in question. £200 for a decent 2.8 is very nice. Range is pretty good too. Be nice on a 5D maybe. I assume no HSM?

[orinth]

Looks decent ... there are lots of unsung heroes in the lens world because it's only the usual suspects that get recommended, often by folks who've never owned the lens in question. £200 for a decent 2.8 is very nice. Range is pretty good too. Be nice on a 5D maybe. I assume no HSM?

No HSM, and some of us were able to pick up this lens for around $200 (£100)

[lungdoc]

No HSM but assuming it's like my 24-70 Sigma the AF is still quite fast, if slightly noisy (not enough to object to IMHO). Doesn't have full time manual focusing however.

[Dylanlewis2000]

if i could get this glass for £100 i would definatley lol

[RikWriter]

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/46639537.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/46639555.jpg

[-spam-]

Just another one from the other day

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2316/2116720668_d81c9d386f.jpg?v=0 (http://flickr.com/photos/-spam-/2116720668/)

Larger (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2116720668&size=l)

[adam8080]

I love this lens. I leave this lens on my camera about 75% of the time.
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/6154/img6123smallhr1.jpg

[S.Horton]

Is this the best zoom Sigma ever made for the Canon mount, by chance?

[RikWriter]

Is this the best zoom Sigma ever made for the Canon mount, by chance?

No. It's good though.

[-spam-]

Is this the best zoom Sigma ever made for the Canon mount, by chance?

Its good, but its not the best. Definitely an unsung hero though.

A few more shots with it for good measure.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2117/2078086412_4b70ebdda3_o.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/-spam-/2078086412/)


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2019/2067676507_226e50bb53_o.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/-spam-/2067676507/in/set-72157602240507588)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2087/2068555134_a9a5651d23_o.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/-spam-/2068555134/in/set-72157602240507588)

[S.Horton]

^^ Very nice shots!

Great perspective.

....so, what do y'all think the best Sigma zoom is (or was)?

(Considering some glass for my brother's b-day, Feb, he has the XTi)

[-spam-]

^^ Very nice shots!

Great perspective.

Thanks. Its probably the most over done photo from Melbourne, but its just so damn cool :D

....so, what do y'all think the best Sigma zoom is (or was)?

(Considering some glass for my brother's b-day, Feb, he has the XTi)

Well, i couldnt live without my 10-20. That thing is on my camera nearly all the time. The bigma and the 100-300 f4 are pretty tempting lenses too. From both the price stand point and the fact that canon doesnt really do anything to match them.

What does your brother like to shoot?

[adam8080]

....so, what do y'all think the best Sigma zoom is (or was)?
For the price, I'd probably have to say this is the best, or pretty damn close. If price was no option, there are quite a few candidates.

[S.Horton]

Thanks. Its probably the most over done photo from Melbourne, but its just so damn cool :D



Well, i couldnt live without my 10-20. That thing is on my camera nearly all the time. The bigma and the 100-300 f4 are pretty tempting lenses too. From both the price stand point and the fact that canon doesnt really do anything to match them.

What does your brother like to shoot?

He already has a 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS -- Looking to cover fast UWA for indoor work, or replace the 17-85 with a fast standard zoom.

[-spam-]

He already has a 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS -- Looking to cover fast UWA for indoor work, or replace the 17-85 with a fast standard zoom.

Hmm... the non macro sigma 18-50 2.8 would be an alright choice. Its not too pricey from amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-50mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0002P19O4/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1198128237&sr=1-2) at the moment.

Although the 10-20 would be a good lens to compliment the 17-85. Failing that, go for the 24-60 for a fast zoom and have him hold onto the 17-85 to cover the wide end for a while.

[-spam-]

First time in a while ive used this lens (been mostly my dads 100mm macro lately)

An idea that literally came to me in the shower

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2335/2161782979_e18b2438b6_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2161782979&size=l)

[-spam-]

Anyone else with this lens and some photos that they care to contribute?

[Davidoff]

What is the appeal of this lens over the 28-70mm F2.8 EX DG ? Is the range the only difference ?

[-spam-]

What is the appeal of this lens over the 28-70mm F2.8 EX DG ? Is the range the only difference ?

Its a fair bit smaller and lighter than the 24-70, dont know much about the siggy 28-70 though.

One big thing is that a few people did manage to get a good bargain on this lens (around $200 US i think)

[Davidoff]

That's a different story, great price. Sigma's page says it's 500 and something, more expensive than the 28-70 !

[-spam-]

That's a different story, great price. Sigma's page says it's 500 and something, more expensive than the 28-70 !

Have a look on Amazon.com for it. Im pretty sure thats where people a few people in the thread got theirs from for that price.

It was a shame though, the price dropped a week after i bought mine, but i still got a great deal on it so i wasnt too upset.

[LightRules]

Have a look on Amazon.com for it. Im pretty sure thats where people a few people in the thread got theirs from for that price.

It was a shame though, the price dropped a week after i bought mine, but i still got a great deal on it so i wasnt too upset.

The seller is Cameta Camera via Amazon.com. They have it currently for $240 + $12 S&H. Pretty darn cheap still.

They had it a few months back at only $190. But even now at this current price it's a steal. Very nice lens.

[kitacanon]

Any C/C with Canon's 24-85 ef? I like the constant aperture that the Canon lacks.

[-spam-]

Any C/C with Canon's 24-85 ef? I like the constant aperture that the Canon lacks.

Havnt had any experience with it, although you would probably miss the USM that the canon lens has.

Just another one from the archives

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2038/1929484344_c4d6c999e6_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/-spam-/1929484344/in/set-72157603030171999/)

[-spam-]

And a little one from this afternoon

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2397/2222018153_0950d357d9_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/-spam-/2222018153/)


And i still seem to be the only posting anything with this lens lately. Anyone else got it?

[JackProton]

And i still seem to be the only posting anything with this lens lately. Anyone else got it?
Have the lens, yes, but can't quite remember what the Sun looks like anymore and the ice on my eyelids makes it hard to see through the viewfinder.

[lookingforaname]

i'd love to see some shots. even icy shots!

[drock220]

im inching to pull the trigger on this lens for my xti. just have concerns on if its wide enough and if the reach is far enough.

[DDCSD]

It's $189 right now on Amazon (from Cameta) Mine is on its way, left NY yesterday, will post some shots when I get it.

[Trisha418]

I was debating getting the 85mm 1.8 for 100 bucks more, but this price and lens just excited me....I want to spend money, LOL..but only have so much, I am doing portrait work, and a lot of kids outdoors...i have an 18-55, nifty fifty 1.8, and the 70-300 IS...should I get this one instead of the 85? It covers the focal legnth I need, and i already have the 50mm

[musicmaster]

Ordering mine tomorrow

[JackProton]

...should I get this one instead of the 85? It covers the focal legnth I need, and i already have the 50mm
Great bokeh for portraits with the 24-60. And B&H doesn't appear to list them anymore for Canon. Get one while you can - you're saving nearly $200 on the 24-60 and when they're gone, it'll cost you a LOT more to get something similar. You're not going to see another bargain like this for quite a while. The price of the 85mm isn't going to change much and they're not going anywhere. My 2 cents as a grizzled veteran bargain hunter.

[-spam-]

I dropped mine a couple of weeks ago when i was putting it on the camera. It slipped out of my hand and fell about a meter onto hardish grass covered ground. Doesnt seem to have affected anything, so im counting myself as lucky.

And of course, i have to add another to the thread while im here

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2163/2254388880_8e923d5155_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/-spam-/2254388880/in/photostream/)


Also noticed that there wasnt a group for this lens on flickr like there is for nearly every other lens out there, so i made one here (http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma24-60/).

[orinth]

Got out and washed my bike today. Took some pics with this lens and also the 50 1.8 (will post those in that thread).

http://chrismartin.smugmug.com/photos/255175063_LPg7B-XL.jpg

http://chrismartin.smugmug.com/photos/255175060_NKWLa-L.jpg

http://chrismartin.smugmug.com/photos/255175765_vyK4M-L.jpg

http://chrismartin.smugmug.com/photos/255175802_WwjPF-L.jpg

[lookingforaname]

I just took the plunge on this, guys. Seemed like a way good bargin, and though not as wide as I was thinking (I was looking at Sig 17-70, Tam 17-50, Can 18-55 IS), I have a feeling that for the price and IQ, I'll be fine.

[e r y k]

does this lens suffer from zoom creep like the 17-70?

i have the sigma 17-70, but its not constant 2.8, so im considering scooping this up!

[DDCSD]

does this lens suffer from zoom creep like the 17-70?

i have the sigma 17-70, but its not constant 2.8, so im considering scooping this up!

Just got mine a few days ago, but I can only get it to creep if I shake the camera pretty vigorously, pointed straight down. There is a zoom lock to keep it at 24mm, but it does not lock at any other focal length.

[TeamSpeed]

After liquidating the 24-70L to free up cash, but needing a respectable lens in the same range, I was snapping some test shots this weekend. Here is my 4 year old chimping shots of her new sister, shot wide open, focused on her eyelashes.

[JackProton]

i have the sigma 17-70, but its not constant 2.8, so im considering scooping this up!

I have both the 17-70 and 24-60. They're very different lenses and its pretty handy having both -- the 17-70 for a walk-around and the 24-60 for people shots.

[eeeksNYC]

just bought the 24-60 from amazon. cant wait for the delivery.

Just a question though: how many people got *bad* copies (or those needing alignment or such) as compared to those who have *good* copies. The one thing I hear about Sigma lenses most often seems to be quality control. When they're good , they're very good. But when they're bad....

[-spam-]

just bought the 24-60 from amazon. cant wait for the delivery.

Just a question though: how many people got *bad* copies (or those needing alignment or such) as compared to those who have *good* copies.

Mine probably needs it, but only because i dropped it :rolleyes:

[DDCSD]

just bought the 24-60 from amazon. cant wait for the delivery.

Just a question though: how many people got *bad* copies (or those needing alignment or such) as compared to those who have *good* copies. The one thing I hear about Sigma lenses most often seems to be quality control. When they're good , they're very good. But when they're bad....

Mine seems great. Haven't shot any focus charts or other pointless pieces of paper, but from the around the house dabbling it seems accurate and very sharp. I thought I might be disappointed, because I shave with my 200 2.8 and 85 1.8 primes, but this thing really holds it own.

[JackProton]

just bought the 24-60 from amazon. cant wait for the delivery.

Just a question though: how many people got *bad* copies (or those needing alignment or such) as compared to those who have *good* copies. The one thing I hear about Sigma lenses most often seems to be quality control. When they're good , they're very good. But when they're bad....
Out of the box, mine was pretty soft at all apertures and focal lengths. Sent it to Sigma, they fixed a misaligned element and I got it back in one week. Its been damn near perfect since. This lens was so worth the extra hassle.

[GoHokiesGo]

Does anyone use this lens as a main walk-around?

I'm trying to decide on my first lens, and this one sounds like it's an incredible deal at $200. I'm willing to spend more, but if this one was a nice walk-around option, then I can put more money towards a 70-200/f4L sooner.

Would any of you owners recommend this as a main lens? Do you feel it has enough range to cover your typical situations?

[sadatk]

Does anyone use this lens as a main walk-around?

I'm trying to decide on my first lens, and this one sounds like it's an incredible deal at $200. I'm willing to spend more, but if this one was a nice walk-around option, then I can put more money towards a 70-200/f4L sooner.

Would any of you owners recommend this as a main lens? Do you feel it has enough range to cover your typical situations?
Put on your kit lens and take some shots with 24mm and see if you can live with that. That's the only thing that would be limiting--the 18-55 IS wouldn't be a bad choice either.

[musicmaster]

I'm using it as my walk-around lens

[GoHokiesGo]

I don't have the kit lens, but I've been borrowing my roommates 17-85, and I've tried that a few times. I used his lens this past weekend and found I didn't take a ton of shots at the wide end.

I think I'm going to take the plunge and buy it, it sounds like all of you guys have liked it and the price is too good to pass up for a constant f/2.8. I suppose I can easily sell it for the same price too if I do need to replace it down the road. It's ordered!

[bauerman]

Just picked one of these up from Amazon a few minutes ago. I was going to kick myself if and when Cameta ran out of them and they were not available for this price again. My local camera shop wants $150 for the kit lens - and this ones at $189? No brainer.

Will post some initial shots here once it arrives later this week. Cameta must have had a CRATE of these things laying around in some warehouse.

[sadatk]

The brown truck just gave me mine an hour ago. It's an absolute steal for $200. (EX quality is great--hood and case!)

Focusing doesn't touch USM, but it's not bad--generally very accurate. Sharpness wide open is pretty good and more than acceptable. (though there is a bit of softness)

Build quality is great and has a nice EX finish. It feels very sturdy though lightweight.

http://localhostr.com/files/c3d14d/_MG_7346.jpg

If I were to pick out things I don't like: lens cap very difficult to get off with hood attached. I need to get a center-pinch cap. Colors and contrast out of the camera doesn't match my 17-40L, but that's L for ya. :p (vibrance boost in PP is fine though)

[Jman13]

Mine should be here probably early next week. I'm hoping it's quite good. The bokeh looks outstanding from these sample shots, I must say...among the best from a standard zoom that I've seen.

[bauerman]

It comes with a petal shaped hood correct?

Nice sample shot sadatk - was the focus point there on the bottom part of the phone?

[bauerman]

Mine should be here probably early next week. I'm hoping it's quite good. The bokeh looks outstanding from these sample shots, I must say...among the best from a standard zoom that I've seen.

Mine should be here next week as well. Ordered it on Monday. Shipping today according to Cameta. UPS ground though - that stinks. I wish these sellers would use USPS Priority as the base shipping method.

Be sure to post some samples here when you get your lens. I will do the same.

[DDCSD]

It comes with a petal shaped hood correct?

Yep

[TeamSpeed]

The brown truck just gave me mine an hour ago. It's an absolute steal for $200. (EX quality is great--hood and case!)

Focusing doesn't touch USM, but it's not bad--generally very accurate. Sharpness wide open is pretty good and more than acceptable. (though there is a bit of softness)

Build quality is great and has a nice EX finish. It feels very sturdy though lightweight.

http://localhostr.com/files/c3d14d/_MG_7346.jpg

If I were to pick out things I don't like: lens cap very difficult to get off with hood attached. I need to get a center-pinch cap. Colors and contrast out of the camera doesn't match my 17-40L, but that's L for ya. :p (vibrance boost in PP is fine though)

+1, I agree completely with everything here, based on some weekend testing I did with mine.

That being said, there is absolutely no contender for this lens in its value class. Pretty good zoom range at a constant f/2.8, good build quality, with very respectable wide-open performance with a 4 year warranty... all for $200.

[sadatk]

It comes with a petal shaped hood correct?

Nice sample shot sadatk - was the focus point there on the bottom part of the phone?

Thanks--and yeahp, the focus point was on the bottom right corner of the black plastic on the phone.

[bauerman]

Someone in another thread suggested that this lens be coined the "Nifty Sixty"......I thought that was appropriate given the price/performance ratio.

(Although the price is going to go back to normal once Cameta stops selling them through Amazon....)

[TeamSpeed]

Someone in another thread suggested that this lens be coined the "Nifty Sixty"......I thought that was appropriate given the price/performance ratio.

(Although the price is going to go back to normal once Cameta stops selling them through Amazon....)

True, but this price has been seen several times over the last 6 months through Cameta/Amazon, so we shall see when the "goodness" ends! ;)

[bauerman]

True, but this price has been seen several times over the last 6 months through Cameta/Amazon, so we shall see when the "goodness" ends! ;)

Yes - they do seem to have a ever-expanding pool of these lenses. I was able to secure mine at $189.00 but I think that there were as low as $179.00 at one point.

[JackProton]

Yes - they do seem to have a ever-expanding pool of these lenses. I was able to secure mine at $189.00 but I think that there were as low as $179.00 at one point.
Yep, I got mine when they were first offered back in August for $179 and I was looking for something to replace the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which hadn't worked out well (cursed XT). Full-frame too and I've still got a frig full of film.

[-spam-]

Wow, its good to see this lens getting more popular. And its also nice to see more discussion in this thread too :)

For all i dont want to (because it goes against everything i stand for), i may have to do some measurebating with mine just to really make sure its okay :(

[bauerman]

Wow, its good to see this lens getting more popular. And its also nice to see more discussion in this thread too :)

For all i dont want to (because it goes against everything i stand for), i may have to do some measurebating with mine just to really make sure its okay :(

Feel free to post more pics spam - I really enjoyed yours (and everyones) earlier on in this thread. ;) I think that the lens will stand up to whatever you throw at it.

[kcbrown]

+1, I agree completely with everything here, based on some weekend testing I did with mine.

That being said, there is absolutely no contender for this lens in its value class. Pretty good zoom range at a constant f/2.8, good build quality, with very respectable wide-open performance with a 4 year warranty... all for $200.

TeamSpeed: since you have a 1DmkIII, I was wondering if you could perform a live view test of this lens. Here's what I have in mind:


Put the camera on a tripod (I'm pretty sure you have one given your gear list). Center a static subject within the viewfinder, preferably one with lots of fine detail.
Set up live view so that it will allow autofocus while in live view. With that setting, when you hit the focus button while in live view, it'll flip the mirror down, perform an autofocus operation, and when you release the focus button it'll flip the mirror back up and put you back into live view.
Select the center focus point only -- you want to be in complete control over where it focuses.
With it set up as in steps 2 and 3, activate live view, then zoom all the way into the center of the view using the same buttons you use to zoom in while viewing a picture, then autofocus on the subject.
Flip the lens into manual focus mode and attempt to make the (fully magnified) image on the screen sharper via manual focus.
If you can make the image sharper via manual focus, then you know the lens is slightly out of calibration (with your 1DmkIII you should be able to compensate for that, I think...those of us with, um, lesser cameras will have to get the lens calibrated). But if you can't make the image any sharper and the image is still slightly soft, then you know the softness is due to the optics of the lens. For the test, there's no need to fool with the aperture because you're not actually taking a picture, which means the aperture never stops down from wide open.


Be interesting to see what results you get if you're willing to do the above test...

Just as a comparison, I've found that my Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is ever so slightly soft wide open in comparison to stopped down. I think it's not so much focus as it is a slight lack of contrast. But that said, I use my 18-50 at f/2.8 all the time, so the ever so slight relative softness doesn't bother me in the least.

[ekleverich]

Hey guys,
Thanks for posting this. I have been trying to decide on a lowcost 2.8 lens and now I found it. I just ordered it, so I hope to have it in my hands in a few days:D

Eddie

[Jman13]

I'm just hoping that it's as good (or even a bit better) than my Tamron 17-50. If I didn't have two UWA options, I'd need the 17mm of the Tammy, but I find myself using my Tokina 12-24 for all wide-angle needs anyway, so it frankly doesn't matter about those last 7mm. If the 24-60 is as good or better than my 17-50, the 24-60 stays and I'll pocket the $180-$200 from selling my Tamron. :)

[TeamSpeed]

I don't believe the MKIII has the AF while in live view like the 40D. That is a feature that the 40D has over the MKIII. And the XSi will have contrast focusing during live view, something that neither the MKIII or the 40D will have. I may have time this weekend to do something close though, like just have the body do AF normally, then hit the set button and see what live view looks like.

[Gottria]

I see the price jumped up to $219 from the $189 or something. I'll wait a few weeks to see if it drops below the $200 price again.

[DDCSD]

I see the price jumped up to $219 from the $189 or something. I'll wait a few weeks to see if it drops below the $200 price again.

Might be a while, I watched it like a hawk for about the last 2 months. Almost bought it at $250, then was all the way to the checkout and backed out at $220. Couldn't stop myself at $190.

I still say its worth $220, its $370 everywhere else.

[bauerman]

While I am grateful for the pricing on the lens, I wish they would leave it be for an extended period of time. But I do agree as well - this is a $400 lens at most other legit retailers.

I don't think it was down to $189 for very long this time it seems.

[musicmaster]

While I am grateful for the pricing on the lens, I wish they would leave it be for an extended period of time. But I do agree as well - this is a $400 lens at most other legit retailers.

I don't think it was down to $189 for very long this time it seems.
It was at 189 for about a week or two

[bauerman]

Luckily I checked Amazon in that week or two...... :D

Waiting for UPS ground shipping on this thing is going to be nasty.

[Jman13]

Luckily I have a 70-200 f/4L IS and Sigma 150 macro coming tomorrow to break up the wait for this, which UPS says will be to me on Friday. ;)

[DDCSD]

Luckily I have a 70-200 f/4L IS and Sigma 150 macro coming tomorrow to break up the wait for this, which UPS says will be to me on Friday. ;)
Ha, that might just tide you over until it gets there.

[eeeksNYC]

the man in brown dropped mine off today...

woohoo...

First impressions: very beefy construction. Nice, solid feeling zoom. Handy zoom lock. Good weight when paired with an XT with grip.

Focus noise: a higher pitched whine as compared to the older Canon Arc Drive motors (think higher in pitch than the Nifty Fifty). Snappy focus lock, although not as quick as the USM focus motors. Not slow by any means.

I haven't played with it yet, but this is one test pic at maximum aperture. No PP, just conversion from RAW.

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/eeeksNYC/PhotogOnTheWeb/sigmatest1.jpg

[eeeksNYC]

just another quick one before I start dinner:

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/eeeksNYC/sigmatest2.jpg

[-spam-]

Focus noise: a higher pitched whine as compared to the older Canon Arc Drive motors (think higher in pitch than the Nifty Fifty). Snappy focus lock, although not as quick as the USM focus motors. Not slow by any means.


Higher pitched maybe, but you have to admit, no where near as loud :)

And you want sluggish AF? Try the siggie 105 macro ;):p

[eeeksNYC]

so does this look like a good copy?

[-spam-]

so does this look like a good copy?

It does to me. Im no pixel peeper though.

[DDCSD]

Looks pretty darn good to me! The second shot is focused right on the back of the car, so its hard to tell anything from it with the DOF. The first one looks very good though.

Pretty good hand-holding for 1/13 on the first shot!

[kevin92285]

Can't wait to get mine next week!

[kevinmcdade]

I got my 24-60 today! VERY nice!!! Well constructed and sold feeling. This is my first lens with constant aperature throughout the entire focal range and I love it! I took lots of test photos but nothing worth posting. The lens is a keeper!!! I don't know which one I like better; the 24-60 or the 17-70 that I received yesterday. Even though they overlap focal lengths they are two different types of lenses. Although it's not HSM, the focusing is pretty darn quick. Excellent buy at $202 shipped!!!

[Citizensmith]

Just got mine today as well. I'll have time to play tomorrow and post some pics then.

[ckgowens]

Count me in as another one that got my copy today. For $202 and change, its looking damn fine. From my initial shots, I think I got a decently sharp copy though I want to do some real world testing before I go out and sell my Tamron 17-50mm. I can probably sell that for $360-$400 and make $160+ out of the swap. I lose 7 precious millimeters @ f/2.8 on the wide end, but it won't matter as much as I have the 17-24mm range covered @ f/4 with my Canon 17-40mm L (and 17-20mm cover with my Siggy 10-20mm) and plan to upgrade to whatever Canon's entry level FF body ends up being this fall (7D/5D mk II/whatever). (And I'll be $160 closer to paying for it. ;) ) I'll post some shots with the Sigma 24-60mm tomorrow evening.

[Jman13]

Can't wait to get mine! I'll post shots tomorrow too, as I should get mine in the afternoon!

[bauerman]

Mine does not come until WEDNESDAY......you guys getting yours tomorrow all stink. You better post pics tomorrow so that I can live vicariously for the next few days.

[BEEEsH]

I have the 24-70 2.8 and I love it.

[drock220]

just got mine today, rainy day outside tho so i took some test shots in my room

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2107/2283482674_009967d6b4_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3157/2282696349_1569ffe443_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3060/2283482924_6252c04fae_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2404/2282696589_8d5d726dec_o.jpg

[-spam-]

Mine does not come until WEDNESDAY......you guys getting yours tomorrow all stink. You better post pics tomorrow so that I can live vicariously for the next few days.

Heh, i win. Ive had mine for months :p

I have the 24-70 2.8 and I love it.

The 24-60 is a different animal entirely to the 24-70. Its so much smaller and from what ive seen so far, less problematic as well.

[Sickness]

Just saw this thread and looked over at Amazon. It's at $219. I think I'll watch it for a while, see if I can grab one under $200. This looks like a good lens to replace my 28-80. Not very happy with that.

[-spam-]

Okay, finally used it for a bit today. Still love the bokeh from it

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3205/2282779803_0b27e571e9_o.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/-spam-/2282779803/)


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2061/2283567476_36f620e8ff_o.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/-spam-/2283567476/in/set-72157602240507588)

[eeeksNYC]

Its actually better than I thought with colors and contrast.

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/eeeksNYC/PhotogOnTheWeb/sigmatest3.jpg

[Dork Knight]

Aw, mine just arrived but it's faulty :sad:

I'll have to wait until Tuesday to receive a replacement.

[kevinmcdade]

Aw, mine just arrived but it's faulty :sad:

I'll have to wait until Tuesday to receive a replacement.

What's wrong with it?

[Dork Knight]

It's very stiff when zooming, when you do zoom there is a slight clunking/clicking noise - It also wont AutoFocus when you zoom :(

[bauerman]

More great samples spam and eeeksNYC - really nice ones. That stinks DK that you are having issues with the newly arrived lens, that is always a bucket of cold water. Sigma's can have some pretty stiff zooming actions, thats normal, but they should autofocus. Good luck with the replacement.

[Popper]

got mine yesterday so here's two "take a picture of whatever you can find" pics... no PP besides correcting the WB and cropping.

both at 2.8

focus on the 95 in the left corner...
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y71/LoKyBuckeye/Misc/IMG_4646.jpg

focus on front corner of the hood...
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y71/LoKyBuckeye/Misc/IMG_4641.jpg

[GoHokiesGo]

Mine just arrived this morning, it's sweet! Seems well built and hefty. AF seems a tad noisy but quick. Bokeh definitely looks sweet on the camera's LCD so far. Seems pretty sweet.

I'll post some pictures later today when I get the chance to transfer them

[GoHokiesGo]

Ok, so here was my very first shot out of the box, of the box :lol:

f/2.8 1/20s iso800 at 60mm; focus around the D/mm letters
http://lh6.google.com/JPeacott/R78ER3iTbYI/AAAAAAAAD6M/o6XAB7vdBWI/s800/IMG_1528_web.jpg

[Jman13]

Mine's here! So far, I'm quite impressed. I've just looked at pictures on the LCD, but they seem very sharp, and the build-feel is way better than my Tamron 17-50. I may just have to say good bye to my Tammy. I like the extra width but I shoot with my 12-24 most of the time when I'm shooting wide-angle anyway.

[Citizensmith]

Here's a few from me. Here it is on camera, and with its two biggest rivals in my bag.

On camera it balances really well on the 40D, it felt a little front heavy on the 400, but nothing major.

The other lenses are the 24 2.8 on the left, and the 17-40 on the right. The 24 is a great lens, very small, very light. AF wise the 24-60 does seem to be quicker and quieter. Comparing the optics will be another day. The 17-40 obviously focuses better, but is a slower lens and the lens hood is too big for a walk around. The 24-60 is slightly smaller than the 17-40 but notable heavier.

[Citizensmith]

And here are a few random shots. The lens handles well, and the photos look great, well saturated and sharp.

[lookingforaname]

You guys are making me so excited!! Mine is in transit . . . can't wait!!

There does seem to be quite the buzz on this thing. I'm still hoping I made the right decision in choosing this over the 17-85 IS and the new kit IS.

[Jman13]

Hmm...well, now I'm torn. I just did a few tests, and after originally thinking it was sharper than my Tamron 17-50, after doing some controlled tests...it's not. It's pretty darn close, but the Tamron is just a smidge sharper at all focal lengths and similar apertures. So now I'm torn....I like the build of the Sigma better, I like the bokeh of the Sigma MUCH better, but the Tamron has a little nicer range, and it's a smidge sharper and more contrasty. Now I have to decide whether that's worth the $180 I could make by selling the Tamron and keeping the Sigma. Decisions decisions.

Anyway, I'm quite impressed by the Sigma, especially for the price. Very sharp at f/2.8, good build quality, very nice feel, etc, and excellent bokeh. Arghh....upon first look, it appeared sharper than my Tamron, and I got really excited that I could get a better built lens that's way cheaper and now I'm just torn. Arghh....

Anyway, the focus isn't laser fast or super quiet, but it's adequate, and it is VERY accurate in my initial testing. It's a good size...not too big, but not too small either.


Here is a quick shot from my little testing today:

This is at 60mm, f/2.8, ISO 1600 1/125 sec. No contrast or curves tweaking at all...just export from RAW and resize (a small sharpen on the resize, but the crop is unsharpened.)

Full shot:
http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/krystin_2460.jpg

100% unsharpened crop:
http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/krystin_2460_crop.jpg

[kcbrown]

Hmm...well, now I'm torn. I just did a few tests, and after originally thinking it was sharper than my Tamron 17-50, after doing some controlled tests...it's not. It's pretty darn close, but the Tamron is just a smidge sharper at all focal lengths and similar apertures. So now I'm torn....I like the build of the Sigma better, I like the bokeh of the Sigma MUCH better, but the Tamron has a little nicer range, and it's a smidge sharper and more contrasty. Now I have to decide whether that's worth the $180 I could make by selling the Tamron and keeping the Sigma. Decisions decisions.


Well, let's see. Here are the Sigma's disadvantages:
Sharpness close, but not quite as good, as the Tamron 17-50
Not quite as contrasty as the Tamron
Doesn't go quite as wide as the TamronHere are the Tamron's disadvantages:
Build quality
Bokeh
PriceOf the Sigma's disadvantages, two of them can be compensated for in postproduction, and the sharpness of the shot you posted is still very, very good, I think, so for sharpness, at least, you won't have to do much. I suspect you won't have to do much on the contrast, either. The last, range, isn't really something you can compensate for in post. So that means the Tamron has one solid advantage.

Of the Tamron's disadvantages, none of them can be compensated for except maybe bokeh, and that would probably take quite a bit of work compared with a simple USM pass and contrast adjustment.

Looks to me like the Sigma wins. Given the above, and given the wide-open sharpness you showed, I'd certainly go with the Sigma.

But that's just me. :)



Anyway, the focus isn't laser fast or super quiet, but it's adequate, and it is VERY accurate in my initial testing. It's a good size...not too big, but not too small either.
There's one test you should probably perform: a very low light focus accuracy test. The Tamron reportedly doesn't like to focus in low light. It would be interesting to compare the Tamron with the Sigma. If the Sigma wins that one then I'd say it's a clear winner, given the above. If the Tamron wins that one, then it becomes more of a toss-up.

[TeamSpeed]

I like the lens, and I am coming off a 24-70L.

The problem with a close up of a newborn... the baby acne!

[Jman13]

Well...more tests. The sharpness difference between the 24-60 and the Tamron 17-50 becomes greater the more distant the subject.

Here are two shots, both taken at the longest end (60mm and 50mm respectively) at f/2.8. These are 100% crops, unsharpened, straight conversions from RAW. You can see the contrast advantage and the sharpness advantage in the Tamron. You can also see that the Sigma's bokeh is clearly superior.

Arghh.... very tough choice to make between these two.

Sigma 24-60 @ 60mm f/2.8:
Center crop:
http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/sigmachar1.jpg
Bokeh:
http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/sigmacharbokeh.jpg

Tamron 17-50 @ 50mm f/2.8:
Center crop:
http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/tamronchar1.jpg
Bokeh:
http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/tamroncharbokeh.jpg

[TeamSpeed]

I think you might also be seeing the fact that the sigma does not let in quite as much light, exposure is not quite the same, at least in my opinion. I noticed this same thing when I compared the 24-70L to the Sigma. The sigma, at the same exact settings, would consistently yield a bit "darker" images. I had to bump up EC to +1/3 or +2/3 with the Sigma. Not sure though, it might just be my inexperience in comparing like lenses.

[-spam-]

It's very stiff when zooming, when you do zoom there is a slight clunking/clicking noise - It also wont AutoFocus when you zoom :(

Thats a bummer dude. First ive heard of one being a dud like that :(

Ok, so here was my very first shot out of the box, of the box :lol:

f/2.8 1/20s iso800 at 60mm; focus around the D/mm letters


Nice. It looks sharper than mine does.

Hmm...well, now I'm torn.

I reckon, if you can afford to keep the tamron as well, keep it. Even though i have the 10-20 for the wide end, i have still thought of getting a 17-50 or sigma 18.50 2.8

Just sometimes the 24-60 isnt wide enough for a walk around and the 10-20 is too wide.

[kcbrown]

Sigma 24-60 @ 60mm f/2.8:
Center crop:
http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/sigmachar1.jpg


Hmm...there's a green fringe around the lettering that doesn't show in the Tamron shot. Is that fringe really there or is that an artifact of the lens?

[Citizensmith]

yeah, it could be that its CA you are seeing and not really a change in sharpness. The Tamron shot is definitely cleaner though either way. You may want to try the same test on something with less contrast.

[DDCSD]

Jordan, since you have the Tammy still, maybe send the 24-60 into Sigma for calibration. Might bring the sharpness up to the Tammy's level.

[JackProton]

You can see the contrast advantage and the sharpness advantage in the Tamron.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find the Tamron might be a bit sharper at f2.8 though, from (dimming) memory, I wouldn't say that the contrast I'm seeing from the Sigma is noticeably different from what I got with the Tamron under typical conditions.

[kcbrown]

Jordan, since you have the Tammy still, maybe send the 24-60 into Sigma for calibration. Might bring the sharpness up to the Tammy's level.

I wouldn't do that until you do a focus chart test, though (the one here: http://focustestchart.com/chart.html). I'd send it in for calibration only if it's consistently backfocusing or frontfocusing.

[LightRules]

All I can say is, having used the 24-60EX f2.8, that for $200, it's a better value than the 50 f1.8. Not the absolute sharpest in the lot, but a freakingly good deal.

[kcbrown]

All I can say is, having used the 24-60EX f2.8, that for $200, it's a better value than the 50 f1.8. Not the absolute sharpest in the lot, but a freakingly good deal.

I don't suppose you've written up any tests of this lens and put it on your site, have you? I don't see any but I might be missing it somehow...

[LightRules]

I don't suppose you've written up any tests of this lens and put it on your site, have you? I don't see any but I might be missing it somehow...

No I did not put up any results from this lens even though I had the lens in my possession for a few weeks. I may have some test shots in my hard drive where I keep all the files from every test, but I don't recall off the top of my head. But I did have the 2460EX and 2470EX concurrently and recall they were comparable with the edge to the 2470EX in sharpness but similar in color and contrast. But the 2460EX is a bargain at this price.

[Jman13]

I plan on taking the 24-60 out for a spin tomorrow, and I'll see how it performs in real life shooting. I shoot a lot at f/2.8, so if the performance there isn't up to snuff, I'll just stick with the Tamron and move along. No harm no foul. I'm doing a major shakeup, and the first two were slam dunks (Sigma 150 and 70-200 f/4L IS.)

I will say that for the price, it is certainly one heck of a lens. It just so happens that the Tamron has some seriously sharp optics. I just wish the bokeh was nicer. Honestly, that's the big thing that's keeping the Sigma firmly in the running here.

Oh, and by the way, I used my grill as a test subject for all my new lenses vs. the old (Tamron 17-50, Sigma 24-60, Canon 135L, Sigma 150 macro, Canon 70-200 f/4L IS). Guess which one showed the best sharpness, contrast and overall image quality? If you said the 135L, you'd be wrong...

[DDCSD]

I plan on taking the 24-60 out for a spin tomorrow, and I'll see how it performs in real life shooting. I shoot a lot at f/2.8, so if the performance there isn't up to snuff, I'll just stick with the Tamron and move along. No harm no foul. I'm doing a major shakeup, and the first two were slam dunks (Sigma 150 and 70-200 f/4L IS.)

I will say that for the price, it is certainly one heck of a lens. It just so happens that the Tamron has some seriously sharp optics. I just wish the bokeh was nicer. Honestly, that's the big thing that's keeping the Sigma firmly in the running here.

Oh, and by the way, I used my grill as a test subject for all my new lenses vs. the old (Tamron 17-50, Sigma 24-60, Canon 135L, Sigma 150 macro, Canon 70-200 f/4L IS). Guess which one showed the best sharpness, contrast and overall image quality? If you said the 135L, you'd be wrong...

The 150 macro?

[kcbrown]

I will say that for the price, it is certainly one heck of a lens. It just so happens that the Tamron has some seriously sharp optics. I just wish the bokeh was nicer. Honestly, that's the big thing that's keeping the Sigma firmly in the running here.


I was actually expecting the optical quality at f/2.8 to be similar to that of the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC Macro, a lens that I find to be tack sharp at f/4 and very sharp at f/2.8. You'd have to ship me your grill if you wanted me to take comparable test pics of it, though. :)



Oh, and by the way, I used my grill as a test subject for all my new lenses vs. the old (Tamron 17-50, Sigma 24-60, Canon 135L, Sigma 150 macro, Canon 70-200 f/4L IS). Guess which one showed the best sharpness, contrast and overall image quality? If you said the 135L, you'd be wrong...Actually, my guess would be the 70-200 f/4L IS. From what I've read, that thing is as sharp as a prime throughout the focal length range.