Ok, I think I missed something...

[ShutteringFocus]

Go to B&H and check out the sigma 24-70 2.8 EX Macro http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=350973&is=REG verses the 24-60 2.8 NONMACRO http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=332388&is=REG

Is it just me or does the NON macro version have a closer focusing distance than the macro version?

The non macro says 15 inches...but the macro version says 1.3 feet?????

Hows that work?

[tommykjensen]

Hmm that sounds ok to me.

As far as I know one feet is approx 30 cm, one inch is 2,5 cm.

15 inch ~ 38 cm
1.3 feet ~ 39 cm

[ShutteringFocus]

Ok, so that's not including Macro mode then?

1 and almost a half of a foot isnt too macro is it?

Another question...there is a Macro and a non macro version of the 24-70 2.8 lens right? Because B&H offers a Macro version...but on adorama it never says anything about macro...just 24-70 2.8 EX DG DF

[tommykjensen]

To be honest I don't know much about macro, I just did the calculations for You ;-)

[PacAce]

Focusing distance isn't everything. You have to consider the actual magnification and the 24-70 gives you more than the 24-60 (1:3.8 vs 1:5.8, respecitively).

[roanjohn]

At the long end of the zoom, the 70mm will still get you closer then the 60mm ;-)

Ro1

[Jon]

"Macro", in almost every zoom out there, is misapplied to anything that gets to about 1:10 reproduction ratio (1/10 life-size on the sensor). The only exceptions I can think of are the old Vivitar 90-180 Series 1 and a Nikon of about the same range, which got down to 1:2 reproduction ratio, and I think is also out of production.