Sigma 24-70 2.8 OS Art Initial Impressions

I hear you, your feet are the zoom's. I see that, I would return it also. Good luck. My 70-200 2.8 g2 is awesome.

Interesting that none of the big guys on youtube have yet to do a full review/comparison to Canon and Nikon.

rxjohn wrote in post #18402999
Interesting that none of the big guys on youtube have yet to do a full review/comparison to Canon and Nikon.

im waiting for this to make a decision..

rxjohn wrote in post #18402999
Interesting that none of the big guys on youtube have yet to do a full review/comparison to Canon and Nikon.

Some sharpness tests from the Lens rental people. Decent test, included 10 copies of the lens.

https://www.lensrental​s.com …-hsm-art-sharpness-tests/

John from PA wrote in post #18404101
Some sharpness tests from the Lens rental people. Decent test, included 10 copies of the lens.

https://www.lensrental​s.com …-hsm-art-sharpness-tests/

As expected. This time "Art" stands for Artchoke.
That's the moment when the marketing guys screw it all and should be fired.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18404358
As expected. This time "Art" stands for Artchoke.

I liked the wording in the review where the author felt the "F" had been left off the "Art".

CheshireCat wrote in post #18404358
As expected. This time "Art" stands for Artchoke.
That's the moment when the marketing guys screw it all and should be fired.

It's a good lens, I'd match it up to the mk2 in many ways. It's heavier and has OS which I guess is suppose to work but I wouldn't know.

Whats funny about roger is he will have other lenses being compared with about the same amount of differences and he will say "it's really splitting hairs" and such like it doesn't make much difference but for this lens he says stuff like destroys.

oh well.

saw somewhere that the Sigma is better from 50mm onwards. From 24mm towards 50mm, the performance is poorer.

but overall the CP is better, got OS!

Initial impressions suggest that this lens is overall disappointing.

Looking at the Art series for primes, 14, 20, 24, 35, 85, 135 are matching or outmatching the respective top Canikons.

This 24-70 should have been tagged "Contemporary" and be sold at a lower price similar to the 100-400 C approach. Or most would have preferred a stabilized 24-70 outmatching the IQ of the Canon ii even if sold at nearly the same price. This lens seems neither here nor there.

It seems the "Art" zooms have still a long way to go.

fplstudio wrote in post #18404554
Initial impressions suggest that this lens is overall disappointing.

Looking at the Art series for primes, 14, 20, 24, 35, 85, 135 are matching or outmatching the respective top Canikons.

This 24-70 should have been tagged "Contemporary" and be sold at a lower price similar to the 100-400 C approach. Or most would have preferred a stabilized 24-70 outmatching the IQ of the Canon ii even if sold at nearly the same price. This lens seems neither here nor there.

It seems the "Art" zooms have still a long way to go.

i don't think they'd tag any constant aperture lens as contemporary...what about the other art zooms...18-35f1.8, 24-35f2, 50-100f1.8? it doesn't sound like the 24-70OS is a bad lens, it's just not as amazing as they have lead people to expect...which is kinda crazy considering how many people still put a stigma on sigma lenses

Talley wrote in post #18404371
Whats funny about roger is he will have other lenses being compared with about the same amount of differences and he will say "it's really splitting hairs" and such like it doesn't make much difference but for this lens he says stuff like destroys.

Uhm... the lens is far from "splitting hairs" at the widest setting (which is the critical part of every 24-70/2.8 design).
Roger is disappointed simply because this lens was labeled "Art", as this is clearly a marketing move to fool people into thinking this lens has the same state-of-the-art quality as all the other Art lenses.

And about the price: for 25% more you can get the Canon zoom and peace of mind. Yes it's missing stabilization, but at this point it's a no brainer.
I expect the price of the Sigma to fall very soon.

Well. If you want OS it's this or the Tammy.

I don't think I want either. I'll probably just stick to what I got for now. I dunno.

Maybe I need to buy the mk2 and forget the stabilizer for video. I tried the 24-105 but the IQ wasn't to my taste.

Looks like I'm just screwed. I guess my only other option is to ditch canon and go Sony but their 24-70 is too big for the body and expensive.

I posed a question at Lens Rentals about tweaking of the lens prior to testing. As an FYI, the response is below.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18404616
And about the price: for 25% more you can get the Canon zoom and peace of mind. Yes it's missing stabilization, but at this point it's a no brainer.

That's what I guessed, having gone with the Canon right before this one came out. I took a chance and I'm glad I did. Same price actually, within a $1! But used of course. No regrets and I'm not missing the IS as much as I would have thought.

Not sure WHY OS is such a big deal to everyone at this focal point. Set the minimum shutter at 1/160 in your camera and use ISO. The sensors are so clean now that its a non starter point for anyone with a newer body camera. I have read the initial reports. I would not touch this 24-70 art......glad I got the L while it was on sale.