Views On The Sigma 24-70 2.8

Hi,
I'm going traveling soon and want a decent fast zoom. Idealy I'd take a Canon 24-70 F2.8, but I just don't have £1K to drop on a lens.

So I came across the Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG Macro. Same credentials as the Canon, but for half the price... but there aren't too many reviews out there for it, more are for its brother the HSM version.

http://www.warehouseex​press.com …o-lens-canon-fit/p1005263

Anyone have any experience with this lens? Maybe with Samples?
Do you think it's a viable upgrade to my 28-135?

Thanks for all the input!

i have it right now.... very good lens... and its definitely an upgrade to your 28-135mm..... my only grief with the lens is that its not wide enough on crop at 24mm.... but if 28mm was wide enough for you then your all set with this lens. Even the AF speed everyone knocks on about this lens....not true... its plenty fast.... but its not as quite as HSM.

Depending on your copy, you might get a good one.

This lens is know for it's terrible focusing.
If locked spot on, wide open, at 70, it's usable.

I've brought my copy in for service 3 times, and each time was for softness wide open, and at 70.
Every time it come cabl. It's still soft, and back/front focuses still.

The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG EX Macro has been a fan favorite for years. Its the only other 24-70mm f/2.8 out there that comes in at an affordable price. (The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, while remarkably sharp, is 28mm to begin with so its not the same in my book.)

The HSM version is a big upgrade from the older "Macro" version but also comes in at 2x the price.

Getting the 24-70 Macro you won't be disappointed, by the IQ.

But I have to ask, you've got the 7D w/ the 28-135IS kit lens and the Nifty50. 24mm vs. 28mm isn't an EARTH-Shattering difference. Its a big difference to be sure, but not as much as a 17-50 f/2.8 will give you. If I was in your shoes I'd look at either the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, or if thats too much money get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (or f/2.8 VC). Either will offer a better walk-around/normal zoom range than the 24-70. And in a pinch you'd still have the 28-135IS to cover longer FL's. If you get the 24-70 you aren't really giving yourself much new focal range to explore... its only 4mm wider than what you have now.

The 17mm starting point of the 17-50's and 17-55's (there is good reason I didn't mention the Sigma 18-50 or the Tokina 16-50 - they are both inferior to the Tamron, which is to say FAR inferior to the Canon) gives you about a 28mm equivalent on FF - thats wide enough to use indoors in tighter quarters.

nureality wrote in post #9462453
The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG EX Macro has been a fan favorite for years. Its the only other 24-70mm f/2.8 out there that comes in at an affordable price. (The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, while remarkably sharp, is 28mm to begin with so its not the same in my book.)

The HSM version is a big upgrade from the older "Macro" version but also comes in at 2x the price.

Getting the 24-70 Macro you won't be disappointed, by the IQ.

But I have to ask, you've got the 7D w/ the 28-135IS kit lens and the Nifty50. 24mm vs. 28mm isn't an EARTH-Shattering difference. Its a big difference to be sure, but not as much as a 17-50 f/2.8 will give you. If I was in your shoes I'd look at either the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, or if thats too much money get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (or f/2.8 VC). Either will offer a better walk-around/normal zoom range than the 24-70. And in a pinch you'd still have the 28-135IS to cover longer FL's. If you get the 24-70 you aren't really giving yourself much new focal range to explore... its only 4mm wider than what you have now.

The 17mm starting point of the 17-50's and 17-55's (there is good reason I didn't mention the Sigma 18-50 or the Tokina 16-50 - they are both inferior to the Tamron, which is to say FAR inferior to the Canon) gives you about a 28mm equivalent on FF - thats wide enough to use indoors in tighter quarters.

Thanks for that. Although I'm not really looking for more/different range, I just want something faster and sharper than the 28-135, The Tamron and the Sigma apparently fit under that catagory.
I just don't know how much sharper they are to be honest, and I wouldn't want to give up the nice fast/quiet focus of the 28-135 for a lens not much sharper with less range.

I love my sigma 24-70mm, check my flickr link in my sig, most of the images there are taken with it. Mine is the non HSM, but it still focusses fairly quickly, if a little noisey

have it, love it. its my walk around lens.

My copy is great. The only gripe I have with it vs the Canon counterpart is the focus ring which has a push/pull style double clutch system.

I have had one a while, i did a little review of it on youtube
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=-v8gmguXr30

I also have a set on flickr with everything I've ever shot with it, currently 68 shots, most images contain exif data also, if they don't i attempt to put shooting settings in the tags.
http://www.flickr.com …y/sets/72157623​142258951/

I even have a test chart in that set with a link to a 100% crop

KarlosDaJackal wrote in post #9465508
I have had one a while, i did a little review of it on youtube
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=-v8gmguXr30

I also have a set on flickr with everything I've ever shot with it, currently 68 shots, most images contain exif data also, if they don't i attempt to put shooting settings in the tags.
http://www.flickr.com …y/sets/72157623​142258951/

I even have a test chart in that set with a link to a 100% crop

Thats great, thanks!

Oh and nice guitars, I also play

benesotor wrote in post #9465576
Thats great, thanks!

Oh and nice guitars, I also play

No problem, only thing i hear people complain about that may be valid is some flare issues. It has not been a problem for me with the things I shoot, but its worth being aware of. Maybe have a look at the lens sample thread and see how people are getting on with it in the kind of situations you will use it in.

You didn't say if your using it on a Full Frame or Crop camera, most of those samples are from my 400d and 40d. I think one of them is on my Eos5 with Black and White film. I'd need to shoot more film with it before I could tell you what I think of it on full frame.

If I was buying again and had to choose between this the HSM and the L, I'd probably go for this again. Although if the HSM came down in price by about €150 more, I'd be tempted to go for that. The L offers nothing extra that I need and costs far too much for what it is. I have used one for a little while.

Yup. I have one and I must say I like it, but for me and my 30D I want something with more range like a 24-105 IS L. But that's me. In general, it's a really good lens that's wonderful to have because of the constant 2.8 which can save you in some cases. Also fun to shoot with it- candles!

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I read some very bad reviews here & there about the new Sigma 24-70 and I was hoping to get better reviews cause I was in the market for a faster lens in that range of 24-70 and settled for the Tamron 28-75. I really like the images this lens produces and read very little bad about it. With every lens you're going to get some bad copies but the overall feedback is great and I can attest to that. For under $500 you'll end up with L quality pictures. I use this lens on a crop sensor 450D and it's plenty wide for me because most of my use is portraits and is perfect for that. If you need wider go for the 17-50 non VC version which also gets some amazing reviews. Many will say go for Canon but a 2-3 times the price......... only if you have the cash I guess and all with very similar end results.

I bought one used many years ago for my EOS-3, Loved the damn thing but the one i got was treated like **** and the AF/MF ring was busted as were a few other things [It was -not- as described] so it had to go back and i ended up getting a 24-105 f/4L instead...

More recently i was getting a lens like that and desperately wanted it instead of the Tamron but couldnt get my hands on one...so I grumbled and settled for the Tamron 28-75 because my local store had it in stock [and the salesman went on and on about it] And regretted it

From what i remember...it was built like a bloody tank, and i do remember the AF being quite a bit better than my Tamron