Sigma 24-70

[petemc]

Following on from my recent thread and seeing some samples of the lens I decided to buy it and take it for a spin.

The following pictures are what made me buy the lens. They might have been sharpened so they're not 100% accurate. This is more of a "What can be achieved with the lens" sorta thing.

http://static.flickr.com/52/137164553_35e314e007.jpg

http://mishilo.image.pbase.com/v3/15/530415/1/47272931.JBGraduate004.JPG

The following shots are straight out of the camera using my 10D and the 24-70 @ f/2.8.

http://static.flickr.com/21/144705678_4d1645438c_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/50/144705733_f8c52b3505_o.jpg

[petemc]

http://static.flickr.com/51/144705609_9d2a80246b_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/52/144705640_cd2f2420c8_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/53/144705508_5f4a3ff06e_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/47/144705559_8369231a21_o.jpg

I notice that the lens might not be soft but the depth of field is so shallow that the model is getting blurred. I'm going to attempt to fix this. I'll also post some shots with the 50mm for comparison.

Update: It seems to be quite sharp as I'm having trouble remembering which shot is the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 when I do the tests. So I've set the Sigma to 48mm, by accident. That's helping me keep tabs on the lenses.

[dod]

congrats mate, a good number of the sigma's are under rated, far better value than L IMO.

[petemc]

Some more tests.

http://static.flickr.com/52/144759173_bc52ed2de0_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/54/144759102_41065cee9e_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/47/144759340_f2a58dd898_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/49/144759197_0c06ceb824_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/54/144759139_ad10f57fd4_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/54/144759261_fae44cd7de_o.jpg

Its so tricky trying to get the perfect focus so you can get the perfect sharp shot. It does seem like the Sigma is softer than the 50mm however that could just be me breathing :shrug: Either way, applying a smart sharpen after seems to level things out.

Sharpness aside the lens is a lot quicker than I had previously thought. Its at least as fast as the 50mm. I'm not sure how well it will perform at gigs. HSM/USM is such a helping hand there. Its got a weight to it and its not a small lens. I'll have to nip out and do some street photography with it tomorrow.

[fingerz]

Gundams rule. Mine are in the attic gathering dust. Should really find somewhere to stick them.

[Langdale]

hmm i have been loking for a replacement for the 18 - 55 kit lens for some time and was looking at this, would you recommend it?

[petemc]

I've had it less than a day and those are the only shots I've taken with it. So at the moment I can't recommend it.

[Warspite]

Just been looking at this one on WarehouseExpress, am I reading right - this thing uses a 82mm filter? :eek:

[petemc]

Yeah :( Similar prices to the 77mm Circular Polarizers.

[Ally]

hmm i have been loking for a replacement for the 18 - 55 kit lens for some time and was looking at this, would you recommend it?

I've bought it as a replaement for that nice lens depends what your useing it for?

i'm happy with it but i woulden't use it for partys and weddings it back focus's

Great pics mate :thumbs:

[Joe T]

Just been looking at this one on WarehouseExpress, am I reading right - this thing uses a 82mm filter? :eek:
I have a lens that uses 105mm :p

Now back on topic, sorry Pete.

[petemc]

Some random flower shots to test the "Macro" facility. These have been sharpened and auto levelled in Photoshop.

http://static.flickr.com/52/145266317_cd822e28fe_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/56/145266291_b1ff0a9cdf_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/50/145266273_21e4bcd301_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/49/145266246_1dd1828374_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/51/145266213_f25b756a1e_o.jpg

[petemc]

http://static.flickr.com/56/145266174_4e5626178f_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/52/145266132_7b2f1ea50d_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/44/145266119_9ddff8b0ea_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/51/145266093_b8c18f72f0_o.jpg

Is it me or are they a little soft?

[matty]

i would say they are ok Pete, your shooting with a DoF thats measured in mm so its going to be hard to get it sharp and steady!

And get a duster. Mucky boy

[SDK^]

Is it me or are they a little soft?
They don't look overly soft to me.
The last 2 photos look perfect, just like something you would you see at a garden centre.

[leoedin]

does this lens really backfocus, or is that just one persons specific lens?

[petemc]

http://static.flickr.com/47/145517772_a1c9674f10_o.jpg

Focusing Test. Seems to be a little off but judging from the article its acceptable. I think :) Some of my other tests show the front 1 + 2 to be far more in focus than the rear.

[fingerz]

I thought focus issues were down to the camera?