Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM - Got one, and its ******

something doesnt look right - for the price i am asking i will give them the benefit of the doubt and say its a duff lens.
 
ricky1980 said:
andy, you reckon the optics are flawed or the lens has focusing issues?
Click to expand...

Its not a focusing problem - it has HSM so I can over-ride focus, but can't get it sharp. Actually I can't improve it by MF at all.
 
I owned both these lenses for my canon 40D, and after a comparison, i sold the tamron, as i found the sigma to be sharper, and the AF quicker.
 
I think it might be a duff lens. I saw a post over at one of the Sony forums to a link that comparing the new Sigma to the Sony 24-70/2.8 (as well as the Canon and Nikon counterparts):

Here's the link to the sony forum post:
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=45765&title=sigma-24-70-hsm-vs-sony-cz-24-70-review

And the interesting link, translated via google:
http://translate.google.ca/translat...13/1134071.html&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

This site seems to imply that the Sigma was better than the Canon lens (although due for replacement), but as good as the Nikon/Sony version. Knowing Sigma's very (very) poor QC, I'd say it's probably worth trying a few copies.
 
Here's my Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 non HSM on Canon 40D

IMG_9100.jpg


Cropped

IMG_9100-2.jpg
 
mrgubby said:
Never heard of the 70-200 being pants, mine seems rather non-pants :D
Click to expand...

i had a go at a 70-200 HSM II, it had focusing issues and did a few shots of the same scene they came back with varying degree of out-focusness. that's why i avoided it, didn't want to go through the hassel of sending lens back and fro.
 
Wow, that's pretty horrific. I don't meant to derail the topic but would it be possible for you to do reviews of the rest of your mighty collection of lenses? I realise that you change them a lot but it would be nice to see a review from a 'real' person instead of a faceless person from a magazine. Maybe a puddleduck's reviews thread or similar. :)
 
Looks shocking Andy, get it sent to Sigma for looking at/replacing

I had the non hsm one and it seemed pin sharp
 
whitey said:
Looks shocking Andy, get it sent to Sigma for looking at/replacing

I had the non hsm one and it seemed pin sharp
Click to expand...

I've sent Sigma UK some samples from the D300 and D700 - they usually reply quickly, but have'nt yet so I imagine Ricky has just fallen off his chair, and not climbed back on yet :LOL:

Not sure I can be arsed with sending it in, I do have a refund option.

Shame as size wise this floats my boat (f/2.8, HSM, constant aperture)
 
How about punting for a replacement and giving it another go?

It definitly isn't working as designed!

I've noticed a lto of people comparing to the non HSM version - I suspect this will be of no use as they are a completely different optic and design.
 
david1701 said:
really I was looking at either the sigma (non HSM) or the tamron as my budget can't stretch much higher, how do you rate the tamron against other lenses in its class?
Click to expand...

I have a non-HSM Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and it is superbly sharp wide open. As typical with Sigma though I guess it is a lot down to sample variation - their lenses seem to have it a lot. This is one of the reasons why I prefer to buy used Sigmas (on eBay) - this way I can always request samples of the shots in various conditions before I buy and it's easier to find a good sample.
 
is this the £800 version?
 
Hi,

must be a duff copy, a pretty decent review here for it gives it a great rating, albeit a Canon version.

Mike.
 
mikeyb said:
must be a duff copy, a pretty decent review here for it gives it a great rating, albeit a Canon version.
Click to expand...

That's the old 24-70 that a lot of people (me included) have. Puddle has the 'new' HSM one which is rather more expensive... like about 3+ times the price from what i remember.
 
Thanks puddleduck, am interested to see if it is a duff copy.

the price i listed was what i remember from the release post on here
 
68lbs said:
That's the old 24-70 that a lot of people (me included) have. Puddle has the 'new' HSM one which is rather more expensive... like about 3+ times the price from what i remember.
Click to expand...

Hi,

old one must be a better buy then :D

Mike.
 
mikeyb said:
Hi,

old one must be a better buy then :D

Mike.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that the new one is supposed to be a better buy! i.e. it's 'supposed' to be as good as the Canon/Nikon/Sony 24-70/2.8 (like Sigma's new 50/1.4) but at 2/3 of the price of the Canon/Nikon/Sony.
 
springtide said:
I think the point is that the new one is supposed to be a better buy! i.e. it's 'supposed' to be as good as the Canon/Nikon/Sony 24-70/2.8 (like Sigma's new 50/1.4) but at 2/3 of the price of the Canon/Nikon/Sony.
Click to expand...

Hi,

I was being facetious ;)

Mike.
 
springtide said:
:) Sorry!
Click to expand...
Hi,

no apology necessary, going back on subject it just shows you how the lens' can differ from model to model and also shows you the benefit of sometimes buying new so you can return or get calibrated as necessary.

Mike.
 
mikeyb said:
Hi,

no apology necessary, going back on subject it just shows you how the lens' can differ from model to model and also shows you the benefit of sometimes buying new so you can return or get calibrated as necessary.

Mike.
Click to expand...

That is very true with Sigma (and Tamron to some extent). QC on Sigma lenses just seem terrible. All 'non HSM' lenses on Sony bodies are prone to AF gear stripping. The Sigma 10-20 is well known for it's either great or very poor performance (depending on the copy!)

I love my new Sigma 50/1.4, but the first copy I had - I took the lens out of the box in the shop and the front element just fell out, bounced off the table and landed on the floor! How on earth did that manage to leave the factory?
 
It would be interesting to know what Sigma's actual failure rate is, not that they will ever tell you!

I think it will be quite low as I bet they sell a hell of a lot of lenses. You only ever hear the horror stories... not the good ones, human nature and all that!

I think the odd dodgy one is why they are so much cheaper than OEM lenses. From what I hear they are always happy to replace/repair etc.
 
Gaz81 said:
It would be interesting to know what Sigma's actual failure rate is, not that they will ever tell you!

I think it will be quite low as I bet they sell a hell of a lot of lenses. You only ever hear the horror stories... not the good ones, human nature and all that!

I think the odd dodgy one is why they are so much cheaper than OEM lenses. From what I hear they are always happy to replace/repair etc.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they do sell a lot of lenses, but it's when almost every person you know who's into photography has managed to get at least one duff one, then it's obviously too high.

i.e. I known two people (who purchased from different shops) who had to get the retailer to replace their 10-20 twice (i.e. 3 lenses) before they got a good copy. Once they had a good copy they were very pleased.

As for cost, my Sigma 50/1.4 was more expensive than the Sony lens - but you are right that the cost overall for 3rd party lenses is much lower.
But with such a high failure rate, you would think it would be more cost effective to improve QC.

[cynical] Maybe Sigma do this for a very good reason, to help stop grey imports by packing junk in a number of boxes to put people off buying from HK? [/cynical]

If this is the case, then it's worked for me as for some lenses I'm happy to by Sigma because of the cost and the performance when you get a good copy (but would never buy a Sigma from HK)
 
here we go again! I've had a few Sigma lenses and they have all been fine, inc the non-HSM 24-70mm... I suspect a lot of problems come from people trying to do 45 deg angle focus tests and then not getting the results they expect, when in fact the lens is performing normally.

It does seem like PD has been unlucky with this one though...
 
i have got 2 sigmas and not a problem(y)
 
I've never had any problems apart from with a Sigma 150mm macro, which had a similar optical defect to this lens. Actually in both cases - the lenses were just sent in a Citylink or UPS plastic bag and couriered (no additional packaging)...

I can't help but think that poor packaging, and handling could well contribute to these issues.
 
psenior1 said:
here we go again! I've had a few Sigma lenses and they have all been fine, inc the non-HSM 24-70mm... I suspect a lot of problems come from people trying to do 45 deg angle focus tests and then not getting the results they expect, when in fact the lens is performing normally.

It does seem like PD has been unlucky with this one though...
Click to expand...

Sorry I wasn't aware of: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=109396

Looking quickly through the thread, it looks like Sigma have an out of the box failure rate of (at a guess) more than 10% (ignoring FF/BF issues). IMO, I think that's too high.

I wasn't meaning to bash Sigma, but more pointing out to the OP that the new Sigma 24-70/2.8 HSM is 'supposed' (from the limited number of reviews) to be as good as the Nikon/Sony/Canon equiv - so it would be worth swapping the lens out for a replacement.

As for the 45deg FF/BF tests, the issues that I brought up were not related to that. They were: AF gear Stripping (Sony cameras), bubbles in the glass, elements not attached to the lens (my issue) and general IQ issues (not related to FF/BF).

I've very happy with my Sigma 50mm/1.4. It's a lovely lens and would recommend it to anyone.

I was very tempted at the new Sigma 24-70/2.8 HSM for my a900 (due to it's length compared to the CZ), but the 82mm filter thread ruled it out for me (and the fact that I picked up a secondhand CZ2470 for the same money as the new Sigma).
 
springtide said:
I wasn't meaning to bash Sigma, but more pointing out to the OP that the new Sigma 24-70/2.8 HSM is 'supposed' (from the limited number of reviews) to be as good as the Nikon/Sony/Canon equiv - so it would be worth swapping the lens out for a replacement.
Click to expand...

That was my raison d'etre for trying one out personally.

I'm going to get a refund though, I can't be bothered with the hassle, and tbh I have good optics in this range anyhow.
 
This is really horrific, to pay quite a lot of money (even at a discount) for something that is this horrendous is just not on. I know that there are a lot of people that support third party manufacturers because they do make fantastic lenses but it's rather besides the point when so many lemons seem to be getting past quality control. If there is one reason why currently I haven't strayed from the overly expensive Nikon lineup it was because I knew that if I stuck with them I would have a lens that did what it said on the box.

I don't want to spend my time testing a lens and then getting worked up about how soft my brick walls looks (I don't think the texture of my wall is appropriate for such tests :p) I just want to shoot with it. I'm sure Sigma will eventually get a lens down to you that hasn't been entirely bruised and battered in the process but it's anyone's guess as to how long that will take. It would be disastrous if were about to do a photograph job only to find out your new lens had such a defect.

On another note, I made a post earlier asking if we could have more puddleduck review threads as I'm sure many would really appreciate reviews from real people and not magazines with possible affiliation to certain manufacturers. If you could do this I'm sure I and many others will be grateful!
 
Mr_T said:
On another note, I made a post earlier asking if we could have more puddleduck review threads as I'm sure many would really appreciate reviews from real people and not magazines with possible affiliation to certain manufacturers. If you could do this I'm sure I and many others will be grateful!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but tbh I'm not qualified to do this.

I certainly know what makes a good lens (and a bad one!), but reviewing is a thankless task (I used to be a reviewer anyhow (not of lenses mind)...;)) and I've certainly don't want to do down the route of shooting test charts / MFT curves etc, as I don't shoot test charts in the real world, and can't really see the point in them :LOL:
 
puddleduck said:
I've never had any problems apart from with a Sigma 150mm macro, which had a similar optical defect to this lens. Actually in both cases - the lenses were just sent in a Citylink or UPS plastic bag and couriered (no additional packaging)...

I can't help but think that poor packaging, and handling could well contribute to these issues.
Click to expand...

I'd tend to agree - my only duff lens in the last 3 years was a Nikkor 14-24mm where the AF was borked out of the box. I wasn't overly impressed to see the packaging (the main box in another larger, unpadded, box) or the way the CityLink courier dropped it whilst moving another box.
 
puddleduck said:
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but tbh I'm not qualified to do this.

I certainly know what makes a good lens (and a bad one!), but reviewing is a thankless task (I used to be a reviewer anyhow (not of lenses mind)...;)) and I've certainly don't want to do down the route of shooting test charts / MFT curves etc, as I don't shoot test charts in the real world, and can't really see the point in them :LOL:
Click to expand...

I wasn't thinking of walls or test charts just an honest opinion of how the lens is to use and what you think of it compared to the other lenses you've used. As someone who has vast experiences of the several manufacturer lens ranges I would have thought you would be a good candidate. You're probably right in that it would be far too much effort for what it's worth, bummer!
 
Mr_T said:
I wasn't thinking of walls or test charts just an honest opinion of how the lens is to use and what you think of it compared to the other lenses you've used. As someone who has vast experiences of the several manufacturer lens ranges I would have thought you would be a good candidate. You're probably right in that it would be far too much effort for what it's worth, bummer!
Click to expand...

I probably have a different critera to make it hard to review - for me this lens appealed as it was much lighter than my Nikkor 24-70 for example (and when I do a 15 mile walk I really appreciate the help weight wise!), and 4mm wider than a Tamron 28-75 (the 4mm is useful as I shoot a lot of landscape). The Nikkor 24-70 is a no-no for hiking, but superb optically. So size and weight is a really big factor.

I do tend to chip in with opinions regarding any lenses I've used anyhow.

Now.. I've just got hold of a Tamron 24-135 SP (rare as rocking horse poo-plops - I've been after one for months!), and that IS a very very nice lens. Murders the Nikkor 24-120 VR and even the Nikkor 28-105 in the D700 "walkabout" stakes. Super lens, Tamron basically put up two fingers to Nikon and Canon on their 50th Anniversary and made just a few of these... put this Sigma to shame :)
 
Well Sigma UK got in touch - excellent as always - the upshot is that basically I've been advised to get a refund on this, so the lens is on the way back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top