sigma 24 70 f2.8

M

markseventphotos

Messages
375
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
well im now n my third lens from sigma,everyone has been really poor at 2.8,very soft,all brand new,
is this lens worth persisting with,shooting at f5.6 lovly images,used on a canon 50d & 5d
any advice appreciated
 
daugirdas said:
That was the worst lens I had owned for a whole agonising day. Any alternative is better.
Click to expand...

From reading reviews I suppose it depends on what you're looking for. The reviews say that it's soft at wide apertures but sharp at medium apertures and has much less distortion than the much more expensive Canon L.

I guess that there are many compromises and decisions to be made when designing a lens and also when buying one and if you mainly use mid to smaller apertures and insist on lower distortion the Siggy could be a perfectly valid choice over the sharper at wider apertures but more distorting Canon L.

Choices choices.
 
neil_g said:
if its new you could send it to sigma under warranty?
Click to expand...

That assumes it's faulty. After reading reviews all saying pretty much the same thing maybe this is just how the lens is.
 
woof woof said:
From reading reviews I suppose it depends on what you're looking for. The reviews say that it's soft at wide apertures but sharp at medium apertures and has much less distortion than the much more expensive Canon L.

I guess that there are many compromises and decisions to be made when designing a lens and also when buying one and if you mainly use mid to smaller apertures and insist on lower distortion the Siggy could be a perfectly valid choice over the sharper at wider apertures but more distorting Canon L.

Choices choices.
Click to expand...

'Mine' was soft all the way from f/2.8 to f/11. I didn't bother checking any further and returned it. It had nasty yellow colour cast too.
The L has a little bit distortion at 24mm on FF, but even that is dead easy to correct in Lightroom.
 
Looks like you got a bad Sigma and good Canon then as they're well know for distortion, according to the reviews. Personally I'd probably consider taking the Siggy and living with softness at wide aperture in return for greater accuracy as I'd probably be using it at medium to smaller apertures rather than wide and unlike you I don't think that distortion is easily corrected, not perfectly anyway.

As I said... choices.

There's always the 28-70's including the Tamron that seems to have a following.
 
I have a Sigma 24-70 and agree that at f2.8 it isnt as sharp as say a Nikon but then again its much cheaper as well. I can get useable images from mine at f2.8 but they do need a little more sharpening. If i stop down to say f3.2 then i see a big difference and by f4 it gets very sharp. I would love the Nikon 28-70 or 24-70 but as i shoot around f4 onwards with this lens anyway then im happy to hold onto it for now.
 
thanks for the replys,i was offered the option of having sigma adjust the last lens,but it points to a severe focus problem,i never kept any images,did a few test shoots,on a tripod at 70mm 2.8 ingredient label on a pop bottle,shocking,put my 50mm 1.8 on again at 1.8 not stopped down,was pin sharp
looks like ill be saving up for a canon second hand maybe
 
I love my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and it's rarely off the D700. I'm sure the Nikkor equivalent is better but I'm unwilling to spend that much to replace a lens that does what I need it to.
 
The usual sigma quality control or the lack of it. I bought one before when they used to be around 230ish brand new, it wasnt sharp till I stopped down to f8 which defies the point being f2.8. I'm waiting for a tamron 28-75 atm.
 
not long bought a Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 to put on my Nikon D300s, as cant afford the equivelent Nikkor glass at this time !! ... i cant fault it so far giving great results..so for all you glass snobs who run down Sigma lenses this is a good lens for the price !
 
I'd like to think that people aren't actually anti Sigma's whole range as some lenses like the 50mm f1.4 and 150mm f2.8 that I own and several others from Sigma's range that I don't own are excellent lenses in their own right and stand comparison with any lens from Canon or Nikon.
 
i speak as i find ! and my 24-70 is fine ! would love to have a nikkor 24-70 but at 3 times the price !! i will be happy with what i have got
 
Im not running sigma down,but it does seem that its pot luck with this lens,cost as far im talking doesn't come into it,the lens (3) that ive had have been really poor,id not think twice about purchasing a sigma,if i knew i was going to get a lens of use,i may even look for a second hand one that the seller has been happy with at all f stops,im not looking for pin sharp at 2.8 but id like to be able to capture images that i can sell,not bin
its no good the lens being ok around the f8 mark,when i need to use it at 2.8 to cover a Boxing /Thai match etc,without flash. I know people who have sigma gear and rave about them for price and also quality off images produced
 
is this the HSM model you're referring to ?

I've just bought and found it needed a bit more sharpening at certain apertures
 
I ended up getting a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 - not got it yet but it gets very good reviews, especially for the price. Apparently the IQ is not far off the Canon L, it just doesn't have anywhere near the same build quality.
 
grum said:
I ended up getting a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 - not got it yet but it gets very good reviews, especially for the price. Apparently the IQ is not far off the Canon L, it just doesn't have anywhere near the same build quality.
Click to expand...

Yes that's true.
I have one now which replaced my 24-70L as it was too heavy for me. I'm really amazed by this lens. I had to do a micro adjustment on this lens with my 50D. Its +10. If you bought it from one of Tamron's super stockists, the lens will have a 5 year warranty. You need to register with intro2020.
 
Last edited:
I had the Sigma, kept ot for three days. Enough to realise it was just unacceptably soft at F2.8 - F4

I had a Tamron 28-75mm for a while - sharpness was phenominal. Optically the best of the thrid party offerings in that range. But I personally don't like the autofocus design.
 
I bought a second hand 24-70 and felt it was soft. I sent it to be callibrated / serviced and came back better. I have borrowed a 24-70L and although the L was better it wasn't by as much as I thought. Saying that i hope my next lens will be a 24-70L to match my 70-200L. The sigma is what it is for the price
 
Would love to hear about the Tamron 28-75 when you get it.
I think it may be my next lens on my D3000
 
Jamin bear in mind that 28mm isn't very wide on a crop camera. I will post some examples when I get mine but it could be a while.

Will have to see how I get on with the autofocus.
 
Funny,
but I've owned several Sigma lenses (believe me!) and only ever had a problem with one. That was the 24-60mm f2.8.
That was so soft you could spread on a piece of bread!!!
Other than that, all my Sigma's have been great.

I currently own a 24-70mm f2.8, and it's a cracker of a lens.
Always give me consistantly good results.
Stopped down to F5-F8 ish, it's as sharp as a razor.

Just taken a few yesterday for a job through work, some of which at F2.8.
Haven't checked them out yet on the PC, but on the 60D LCD look pretty good.

Will post samples later this evening.

Look at the sample in Alby's for sale thread HERE
If anyone tells me the Canon 24-70 F2.8 can do a better job, they are VERY wrong!!
 
A sample of mine.
F2.8 ISO 400 1/60

workchair1.jpg
 
andy_fozzy said:
Look at the sample in Alby's for sale thread HERE
If anyone tells me the Canon 24-70 F2.8 can do a better job, they are VERY wrong!!
Click to expand...

I seriously can't imagine how you can draw any conclusions from a web size preview. This could be taken with a cheap P&S and still look the same at that size. We should be looking at A4-A3 300dpi prints or 100% crops instead.

Oh and he just got 24-105mm IS. Let me think why :thinking:
 
daugirdas said:
I seriously can't imagine how you can draw any conclusions from a web size preview. This could be taken with a cheap P&S and still look the same at that size. We should be looking at A4-A3 300dpi prints or 100% crops instead.

Oh and he just got 24-105mm IS. Let me think why :thinking:
Click to expand...

Should have said,
I've seen the full size print on Alby's studio wall.

It's absolutely STUNNING.

I'm sure if you were to ask him for a 100% crop..........
 
daugirdas said:
I seriously can't imagine how you can draw any conclusions from a web size preview. This could be taken with a cheap P&S and still look the same at that size. We should be looking at A4-A3 300dpi prints or 100% crops instead.

Oh and he just got 24-105mm IS. Let me think why :thinking:
Click to expand...

He isn't, he has seen lots of my shots with this lens as it is what I have used mostly in the studio. I could show you the full size image but won't because it will burn your eyes :D
24-105 is a lens I've always wanted but couldn't afford it and after using Dave Stones one in the studio felt I had to find the funds for it as the focussing is far superior in lower light. I champion the 24-70, it's big heavy and noisy but that aside it really is one hell of a lens when you get use to it. I have put mine up for sale but I would be happy to keep it if I'm really honest.

here is a closer crop from the jpg anyway approx 100%.
5271909147_52


And a 100% crop of our very own crusher from TP ;)
5272552318
 
Last edited by a moderator:
so where did you focus on these two images? They don't look sharp to me
 
strobemonkey said:
so where did you focus on these two images? They don't look sharp to me
Click to expand...

I'd say they are acceptable for printing, but the faces are not razor sharp. They are taken at f/13 and f/10.

What would happen if you take the same shot at f/5.6? Then maybe f/4 or even f/2.8? Not everybody have the luxury of shooting at f/13 ISO100.
 
daugirdas said:
I'd say they are acceptable for printing, but the faces are not razor sharp. They are taken at f/13 and f/10.

What would happen if you take the same shot at f/5.6? Then maybe f/4 or even f/2.8? Not everybody have the luxury of shooting at f/13 ISO100.
Click to expand...

I thought they are at f2.8 ???:lol::lol::lol:

This is just my sigma lens.. it only gets sharpe at f8 and above that's why it only lasted a few hours with me, it went back the same day it was delivered.
 
they are crops and if pixel peeping is your thing then maybe it won't suit you, I agree the first one has slightly missed but the second is fine by my standards and after being sharpened and printed they are fine. The Siggy isn't as great as the canon L but it doesn't cost as much either. I still say it is a great lens for the money but if you can afford to get a Canon pro lens instead go for it and that along with the better focusing is why I did. f2.8 is soft on the siggy and I rarely use it wide open. Optimum aperture on the Siggy is around f8 I would say across the zoom range, well with mine it is anyway. I have heard Siggy's used to be hit and miss with what you got but thought they had sorted that, maybe they haven't ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top