Sigma f2.8 24-70 - Anyone got one?

Kinobe

Kinobe

Messages
718
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all.....

I currently use a Nikkor f2.8-4 24-85mm which I'm in love with, however I've heard many good reports on the Sigma f2.8 24-70? This may help me in my low light works as the Nikkor can/seems to struggle indoors at times. Now I could just pop the 50mm f1.8 but I'd be missing the zoom range made available to me.

Would love the Nikon equivelant, but thats nearly a £1000 :(

Anyone have A Sigma f2.8 24-70 and secondly how do you rate it?

Ed :)
 
Hiya.

I don't have this lens but I did. While I know it gets some glowing reports mine is not one of them.

Sure, it is optically good - very good in fact (Although in my experience not as good as the Tamron 28-75 - had that one too...).
My beef is with the build of the thing. It is solid, very solid. It is also heavy, and with the wieght comes the inadequate zoom ring. The zoom mech has to shift a lot of glass about, yet the zoom ring is too small and too close to the camera to be effective for me. THe AF ring is 3 times the size of the zoom ring and used far less.

It just feels like the lens could be so much better but it isn't. Please do bear in mind this is just me experience andothers love this lens!
 
RichardtheSane said:
Hiya.

I don't have this lens but I did. While I know it gets some glowing reports mine is not one of them.

Sure, it is optically good - very good in fact (Although in my experience not as good as the Tamron 28-75 - had that one too...).
My beef is with the build of the thing. It is solid, very solid. It is also heavy, and with the wieght comes the inadequate zoom ring. The zoom mech has to shift a lot of glass about, yet the zoom ring is too small and too close to the camera to be effective for me. THe AF ring is 3 times the size of the zoom ring and used far less.

It just feels like the lens could be so much better but it isn't. Please do bear in mind this is just me experience andothers love this lens!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. The Nikon equivalent is a lot of money and as with the Sigma its heavy. This doesn't bother me though, its more on the build quality of this len and as with any lens, how sharp it is, does it hunt a lot? cos that can be frustrating at the worst of times. Since upgrading to a D200 the Sigma f2.8 70-200 seems work so much better, i.e it hunts less and is much quicker. Although it needs to be sent away for an honoury fix from sigma to work (needs to be rechipped) with the D200 properly.

Thanks for the reply!

Ed :)
 
I have it and I enjoy using it Heres a sample from it :-

MoltonBasketball2.jpg


Like Richard said the focus ring can be a pain to get used to, but after that it is fine. The other thing that I've not fully checked out yet was at 24mm I'm sure their is some chromatic abrasion but I think it goes away further down the zoom scale.
 
Thanks for the reply ally.

Looks like I may have to find some retailer and try this lens out myself. I can see what you mean with the zoom ring, it looks although its going to be pretty close to the body but I have small hands, so not to sure if this help? but only way to find out is try it.

Nice capture btw. Have you got any portraits, body, face portraits you could share if you don't mind me asking? Some ar various lengths but at f2.8? Sorry if thats a bit to much to ask, but then if you don't ask, you don't get I spose.....

Thanks again, all your help is much appreciated.

Ed :)
 
Ta ally :)

Much appreciated, thanks for being honest about the lens, especially the CA issue it suffers from. I will look into that further. I would really like the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 but its just soooo expensive.

Ed :)
 
petemc said:
Its a great lens imho, if you get a sharp one :)

264140505_0c97a551bb_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply petemc.....So you have one too I assume? :)

Have you got any more portrait captures you could share? Any using natural light?

Ed :)
 
Pete - in your opinion - is it actually worth me spending the (substantial amount) extra on the Canon version? The shots posted above are beautifully sharp and I'm seriously dubious as to whether there is really going to be any noticeable benefit to me in spending hundreds of pounds more......?
 
The Canon will have better build quality than the Sigma, and it'll be heavier. It also has USM so it will be faster. However, my Sigma is very nice. Also Karen McBride used hers when she toured with Robbie so I guess its alright :) That pretty much convinced me to stick with my Sigma when I doubted it.
 
Good enough for me! Weight is going to be a bit of a consideration once I get the 70-200mm anyhow - once I've got that in the bag I might need to employ a sherpa! :D

cheers Pete!
 
Just another sample.

CRW_4697-01.jpg


It can be just so sharp and of course processing makes a big difference to the end result. The next week is going to be a big test for mine as I'm shooting a gig a night for Liverpool Music Week.
 
I've been using this lens for the last 9 months or so and whilst in low light conditions the focusing is a little slow compared to Canon's USM equipped models it still gets the image.

For me the biggest grumble with this lens is the availability and cost of good quality screw-in filters. The circular polariser wasn't too bad but reasonably priced ND's seem to be rarer than hens' teeth.
 
Looks good, can't wait to get mine, still saving at the mo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top