Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG Macro....Anyone hear got one?

[F_M-R2]

I'm thinking its time to move on from the kit lens that came with my 450d and I've been thinking about one of these.

They look like good value for money, constant 2.8 and only losing 4mm at the wide end but gaining alot more at the other end.

I've had a cheap 70-300 Sigma on an old Nikon I had and it was great but this will be my everyday lens instead of just at track days and stuff.

Can't afford the Canon equivelant so any adice appreciated. Thanks.

EDIT: Sorry about the spelling of HERE in the title.

Edited by F_M-R2 on Saturday 6th December 20:20

[SamHH]

I don't have experience of that lens but I guess the answer will be that's it's good, but not as good as the Canon equivalent in terms of image quality, focussing speed, build quality etc. You can find reviews on Photozone and Fred Miranda.

However, if the kit lens you're talking about is the 18-55mm, then you'll lose 6mm on the wide end and gain 15mm on the long end. I'd suggest that you'll notice the loss of wide angle more than you will the extra telephoto. You could get the 24-70mm and another, even wider lens, or Sigma do a 18-50mm 1:2.8 lens.

[Scho]

i used to have one.

great lens, very sharp on my old 5D.

one negative is the very noisey focus drive!

[VxDuncan]

IMO you'll miss the wide end. GO for the 18-50 F2.8 instead. You can crop to get closer (ish..), but can't do anything if your lens isn't wide enough.

The only reason to go for the 24-70 would be if you're thinking of moving to full frame.

[MartinP]

I've got one that I use with my 40D for portrait work. I really like the lens, its very sharp. I think Sigma are just bringing out (or already have) an HSM version - that would be quiter (not that I think it's too noisey) and let you to override the autofocus without flicking the switch and sliding the focus ring (strange Sigma idea).

I'm hoping to get a 5D at some point - this lens really doesn't go wide enough for use as a 'walkabout' len on a cropped frame sensor.

[F_M-R2]

Lads, thanks. Alot of good advice. Have read a couple of reviews online but its the "real world" reviews like this that highlight the reliance on the wide end etc.

Gonna have to rethink this now. 18-50 looks like a good option alright. There is also a 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 . Anyone have any experience with this one? OR would the 18-50 blow it away just because of the constant 2.8?

It's really gonna be an everyday lens and not for anything specific so I'm just trying to cover as many bases as possible really.

[SamHH]

F_M-R2 said:

Gonna have to rethink this now. 18-50 looks like a good option alright. There is also a 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 . Anyone have any experience with this one? OR would the 18-50 blow it away just because of the constant 2.8?

I guess the image quality might be a bit better but I doubt it would 'blow away' the other lens. It mainly depends on what's more important to you, speed or zoom range. Consider how often you think of your current lens "I wish it was a bit faster" versus how often you think "I wish it had a longer focal length". It also depends on what other lenses you have and carry around. For example, a slow lens is not so much of problem if you also have a 35mm 1:2 and a short lens is not so much of a problem if you also have a 75-300mm.

[F_M-R2]

I also have a 55-250mm 4-5.6 IS that I bought a few weeks after I got the camera as I needed more length ( oooh-er ). I suppose what I feel I am missing out on at the moment is low light ability and being able to control depth of field to the same amount a 2.8 or lower can.


I have a speedlight hidden away for xmas morning so I may actually hang around till after xmas and see how my low light shots improve then. Most are of people anyway. Might just pop a 50mm 1.8 into the shopping bag and see how that mix goes for now.

[tinman0]

Yup, got one of these and its a nice piece of kit. Love the f2.8 through the zoom range.

Bit noisy but you get used to it.

[miniman]

I have one too. It's a good lens, really nice to have a walkabout lens that gives 2.8 right through the range. I haven't missed having more wide angle so far, but I also carry a 10-20. The motor is noisy and slow as mentioned previously, and the AF on/off is odd. The only other thing I find is that the zoom is "stiff" compared to other lenses.

[GnuBee]

Have on on my A700 - very sharp, nice colours and good contrast. I'll be somewhat contraversal and say that in my opinion it's the equal of the Canon L 24-70 that I owned when I was a Canon user. I'd suggest visiting a store to try some out because, in my experience, Sigma do have QC issues and you the difference between a good and a bad example can be huge.

[miniman]

GnuBee said:

I'll be somewhat contraversal and say that in my opinion it's the equal of the Canon L 24-70 that I owned when I was a Canon user.

Blimey. Mine is nothing remotely close to my L lens which is, admittedly, a 70-200, but nonetheless the difference in build quality and image quality is massive.

[RobDickinson]

18mm * 1.6 = 28.8
24 * 1.6 = 38.4

Youer effectivly loosing 10mm at an end where each mm matters a lot.

[Simpo Two]

RobDickinson said:

Youer effectivly loosing

The pubs must be open in NZ

[GnuBee]

miniman said:

GnuBee said:

I'll be somewhat contraversal and say that in my opinion it's the equal of the Canon L 24-70 that I owned when I was a Canon user.

Blimey. Mine is nothing remotely close to my L lens which is, admittedly, a 70-200, but nonetheless the difference in build quality and image quality is massive.

I should have qualified the statement a bit more; only in image quality - in all other respects the L is vastly superior (build quality, focusing speed blah blah) - I think I simply got lucky with my particular copy hence the comment about trying them out...

[toastboy]

I've got one of these too. My only complaint is it's about twice as heavy as any of my other lenses.