Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF

02/09/2005 06:14:47 AM · #1

So I was really saving for the Canon 24-70 2.8L but a friend recommended I consider the Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG DF (Macro) version which is just as sharp if not sharper and only $400 vs. the $1100 Canon.

Just wondering if anyone here owns this glass or has used it. It's got some pretty stellar reviews on fredmiranda.com's reviews but just wanted a 2nd opinion.

//www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/sigma_2470

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

02/09/2005 08:51:09 AM · #2

I have a similar Tamron 28-75 XR Di f/2.8 Macro. It's extremely sharp (sharper than the Canon 50mm f/1.8) and compact, and it's only $369- a bargain.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

02/09/2005 08:53:12 AM · #3

If you're going to consider the Sigma lens, you would do well to also consider the Tamron AF 28-75 f2.8 XRDi , which is a bit less than the Sigma, but delivers similar image quality to the Canon lens.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

02/09/2005 08:58:20 AM · #4

I have shot with both lenses. The sigma doesn't come close to the canon for sharpness.

02/09/2005 09:09:40 AM · #5

FWIW, one of the lens review sites rated the Canon 24-70 at 4.2 and the Tamron at 4.1.

Links 2 3 4

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

02/09/2005 09:41:15 AM · #6

I have the 24-70 canon it has gave me excellent results. If I was you save your money and get the better glass.

Bran-O-Rama

Canon EOS-5D

02/09/2005 02:36:37 PM · #7

Thanks for the input, seems like the consensus is go for the even cheaper Tamron or stick with Canon glass. Choices choices..

photomayhem

Canon EOS-10D

02/09/2005 02:42:48 PM · #8

Originally posted by scalvert:

FWIW, one of the lens review sites rated the Canon 24-70 at 4.2 and the Tamron at 4.1.

I own the Tamron 28-75 and it's a wonderful sharp lens. I'd be interested in reading the review if you can post the link.

Thanks!

02/09/2005 02:46:08 PM · #9

Check out these images. I believe the first 10 and last 8 photos were all taken with the Tamron. A few of the shots are cropped, but otherwise they're straight from the camera- no sharpening, levels or other adjustments at all.

Here's the lens rating link.

Message edited by author 2005-02-09 14:48:04.

Bran-O-Rama

Canon EOS-5D

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

02/09/2005 06:23:32 PM · #10

Originally posted by scalvert:

Probably just bad lighting and incorrect white balance, but the pictures from the link posted above don't seem like anything to brag about compared to the unedited pics from the link in my initial post. Sharpness , saturation and contrast from the Sigma is amazing!

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

02/09/2005 08:19:28 PM · #11

Before you buy, test both lenses at f/2.8 and at f/8, at both ends and the midpoint of the zoom range, on something that has high-contrast detail from center to corner. I'd recommend renting the 24-70, it's available in most major markets. I rented one before buying, cost me $90 for a week's rental and I got that back when I purchased through the same retailer (Calumet in Bensenville, IL).

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

02/09/2005 08:33:22 PM · #12

Originally posted by scalvert:

I have a similar Tamron 28-75 XR Di f/2.8 Macro. It's extremely sharp (sharper than the Canon 50mm f/1.8) and compact, and it's only $369- a bargain.

sharper than the 50mm 1.8? Sounds crazy to me. Examples of both at 50mm pls? :-D

ps: maybe F 2.8 and 8.0 ?

Message edited by author 2005-02-09 20:33:59.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/09/2005 08:42:39 PM · #13

It looks like it's only $329 here, unless I'm looking at a different lens.

Those samples look great, but kirbic's advice is certainly good -- test the lens at the extremes if you can.

-Terry

parrothead

Canon EOS-40D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

02/09/2005 08:48:54 PM · #14

i own the sigma lens, and have loved the quality that I have gotton from it. But, on the other hand I borrowed a canon from a buddy for an event that I had to shoot, and I did notice a signifigant improvement in sharpness, and contrast. Even at open aperatures. I am sold on them, and will be getting that lens too....soon!

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

02/09/2005 08:50:18 PM · #15

WOW only $329, I wish I wouldn't have bought the monolight the other day, i woulda surely gotten this instead! Especially after looking at that site compairing it to the Canon L. Well back to saving :-D

NeoScales

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

02/09/2005 09:29:02 PM · #16

There are a number of reports concerning an incompatibility with the Canon 20D and the Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG DF while using a flash and/or battery grip. My understanding is that Sigma has acknowledged it, but has no explanation or "fix" in the foreseeable future.

//www.photographyreview.com/PRD_332057_3128crx.aspx

...the Tamron has no such issue.

I personally shoot with the Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8 AT-X AF Pro with good results (from a good copy).

02/10/2005 01:12:07 AM · #17

OK, I did a little Photoshop work on the images I posted earlier. Nothing major, but it'll give a much better idea of the performance of this lens. The Poppy in particular is a great example of the quality.

There's a thorough review of the Tamron HERE, and the lens is compared against the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and 28-135.

02/10/2005 02:18:01 AM · #18

Sorry if this is a bit rambling--it's late.

It seems we go through this recommendation thread a lot, and I don't mean to be repetitive, but I don't get it. Why is everyone recommending these lenses which don't have a very good range for a 1.6 crop factor SLR? (The range would be perfect for a full frame SLR).

The Sigma is $269. Much cheaper than these lenses and gives you a great walk around range of 18-125, perfect for a 1.6 crop factor camera. As far as I can see the only issue is some vignetting which is easily fixed in PS. My copy of this lens is tack sharp and has great color. I posted some no-edit crop comparisons to the 50mm and the 70-200mm/4L in another thread. For outdoor use it's perfect, and I highly recommend it.

But I've been reading these threads because I would like a better indoor/low light lens. So when I hear the recomendations for these lenses, it makes me wonder--is 2.8 sufficient for indoor use without going above ISO 200--I think the 300D has too much noise at 400 and above? F3.5 doesn't sound much different, but it's not sufficient. And of course my Sigma is only 3.5 from 18-24 (approx), then its 4.0 from 25 to 34, 4.5 from 35 to 45, 5.0 from 45 to 55, where it goes to the 5.6 minimum and stays there to 125mm.

If 2.8 is sufficient, maybe that's a justification to look at these other lenses. However, the range these offer has too little on the wide angle side! I want a F2.8 zoom that goes equivalent to a 28-70 on a 35mm for indoor use.

So perhaps the only answer for me is to either wait for someone to come up with a new lens, or look at some 20-24mm primes, which might also have the advantage of getting me down to 1.8. I really want to use natural available light!

BTW, I finally found the original review comparison which made me buy the Sigma, it's 17-85 vs EF-S 18-55 vs 18-125 vs 100/2.8 Macro USM but the pictures are gone, just the text of the review remains.

Lastly, for Shannon and others who are very nicely posting and pointing to lens comparison images, I would like to suggest posting unaltered images at full resolution; most lenses seem to have pretty good sharpness when the image is reduced (and especially when USM is applied to offset the reduction). I wish there were some more comprehensive test/sample resources available on the web.

Ok, bed time...

02/10/2005 08:05:59 AM · #19

Originally posted by nshapiro:

I would like to suggest posting unaltered images at full resolution...

The review I just posted was exactly for that purpose. The Sigma has a great range and might appear sharp, but it's neither as sharp nor as fast as the Tamron. I do wish the range went a little wider, but I have a 70-200 for reach, and rarely need both ends in any given location so I'd rather switch glass to suit the situation.

02/10/2005 08:34:33 AM · #20

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by nshapiro:
I would like to suggest posting unaltered images at full resolution...

The review I just posted was exactly for that purpose. The Sigma has a great range and might appear sharp, but it's neither as sharp nor as fast as the Tamron. I do wish the range went a little wider, but I have a 70-200 for reach, and rarely need both ends in any given location so I'd rather switch glass to suit the situation.

Certainly not as fast, but how do you know it's not as sharp?

02/10/2005 09:02:28 AM · #21

Originally posted by nshapiro:

Certainly not as fast, but how do you know it's not as sharp?

The Sigma 18-125 was reviewed in Popular Photography magazine. They called it a "decent" lens, but they certainly weren't drooling over it. The Tamron 28-75 is considered to be a very sharp lens in reviews, but I have yet to see a similar statement regarding the Sigma.

jaredldr

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/10/2005 09:10:35 AM · #22

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

If you're going to consider the Sigma lens, you would do well to also consider the Tamron AF 28-75 f2.8 XRDi , which is a bit less than the Sigma, but delivers similar image quality to the Canon lens.

My copy of this lens came in last night...and all I can say is WOW. Its as sharp if not sharper than my 50mm f1.8 at first glance. I still need to do some head to head test on a tripod but first impression (while admittedly jaded) is better than great.

I got mine from Buydig and it was delivered in three days. After shipping and a $40 rebate it works out to about $315 US.

02/10/2005 09:29:17 AM · #23

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by nshapiro:
Certainly not as fast, but how do you know it's not as sharp?

The Sigma 18-125 was reviewed in Popular Photography magazine. They called it a "decent" lens, but they certainly weren't drooling over it. The Tamron 28-75 is considered to be a very sharp lens in reviews, but I have yet to see a similar statement regarding the Sigma.

While it may be so, it seems tentative to draw that conclusion based on separate reviewers and different tests. Given what I've seen in my Sigma compared to my L lens and my Canon 1.8, I'd have to see a real sharpness comparison to believe it. Of course samples can differ, and either my Sigma may be a real good sample, and my other lenses bad ones (70-200/F4L, Canon 50 1.8, and Canon EFS 10-22).

I downloaded some lens test sheets and instructions that I might try. If you (or anyone else) is interested in trying them on yours, I can email them to you or send you the link.

Message edited by author 2005-02-10 09:29:50.

02/10/2005 09:42:57 AM · #24

You're right that I'm drawing conclusions from different sources, but it seems reasonable given that every review of the Tamron mentions how sharp it is, and reviews of the Sigma don't. It's also possible that you got a very good copy (lucky you) and/or a bad copy of your 70-200. I might do some side-by-side tests of similar lenses this weekend if I get a chance.