| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/16/2010 11:09:54 AM · #1 |
I am shopping for a full frame compatible lens that covers approximately 24-70mm. I don't want to spend the big bucks for the Nikon 24-70 but I do want quality fast glass at a more reasonable price.
I am considering the offerings from Sigma and I would like to know what you think of these two lenses.
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF for $569.00
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical IF EX DG HSM for $899.00
The main differences that I can see (other than price) are that the first one is a macro lens and the second has a quiet focusing motor.
I intend to use this as:
1) A portrait lens
2) An all around lens to link the coverage between my 17-35 to my 70-200.
I don't care about weight, size, or the noise of the focusing mechanisms. So, HSM is not a selling point that justifies the price difference.
The first one being a macro lens seems to be a bonus and I wonder what the drawback to being a macro lens is. Is there some reason to avoid a macro lens if macro photography is not going to be the primary use? Is there a significant difference in the quality of the images produced by each of these lenses?
I would appreciate your comparisons of these two lenses and, considering my criteria, what your choice would be.
Thanks a lot. |
|
|
|
11/16/2010 11:19:48 AM · #2 |
i saw this on the sigma catalog the other day and i was really interested when i found out that they have a Sony mount. i intend to use it in the same way you stated, but i too, lack the necessary information.
thanks for posting this inquiry, now i too shall be waiting for the others to reply. |
|
|
|
11/16/2010 11:28:57 AM · #3 |
I *think* that the ELD (Extraordinary Low Dispersion) glass will be far better suited to a studio if you are intending on using a studio with studio lights. You will get issues when doing portraits against a lit white backdrop. You could also see issues with strong back-lighting from the sun for example.
The fact the other can do macro is just a bonus, there should be no side effects at all for non macro photography using that lens.
eta ... as per this post
Message edited by author 2010-11-16 11:33:19. |
|
|
|
11/16/2010 01:54:02 PM · #4 |
Macro on these lenses doesn't really mean macro. It means closeup. A true macro will allow you to get 1:1 magnification without any further attachments like diopter filters or extension tubes. True macro lenses are fixed focal length lenses like the Nikon 105mm macro lens or the Tamron 90mm macro lens.
The first lens has a max magnification of 1:3.8, the second is 1:5.3.
Message edited by author 2010-11-16 13:57:15.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2010 02:01:15 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Macro on these lenses doesn't really mean macro. It means closeup. A true macro will allow you to get 1:1 magnification without any further attachments like diopter filters or extension tubes. True macro lenses are fixed focal length lenses like the Nikon 105mm macro lens or the Tamron 90mm macro lens.
The first lens has a max magnification of 1:3.8, the second is 1:5.3. |
"True" macros are also flat field designs, meaning the have excellent edge to edge sharpness. Document copying was a big use for macro lenses before copy machines. Newspapers on microfilm still avaliable in some libraries are a good exapmple. |
|
|
|
11/16/2010 03:14:42 PM · #6 |
Any reason you're not considering the sterling Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8? A lot of us have and love that lens. You saw it on the cruise...
R. |
|
|
|
11/16/2010 05:04:57 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by bobonacus:
I *think* that the ELD (Extraordinary Low Dispersion) glass will be far better suited to a studio if you are intending on using a studio with studio lights. You will get issues when doing portraits against a lit white backdrop. You could also see issues with strong back-lighting from the sun for example.
The fact the other can do macro is just a bonus, there should be no side effects at all for non macro photography using that lens.
eta ... as per this post |
Thanks for posting that previous thread. I remember seeing it but I must have skimmed over it at the time and I didn't remember that it was about the Sigma lens. That explanation backs up a review that I read in which the reviewer complained about lens flare and extreme loss of contrast when shooting in the direction of the sun even when the sun was not in the frame.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Any reason you're not considering the sterling Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8? A lot of us have and love that lens. You saw it on the cruise...
R. |
Actually, I am considering that lens, Bear. I wanted to get the comparison between the two Sigma lenses addressed first and then make my choice between the 'winning' Sigma and the Tamron.
BTW, congratulations on your recent high scoring/placing challenge entries. |
|
|
|
11/16/2010 06:49:09 PM · #8 |
This may help you out.
I find this site a really great resourse.
//www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-24-70mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-Lens-Review.aspx |
|
|
|
11/16/2010 08:46:40 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Magnumphotography:
This may help you out.
I find this site a really great resourse.
//www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-24-70mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-Lens-Review.aspx |
Yes, this is the review that I was referring to when I replied to  bobonacus about his quoting a previous thread about "issues when doing portraits against a lit white backdrop".
This is the review that stated the following: "The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Lens produces severe flare at the longer end of the focal length range if the sun (or a bright light) is close to the image circle. This flare can completely destroy the contrast of the image."
Thanks for posting it here. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/07/2025 05:30:46 AM EST.
