Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Aspherical Large Aperture Zoom Lens for Pentax and Samsung SLR Cameras

Recent Comments

1. 

   N. Bridges @ 11:19 am

   I have owned and used this lens professionally for over a year now and after a minor focus issue that was resolved very quickly by Sigma’s excellent service department I have to say this is the sharpest 24-70 lens I have used. I also have experience with the canon 24-70L lens which retails for just over a grand and the Sigma is sharper throughout the whole range(even at 2.8). The only negative thing I have to say about this lens is the noisy autofocus (Canon’s USM is much quieter). But it is still reasonably fast to AF. This is definately the best lens for the money in this zoom range and is without a doubt the best optically. Canon’s build quality and weather sealing are definately superior to the Sigma so if that is an issue, you may want to go with the Canon.

   -NB

   
2. 

   J. Martin @ 2:12 pm

   I had read quite a few reviews of this lens before buying it for my D300. Some were great and others not so great. I picked it up to use as a portrait lens for location shoots. I haven’t experienced any problems whatsoever. Some say it’s soft at f2.8. Not mine. Tack sharp at all focal lengths. Some say the Autofocus is noisy(loud.) Not mine. Or maybe I’m just not that picky. If noisy means you can hear it then…yeah it can be noisy. Some say that the autofocus hunts. Not mine. In fact this lens focuses so fast I was amazed. Color rendition is good. Contrast is good. Bokeh is nice and smooth.

   People raved about the Nikon 18-200vr so I bought one. It’s soft and slow in my experience. It was “ok” on my D70 but its flaws were multiplied on my d300. So even with the good reviews of this lens I was really worried about buying it but the price made me give it a try. I’m so glad I did. I could easily slip into another good Sigma or halfway decent Nikon lens with the money I saved over going with the Nikon equivalent. It makes me wonder how their competitor to Nikon’s 18-200vr stacks up.

   My only “complaint” about this lens is that the zoom ring is small, stiff, and at the base of the lens. It’s sometimes hard to get to and a bit backward from what I’m used to. A minor annoyance is that switching to manual focus is a 2 step process. The lens will stay in autofocus even after locking the clutch down as long as the camera is still in autofocus. Be careful with this because you could damage your camera’s motor drive if you have a tight grip on your lens. You’ll know the lens is set to manual when you try to focus and the focus ring turns on its own. I also found it odd that the lens is at it shortest when zoomed all the way in and longest when backed off to 24mm. Strange…maybe I’m missing something here but all my other zooms are the opposite.

   It’s big and bulky. I actually like this because I have big hands and find it easier to stabilize heavier equipment. And as dumb as it sounds…it looks good on the camera. Those out of “the-know” will judge you based on these types of things at times.
   
   Nice big lens = professional right?
   
   As long as you’re a potential paying customer…um…yeah! Of course!

   I haven’t had a chance to try it out yet but I’ve heard some people complain about lens flare and that hood is useless to protect against it. I like lens flare and use it creatively in my own photography so it’s not anything I would consider a minus. For me a lens hood is something I use to keep from bumping the end of my lens into stuff. I can see though how people could get annoyed if it’s unexpected. But if you’re getting unexpected flare in your shots you’re not doing your job as a photographer and paying proper attention to your scene.

   Update 6/17/2008
   
   I’ve been shooting with this lens for a few weeks now and my above observations are accurate. However the lens flare issue is a bit more than I thought. I had a hard time getting the “touch of flair” I like in some backlit shots. It was more like “holy crap that’s a lot of flair!” The hood does seem a bit useless but I tend to bump into stuff so it’s good to protect the end of the lens. I’d still buy it and fully recommend it at 5 stars.

   
3. 

   Luving it @ 2:57 pm

   Disclaimer: used it for 4 months+, on Canon Rebel XT 350D and Canon 430 film camera, I am an ameteur shooter.

   Pro:
   
   Full time MF.
   
   constant 2.8.
   
   Great contrast and color, consistent with my other Sigmas,
   
   nice weight, fit and finish.

   Neutral:
   
   OK AF speed indoor and outdoor
   
   f2.8 isn’t fast enough in many indoor situations with moving subjects. I have to use flash with it.

   Con:
   
   Arrived with severe front-focus problem. Fixed under warranty.
   
   Zoom could be smoother.
   
   AF whines a bit, but tolerable;
   
   Border not as sharp as center.
   
   Sharp only after stop down. But usable wide open for me

   Conclusion:
   
   Probably not pro grade, but for the build quality at this price, it’s a winner! (I deducted 1 star because of the less than perfect IQ.)

   Update:
   
   This claims to be a macro lens without HSM, so the so-so AF speed is excused. Got a very shallow DOF wide open. So IQ can be very low if AF is not spot on wide open. This is not a great low light lens as I thought it would be. But with good light, the IQ is excellent with fantastic color and contrast. Considering the price, it’s not a bad deal really.

   Update: March 2009
   
   Just got my used 28-70 2.8L. It looks used and the MF is problematic, but the IQ(sharpness/color/contrast) is so much better than this Sigma, not to mention flair resistance, light fall off on full frame, AF. Contrary to the Sigma, the Canon L is very much usable at f2.8. Only the border sharpness improves significantly stop down. And I got the L used for not much more than the Sigma brand new. The L is a bit bigger but not really heavier in hand, both feel handful. I am a pack-rat so I’ll keep my Sigma. I guess without the Sigma I couldn’t have really appreciated the L lens anyway! Sigma just came out with a Mark II of its 24-70 with HSM, priced into $800+ range. I think if you like it cheap, Mark I is a steal now, if you have the cash, go for the L. If you are lucky, there might just be a good used L out there for you somewhere

   
4. 

   M. Anderson @ 3:55 pm

   I shoot Nikon digital cameras (D70, D80 and D700) and I shoot a lot of indoor photos. In many situations flash photography is not allowed or preferred by me, e.g. theater productions, museums, etc. This lens has become my primary lens for shooting indoors. It is fast, clear and it seems to work perfectly with my Nikon digital cameras. Of the five Nikon mount lenses that I use, this has become my favorite working lens and I would recommend it to any serious photographer who shoots Nikon digital cameras. It is a bit heavy but I think the advantages outweigh the extra weight. It is also interesting that the Sigma DG rated lenses seem to work perfectly with full frame Nikon cameras. I tested this lens on my Nikon D700 against a much more expensive Nikon f2.8 24-70mm full frame lens. The results were essentially identical and this lens seems to be just a quiet when auto focusing.

   
5. 

   Andrew Revels @ 4:48 pm

   After using my stock kit lens, 18-55, for months, I decided I really needed a new lens to replace the kit lens.

   I chose this over the Tamron 28-75 and the Canon 17-85.

   This lens has been proven to hang right with the $1300 Canon 24-70 L in terms of sharpness.

   On with the review:

   PROS: Extremely sharp above f/2.8, pretty decent in low light situations, very solid and rugged build quality, comes with a carrying case and hood, very good price

   CONS: little on the heavy side (weighs as much as my 70-200 f/4), very loud AF, focusing is a little on the slow side, 2 step manual focus, 82mm filter size ($$$)

   Overall, this has been a decent lens for me, but I actually have it up for sale now to move on.

   Rev