Sigma AF 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG macro reviews

Greetings


This seemed like the best place for this discussion. Apologies if it's not.


I was looking around for a decent quality, fast mid range zoom to replace the kit lens I got with my 60d (the 18-55mm), which is fairly rubbish. I happened upon reviews for the Sigma which made it sound pretty good. Like here for example. Pretty darn good actually. So I checked with TDP's account and Oh, not so great. The sharpness test images are quite damning at wide open. This was perplexing. Both sites I consider very thorough and reliable and seem to generally agree on a lot of lenses. I know it's too much to expect the second coming of lenses for 500 bucks. But I looked around a bit more and found that reviews of this particular Sigma are pretty variable (although sometimes I wonder if they're talking about the same lens and not the similarly named ones in Sigma's range).


Maybe this lens has had a bit of a quality assurance problem. I was wondering if anyone has tried it themselves and had an opinion.


cheers

I started out with the Sigma AF 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG. I was very disapointed in how soft my images were. I replaced it with the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF.


The Tamron is a much better lens IMO.


Mark

Hi Muz,


I don

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jks_photo

his complains were with lens flare and images being soft.....
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I forgot to mention this. The lens flare is really bad with the Sigma. The Tamron resist lens flare better than any lens I have used.


Mark

The 17-40mm is not a very good lens for 1.6 crop cameras, it was designed for full-frame and does not behave itself on a smaller sensor. The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is a sharper lens than the 17-40mm and has f/2.8 and cheaper. Bryan has a good review on it.


John

I have the Sigma 24-70 (well at least for a few more days, selling it right now on Ebay). My main complaint with it is that it is too long for my APS-C camera. I didn

Thanks a lot folks.


I should really broaden my brand shopping horizons a little more. The Tamron does sound good and is going pretty cheap at the moment.


Do I -need- 2.8? Well I shoot a fair bit of low budget video and experience has shown that you need to get the most out of a limited lighting rig any way you can. Plus since I got the 60D I noticed opportunity and habit have meant that I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muz

Do I -need- 2.8?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

2.8 or faster is always a plus though your 60D has pretty good high ISO performance. I really like my 50 1.4 for low light. I also have the Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD. It is a little longer than the 17-55 and is not quite wide enough for your 60D but also excelant.


Mark

Muz


Welcome to the forum. I just looked at your profile and see you are in Perth. I live in Texas but had the privilege of visiting Perth a little over a year ago. My wife and I stayed in Mandurah for two weeks. Loved your country and hope to come again someday.


Cheers


Mark

Mark did you go to the Little Creatures Brewery at Fremantle? Best Sunday session in the country as far as I