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

[Muz]

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

[clemmb]

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

[jks_photo]

Hi Muz,


I don

[clemmb]

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

[Fast Glass]

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

[patham]

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

[Muz]

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

[clemmb]

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

[clemmb]

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

[btaylor]

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