Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Digi - Reb, Mar 26, 2005.

  1. Digi - Reb

    Digi - Reb Guest

    I own 3 Canon lenses,
    EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 that came w/ Digital Rebel
    EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 V USM that came w/EOS Elan II
    EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM.
    Since "quality" Canon glass is somewhat out of my price range this is the
    lens I'm considering as my walk around lens.
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=350973&is=REG
    also considering...
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=284399&is=REG

    Any thoughts or user testimonials, both pro and con would be appreciated, as
    well as any other serious recommendations.

    TIA
    John
     
    Digi - Reb, Mar 26, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Digi - Reb

    Douglas Guest

    I own 3 Canon lenses,
    EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 that came w/ Digital Rebel
    EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 V USM that came w/EOS Elan II
    EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM.
    Since "quality" Canon glass is somewhat out of my price range this is the
    lens I'm considering as my walk around lens.
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=350973&is=REG
    also considering...
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=284399&is=REG

    Any thoughts or user testimonials, both pro and con would be appreciated, as
    well as any other serious recommendations.

    TIA
    John

    If you can put up with a focus motor you can hear and one which is a triffle
    slower than a Canon USM and you can handle the occasional miss focus. You
    don't mind a Apochromatic lens producing chromatic aberrations on some
    scenes. The Sigma is a product worth considering. I just sold one of these
    (non macro) lenses after owning it for less than 6 months. Watch the line
    wrap!!
    http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3880341130&ssPageName=STRK:MESO:IT

    There is no difference in the sharpness of the image this lens and my new
    24~70 f2.8 L series produces under circumstances ideal to the Sigma lens.
    There is lots of difference in other areas and I really don't mind having
    sold 2, Sigma lenses to get one "L" series of this type. I found the 28~70
    f2.8 Sigma I had on my 10D to be better than the new Sigma for Digitals. If
    you care to take some advise from a previous owner... Try the 28~70 before
    making a decission.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas, Mar 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Digi - Reb

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    I own 3 Canon lenses,
    I personally like the 18-55 as a walk-around: Not because of quality
    (it's obviously not stellar), but because going as wide as 18mm is often
    very helpful to me - even though it isn't terribly "fast". Unless you don't
    find that to be so, you might want to wait until you can scratch up enough
    for:

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=351548&is=USA

    In fact, that lens would make the 18-55 useless, meaning you could sell it
    on ebay, making the cost difference between that and the Sigma not very
    great.

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Mar 26, 2005
    #3
  4. These links just take me to the B&H front page, I'm afraid.
    Probably because of the quoted-(un)printable encoding. It would
    be better if you posted your message as regular text rather than
    multipart MIME with text and HTML.
    Assuming we're talking about 20-something to 70-something f/2.8 zooms ...

    Photozone.de disparages the Sigma 24-70 and talks up the Tamron 28-75.
    Doesn't provide much detail though. Follow this link and look at
    "Alternatives", underneath the table:

    http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/canonFAQ.htm#28L

    They don't mention the Tokina 28-70, another competitor in this range.
     
    Ben Rosengart, Mar 26, 2005
    #4
  5. From: "Ben Rosengart" <>

    |
    | These links just take me to the B&H front page, I'm afraid.
    | Probably because of the quoted-(un)printable encoding. It would
    | be better if you posted your message as regular text rather than
    | multipart MIME with text and HTML.
    ||
    | Assuming we're talking about 20-something to 70-something f/2.8 zooms ...
    |
    | Photozone.de disparages the Sigma 24-70 and talks up the Tamron 28-75.
    | Doesn't provide much detail though. Follow this link and look at
    | "Alternatives", underneath the table:
    |
    | http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/canonFAQ.htm#28L
    |
    | They don't mention the Tokina 28-70, another competitor in this range.
    |
    | --
    | Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
    | Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
    | questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
    | --Josh Micah Marshall

    Those URLs are fine but are wrapped. You can't just click on them becuase they are
    incomplete. Just copy them and the line below them into notepad, unwrap them, copy the full
    URL and past into the Browser line.
     
    David H. Lipman, Mar 26, 2005
    #5
  6. No sir, that is not the issue. It's the quoted-printable encoding
    applied by the O.P.'s newsreader. Thank you anyway.
     
    Ben Rosengart, Mar 26, 2005
    #6
  7. From: "Ben Rosengart" <>

    | No sir, that is not the issue. It's the quoted-printable encoding
    | applied by the O.P.'s newsreader. Thank you anyway.
    |
    | --
    | Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
    | Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
    | questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
    | --Josh Micah Marshall

    Then blame your News Reader -- slrn/0.9.8.0 (NetBSD) ;-)
     
    David H. Lipman, Mar 26, 2005
    #7
  8. Digi - Reb

    Douglas Guest

    You waste your time dave. If there is one person you could find more
    dissagable than a Linux user it just has to be a BSD user. NetBSD at that!

    This guy uses an oddball (to be kind) reader and expects it to recognise
    advanced, non-complying (because it is advanced) features of a modern day
    news reader. When it won't, he blames not his historic reader but the one
    with features all the rest of us are used to having.

    It's one thing to use an alternative operating system but another thing
    alltogether to expect it to be as advanced as a bought one. For years users
    of Unix like operating systems have predicted the imminent demise of
    Microsoft as the dominant OS. Maybe if the 'ix developers ever did agree on
    one point and make it seem possible, the next point would be in disagreement
    and the whole thing fall over again. SLRN is hardly a leading edge package.
     
    Douglas, Mar 27, 2005
    #8
  9. It's true, don't try to sag me.

    NetBSD isn't my choice, that's what my ISP (and employer) runs.
    I'm posting from their machine.
    Tsk, it would really be better if you weren't so snotty.
     
    Ben Rosengart, Mar 27, 2005
    #9
  10. No. There's no good reason to post anything but text/plain to a
    non-binary newsgroup.
     
    Ben Rosengart, Mar 27, 2005
    #10
  11. Digi - Reb

    Digi - Reb Guest

    You bring up a a valid point upgrading to the EF-S 17-85 w/IS, but it's
    exactly the f/2.8 across the entire zoom range that attracts me to this
    particular Sigma lens. A fair amount of my shots are of house interiors
    taken before and after renovations so the ultra wide angle is definitely a
    plus. But I have to adjust levels of nearly every image to correct exposure,
    especially when interior designs are dark in nature. Since details are
    important in conveying quality of work, moving to faster ISOs increases
    noise, thus decreasing detail.
     
    Digi - Reb, Mar 27, 2005
    #11
  12. Digi - Reb

    Digi - Reb Guest

    Digi - Reb, Mar 27, 2005
    #12
  13. Are you sure? Look again at Photozone. They mention both the
    "Sigma AF 28-70/2.8 EX DF" and the "Sigma AF 24-70/2.8 EX DF". Is
    this latter not the lens you're considering? Sigma's site doesn't
    list any other 24-70/2.8.
     
    Ben Rosengart, Mar 27, 2005
    #13
  14. Digi - Reb

    Digi - Reb Guest

    Yes I'm certain, the actual lens is a Sigma AF 24 -70mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO <~~~NOTE DG not DF
    here's the link to it on Sigma's site under Standard Zoom Lenses it's the second in list w/NEW designation,..
    http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3261&navigator=2
    Note that this lens has an 82mm filter size.
    Since I have a 30 day window to return it, I think I'm going to take it for a test drive. I should know within a
    day or so if it's going to do the job.
     
    Digi - Reb, Mar 27, 2005
    #14
  15. Actually both:

    DF (Dual Focus) System

    This lens incorporates a Dual Focus (DF) system that is designed to
    make the lens easy to hold during autofocusing, and yet provides a
    large focus ring for easy manual focusing.

    Adorama lists just one Sigma 24-70/2.8, and mentions both DG and DF:

    Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF [...]
    Hmm. So where in that list is the 24-70/2.8 that photozone.de talks
    about? Is it discontinued?
     
    Ben Rosengart, Mar 27, 2005
    #15
  16. Digi - Reb

    Douglas Guest

    --------------
    Let me clear up some confusion about this lens having owned a number of
    recent Sigmas and Canon 'L' series lenses of similar specs, I can probably
    save you some heartbreak here as well.

    My first Sigma "EX" lens was a 28~70 f2.8. I used it on a 10D Camera and
    later on a Kodak with Canon mount. When I sold the 10D, I bought 2, 20Ds and
    a Sigma 24~70 (not the Macro) f2.8 "Digital" lenses. I also bought a 100~300
    f4.0 Sigma lens thinking it would go a way towards equalling my 120~300 f2.8
    Sigma when the distance I hiked made weight a major consideration. I was
    wrong and it cost me several grand to find that out.

    I print and sell 24"x 36" and 48" wide posters which sometimes become
    wallpaper photographs. Pictures from the 10D with the 28~70 lens easily
    enlarge to posters and the image is sharp and distortion free. Not so image
    from the 24~70. Even using a 20D with it's extra density, images taken using
    the 24~70 Sigma lens are not a lot better than those taken with the plastic
    element, 18~55 "kit lens" images.

    Use RAW and a nice converter like DxO which corrects the lenses problems and
    the kit lens starts to produce better quality images than the 24~70 Sigma. I
    put this down to the fact that Sigma "designed for digital" lenses are
    lesser quality than those they sell for 35mm. The 20D has some unique needs
    from a lens which Sigma's digital lenses don't seem to provide.

    Anyway, I recently sold the 24~70 Sigma (and the 100~300) and bought a "L"
    series 24~70 f2.8. This is THE lens by which to compare others and whilst I
    was happy with the 28~70 Sigmas and unhappy with the 24~70, neither of them
    came within a cat's whisker of the real thing. Sure, I can show you dozens
    of great pictures I took with the Sigma's but I also have hundreds more I
    can't sell for one reason or another which all relate to the lens having let
    the shot down.

    If your work needs to be done in low light, buy a program called "Neat
    Image" and a RAW converter called DxO with the 18~55 Canon module and leave
    the idea of a 24~70 alone until you can afford the real thing. The Sigma's
    don't cut it with digital, I'm afraid.

    You can't get much depth of field at f2.8 anyway so you'll probably need
    f5.6 to f8 just to have the interior in relatively sharp focus. The little
    plastic kit lens works best in this range and the barrel distortion from
    using it at 18mm is fixed with DxO. Don't be frightened to crank up the ISO.
    20D's handle 1600 ISO better than Nikon handles 400 ISO and Neat Image will
    fix the noise really well. No one will ever know you are using a plastic
    lens unless you tell them and even then, probably won't believe you!

    Some of my enlargement: http://www.tecphoto.com.au/examples.htm
    and... http://www.tecphoto.com.au/examples2.htm

    Douglas
     
    Douglas, Mar 28, 2005
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.