Sigma 24-70 f2.8 opinions please

Brascole · January 15, 2008

I have the D300 and I am starting to build my lens inventory. my buget for the lens selections I made does not allow me to buy the Nikkor 24-70. I am able to get the Sigma for $359 from a reliable dealer. I know it's big, heavy, no hsm and the 82mm filter size.

I am looking for opinions on it's optics.

THXS

ziggy53 · January 15, 2008

Also look at the Tamron SP 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF). Several DGrinners have this lens and like it.

Art Scott · January 15, 2008

I have the Siggy 24-70 2.8 EX DG DF and I do not find it to be cumbersome....it very well balances with my camera (konica Minolta 7D), it is extemely sharp...but on my crop cameera it left me wanting a little more on the wide end.....I am looking at jumping the KM/ Sony ship and starting looking at who has the 17-70 and what is available in that focal lenght......Ideally something like 12-70 2.8 would be fantasticly perfect for me, as long as it was as sharp as the 24-70 siggy.....did I say it is incredibly sharp.

HTH

The Roadrunner · January 15, 2008

I have the Sigma 18-50 EX DG 2.8 which I use for most general shooting. I find it is light, sharp and reasonable in price. On other forums this is a very popular choice.

Either lens should work well for you.
the Roadrunner

Tee Why · January 15, 2008

I'm not familiar with the Nikon mount version, but for the Canon mount version, it rivals the optics of the Canon's 24-70mm f2.8L.

So optically, it's very god to excellent. For the Canon mount, it has a funny, two stage process to go from AF to MF, but you may not have this on a Nikon mount. It's big and heavy. A lighter and a touch cheaper option is a Tamron 28-75, another excellent lens (optics wise) it's much smaller and lighter but is all plastic and has a pretty loud and slower AF.

If you are on a cropped sensor, the 24mm is wider and may be nicer than the 28mm of the Tamron. If you don't mind the heft, I'd go with sigma. If weight and size is a concern and you don't mind the AF in trade, Tamron is another great option as well.

Good luck.

Brascole · January 15, 2008

Tee Why wrote:

I'm not familiar with the Nikon mount version, but for the Canon mount version, it rivals the optics of the Canon's 24-70mm f2.8L.

So optically, it's very god to excellent. For the Canon mount, it has a funny, two stage process to go from AF to MF, but you may not have this on a Nikon mount. It's big and heavy. A lighter and a touch cheaper option is a Tamron 28-75, another excellent lens (optics wise) it's much smaller and lighter but is all plastic and has a pretty loud and slower AF.

If you are on a cropped sensor, the 24mm is wider and may be nicer than the 28mm of the Tamron. If you don't mind the heft, I'd go with sigma. If weight and size is a concern and you don't mind the AF in trade, Tamron is another great option as well.

Good luck.

I have read that also. I guess if your paying more than 3 1/2 times for the Canon or Nikon the Sigma is a good buy. I spoke to Sigma today to get further info and I was connected to a rep from Japan. He was visiting the USA office. He did not say which or what only that new Sigma lenses are going to be introduced at the CES show in Las Vegas in two weeks.

I have my eyes set on three Nikkors that I hope are upgraded. The 85, 80-400 and the 300 f4. Sigma as a less expensive alternative is worth looking into.

For instance: The 50-150 new version interesting. The 70-200 f2.8 if OS is added and the 18-200 OS for Nikon. On the Tamron side the 28-300 VC looks good. Who am I kidding if I had the bucks I'd get the Nikon 300 f2.8.

Thanks for the feedback.

Tee Why · January 15, 2008

Sigma like most lens makers do not seem to leak information out like they do with bodies. Not sure why though. Anyway, looking at BH's site, looks like both mounts have a "dual focus" mechanism.

For a D300, I'd much rather prefer a 18-50mm f2.8 or better yet a Tamron 17-50 for walking around. These would mimic the field of view that a 24-70 would give on a full frame body (as they were originally intended to do).

As for Sigma's zooms, I would prefer a Nikon 80-200 over a Sigma 70-200 since the Nikon may be cheaper/similar in price. If you want a very light 2.8 zoom, then the new 50-150 II may be better, but I hear it's expensive right now.

Brascole · January 17, 2008

Brascole wrote:

I have the D300 and I am starting to build my lens inventory. my buget for the lens selections I made does not allow me to buy the Nikkor 24-70. I am able to get the Sigma for $359 from a reliable dealer. I know it's big, heavy, no hsm and the 82mm filter size.

I am looking for opinions on it's optics.

THXS

Update.

I got the lens today and here is my opinion. It is not as noisy focusing as some have described. Pictures are sharp and colors look good. The small zoom ring can be annoying but acceptable. The build quality is solid and I have always liked the Sigma EX finish. But. There is "play" between the camera and lens mounts. I have the Sigma 50-500 that I use on my Canon and it is snug. The 24-70 would have been mounted on my D300. I say would have because I will return the lens. If Sigma updates this lens I would buy it. HSM, weather sealed would be nice.

The Roadrunner · January 17, 2008

According to tests I have read, the Sigma 70-200 mm f/2.8 HSM version goes for about $900 for the Nikon Mount, and according to tests - the Sigma is slightly sharper at f/4 and above, is lighter and is les than the $1,600 pricetag of Nikons comparable lens.

I was thinkin about the 70-200 Sigma HSM model my self, but might spring for the Bigma (Sigma 50-500 mm F/5.6-6.3) since I already have a fairly good 80-200 mm f/2.8 APO lens.

It makes things a lot easier when you are rich - jsut go for the gold.

The Roadrunner

Brascole · January 17, 2008

The Roadrunner wrote:

According to tests I have read, the Sigma 70-200 mm f/2.8 HSM version goes for about $900 for the Nikon Mount, and according to tests - the Sigma is slightly sharper at f/4 and above, is lighter and is les than the $1,600 pricetag of Nikons comparable lens.

I was thinkin about the 70-200 Sigma HSM model my self, but might spring for the Bigma (Sigma 50-500 mm F/5.6-6.3) since I already have a fairly good 80-200 mm f/2.8 APO lens.

It makes things a lot easier when you are rich - jsut go for the gold.

The Roadrunner

I use the 50-500 on my 20D and it's tag "Bigma" is appropriate. It does a nice job for real long shots. I use it on a tri/mono, getting old. If I had to do it again I'd go for the Sigma 80-400 OS @ $899 good deal. Although if Nikon updates their 80-400 well I'm going to debtors prision. I like the Sigma 70-200 I just don't understand why they didn't add OS to the upgrade.

Getting back to the Sigma 24-70 it did focus fast and quiet on my D300.

ziggy53 · January 17, 2008

Brascole wrote:

... I like the Sigma 70-200 I just don't understand why they didn't add OS to the upgrade. ...

There are rumors ...

Brascole · January 17, 2008

ziggy53 wrote:

There are rumors ...

Hi Ziggy,

Well "praying to God ok praying to God aka Space Balls". The Nikkors 80-400, 300 f4 and 85 get a face lift. That Sigma 50-150 odd as the mm's are looks decent as a candid shooting lens sitting on a park bench photographing good looking babes. In my age bracket of course. That would mean I'd have to hang out at funeral homes. Bummer.

ziggy53 · January 17, 2008

Brascole wrote:

... In my age bracket of course. ...

Count your blessings that you'll never be as old as I feel.

Sigma 24-70 f2.8 opinions please

Comments