Sigma 24-70/2.8 -- how is it wide open???

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by jmublueduck (aim), Nov 6, 2003.

  1. - anyone have direct experience w/ the Sigma 24-70/2.8 wide open?<br>
    - how about experience w/ both the Sigma & Canon's version?<br>
    - is it worth the add'l cost to just spring for the Canon?<p>

    examples would be excellent if you have any :)<p>

    thanks,<br>
    ~ scott
     
  2. I have it in a Minolta Maxxum mount. The optics are the same as the Canon mount. It's somewhat soft wide open. Of course, I tend use a wide open aperture for portraits so the softness is not that big of a deal.

    It's very good at f/5.6. Of course that's not a surprise either. Most lenses do very well stopped down two stops. I've got some very nice 8x10's (shot on Reala and printed on a Fuji Frontier machine).

    The autofocus on mine is pretty quiet. I have heard of reports from others that their lens was very noisy during autofocus. I guess that comes from severe differences in quality from sample to sample. The build of the lens is very solid as well. Don't listen to the people who say it's crap. I see no reason why this lens wouldn't last me a lifetime if cared for properly. Of course it won't hold up to constant abuse if you're the type of person to beat on your equipment.

    Personally, I bought mine because I couldn't afford the Minolta 28-70 f/2.8 G lens. It was over twice the price. If you can afford the Canon L equivalent, then go for the Canon. I'm sure it will be a lot sharper. It will also be better built (weather sealing, etc.). It will also have USM and full time manual focus. The USM on the Canon lens should give faster autofocus. The hood on the Canon lens is more robust as well. The hood on the Sigma is quite shallow. I use it more for protection against bumps because I don't think it would really protect against flare well because of its shallowness. I should say that I haven't had a problem with flare though. The last advantage of the Canon is that it has a much smaller filter size. The 82mm filter size of the Sigma makes buying filters expensive. I only have a Hoya HMC UV filter for it. I've decided that I'll use filters for the Cokin P system if I need to get more filters.

    For examples, check out my photo uploads. They're not the greatest scans. They are unretouched photos from a Frontier machine. I'm sure they'll look better if I did some post scan work on them.

    Try www.photosig.com as well. You can view photos by equipment used. They may have some better examples.
     
  3. I like this lens very much despite beeing a little bit sceptic at the beginning. It delivers stunning sharp images even close up or at low light conditions at full aperture.

    I made a star test at 70 mm mounting my 10D on my telescop an shot some images of the Pleiades. I've found out, that the infintity mark of my copy is not correct and an inner group of lenses are slight shifted out of the optical axis, but refocussed the results were remarkable sharp for a zoom lens with this large aperture. Please keep in mind, star testing is a real brute test for any optic.

    best wishes, Georg from Bonn
     
  4. I was about to ask the question myself. To the guys that answered, thankyou.
     
  5. ditto Steve: thanks for the replies.

    peace.
     
  6. is it worth the add'l cost to just spring for the Canon?
    It's a very subjective question. With the Canon you pay more and get more (USM, better sharpness wide open, complete freedom from any future compatibility problems, better build quality etc.). With the Sigma you pay less and get less. Your call.
    anyone have direct experience w/ the Sigma 24-70/2.8 wide open?
    No, but have a look here and here.
    Happy shooting ,
    Yakim.
     

Share This Page