New Sigma 24-60 and 24-70 Macro

[les]

Anyone using any of these two new lenses ? I figure that the 24-70 is

not really a new construction, just the old 24-70 with new coatings.

I would be interested in any opinions on optical quality of any of

them (I know that there is a review of 24-60 by PopPhoto, but...you

know, and also one review of the same lens on PhotographyReviews

page).

 

Other than that - any comments would be appreciated.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>Other than that - any comments would be appreciated. </i> </p>

 

<p>I'll refer to that. As far as I understand, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is possibly the best 3rd party mid-range zoom. It's a very good lens. A friend of mine uses it on the EOS3. He says it is very good. He tested it against the 28-70/2.8 USM L and says the results are very close. <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008T9j">Here</a> is a user which compared it to the 1300$ 24-70/2.8 USM L and <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008SgU">here</a> is a comparison to the 1600$ 70-200/2.8 USM L IS. If you ask me, it has <b>very</b> impressive performance for a 300$ lens. If I were in a market for such a lens I'd get this one.<p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[david_semanik]

I use the Tamron 28-75/2.8 on my 10D and 1D and love the images I get with it. I borrowed a friends Canon 24-70/2.8 to compare and test. The image quality, weight reduction and saving myself $800.00 on the Tamron was the best choice for me.

[jacek_cwik]

Leszek, you need to answer important question: Do you mostly work with or w/o a flash? Why is it important? Because the Canon 24-70/2.8L lens sends distance data to camera. 3rd party lenses? Nobody knows. It doesn?t matter when you have a body w/o E-TTL II. BUT if you have one and flash photography is your working area a lens with distance data is an advantage.

[charlie_vigue]

I'm interestec in the 24-60/2.8 and 18-50/2.8, both look to be good for a shorter std zoom on my 10D

[les]

Thanks everyone. Tamron 28-75 was on my list, and I guess still is. The new Sigma 24-60 (and 28-70) appear to follow the same design philosophy as Tamron (small size, smaller filter size, DG optimized - whatever that means), so I was thinking that they should be quite similiar optically to Tamron 28-75, otherwise it would make no sense for Sigma to release two totally new designs if they could not compete with Tamron 28-75.

 

Well, If I can't make my mind, I will probably try to save for Canon 24-70/2.8...

Big, heavy, but hopefully no worse than Tamron or the new Sigmas ;)

[jacek_cwik]

Leszek, find this http://photozone.de/bindex2.html and look through the scores and positions of the particular lenses. In my opinion these tables are adequate to the real characteristics and optical quality. Pay attention to the position of mentioned Canon, Tamron and Sigmas.

[les]

Well, the mentioned Sigmas are not on that list yet. They are both new lenses (24-60 available now, 28-70 not in the shops yet).

If they were, I would not be asking these questions.

[michael focus97.com lee]

Leszek,

 

I have the newest Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro, and I love it. I posted a couple times already on this lens, saying that I'll put an in depth review on my website, but still have not done so yet. I'm afraid I underestimated how much work it is to take loads of pics of a lens test chart, the process them afterwards for web publishing. I'm going to get the test chart results published soon, but it'll probably be a week or so.

 

I'll just say briefly, many reviews indicated it was a sharp lens, with good contrast, which I'm finding out. It has great build quality, a nice finish, and good weight. It's certainly no small lens, but I really love the feel and look of it; I'm not a fan at all of compact lenses or cameras. The AF is fast! I swear it's a notch just below Canon's USM. Close focusing is great, down to about 6 in. or so.

 

Anyway, I'll post a more in depth look later. Takes time...

 

Incidentally, in recently looking up an alternative to the 100-400 L, I came across your Sigma 80-400 posts. That and a few others have got me really wanting that lens.

[jacek_cwik]

Guys, Iam really confused. Are you talking about 24-70 or 28-70mm zoom? I visited Sigma website and didn't find any of this range zooms called macro. There is 24-70/2.8 EX DG @ Adorama and 24-70 EX DG Macro @ B&H. They seem to be the same lens. Both are "DG". And this lens is shown on photozone table.

 

I am not sure if Leszek and Michael are talking about the same lens.

 

One more question: How can anybody use THE LENS if it's not in the shops yet?

 

OK. It was possible for Canon preproduction lenses but I dond't think Sigma do it this way. I can be wrong though.

[michael focus97.com lee]

"<i>...24-70 EX DG Macro @ B&H</i>" This is the lens I have. When Leszek said "<i>24-70 is not really a new construction, just the old 24-70 with new coatings</i>", I interpreted that as also refering to my lens. Apparently, there was a Sigma 24-70 that was not "DG". Her comment of "new construction" seems to point at the more recent DG version.

<p>

Leszek?

[les]

Jacek/Michael,

Sorry for the confusion.

OK, here it goes. Sigma had two short fast zooms: 28-70/2.8 and 24-70/2.8. Both available for the last couple of years.

 

Now, recently Sigma has made 24-60/2.8, which is available in the shops now. It may be quite a good lens with advanced construction (2 SLD and 4 aspherical elements).

 

Also, they announced 24-70/2.8 Macro, which appears to be the old 24-70/2.8 but with improved coatings. The 24-60 and both 24-70 lenses can be found on B&H site (currently available). Both 24-70/2.8 lenses have different prices, there are some differences in the name (Macro) and some details are also different if you have a very close look at the pictures.

 

As regards the 28-70/2.8 DG - this is a totally new lens, not yet available in the shops. It is much lighter than the old 28-70/2.8, has different construction to the old one (2 SLD and 4 aspherical elements) and looks different. In fact, it looks almost identical to the 24-60/2.8. The press release appeared maybe 6 weeks ago or so.

 

My question was related to the 24-70/2.8 Macro, and the 24-60/2.8, as the new 28-70/2.8 is not yet available.

[les]

And Jacek, the Sigma website is not up to date...

They have the 24-60/2.8 in 'Lenses-Zoom', the new 28-70/2.8 is on their 'News' page, but the 24-70/2.8 Macro is not mentioned. I think it was on the 'News' page some time ago, but the 'Lenses' page was not updated...

[michael focus97.com lee]

Leszek,

<p>

On <a href="http://sigmaphoto.com/html/zoom_intro.htm"> this page</a>, there is the 24-70 2.8 EX DG (Macro) zoom that I just bought. Is this the one you're refering to as having new coatings? (If not, I'll not be a happy camper, as I just bought this thing, and I'd hate for a newer one to be coming out!)

[les]

Michael,

have a look here:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home;jsessionid=BOSnJkFbug!-1394481077?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=SearchBar&A=search&Q=*&shs=Sigma+24-70

 

The 'new' 24-70/2.8 is priced at $429.95, the 'old' one at $409.00.

 

I do not know the exact difference between them - the weight difference is 0.06lb, dimensions and number of elements are the same.

I remember reading somewhere that the 'Macro' version has improved coatings which minimizes reflections from the sensor.

[les]

Here is the press release:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092204sigma3lenses.asp

[michael focus97.com lee]

Leszek,

 

Yes. That newer 24-70 is the one I have just recently bought. So far as I could tell, the newer ($429 lens vs. the $409 lens) has the DG designation. It says the DG is optimized for digital cameras. I wonder if it is better coatings, or an element in the back of the lens that aligns the light rays to be more perpendicular with the sensor.

 

Either way, it is a fantastic lens. It's bulky, yes, but it has an awesome look on the lens. AF is very fast, and the constant aperture is quite nice. I wish there was just a bit more on the long end, but if there were I'd probably want a bit more than that anyway, and so on, ...

 

82mm filter thread's a bit big, but I've got 77mm filters that I just attach to a 82mm->77mm step down ring. With the 1.6x factor, there is no vignetting with the step down ring + filter.

[les]

Well, I would be using it on a film body so 82mm filter would be a nuisance (I currently use 58, 72 and 77mm only).

I am sorely tempted by this lens, as my experience with the other Sigma lenses I have is rather very good (70-200/2.8 EX HSM and 80-400 EX OS).

So far I am shooting for Canon 24-70, I think, but it is not a done deal yet...

Yakim is right, Tamron 28-75 is a very good lens, but the variability between examples is large, plus it has a rotating focus ring (during AF, that is) which I don't like.

Sigma would suit me fine, provided that the optical quality is there, and in the past the general consensus was that while it is a good lens, it is rather soft at 2.8 (I am talking about the 'old' 24-70).

I would expect some improvement as far as the 'new' 24-70 goes.

 

Maybe you could send me some pic or two (5Mb JPEG)with 100% crops ? My E-mail address you can get from this website.

 

I am really interested in seeing how good Sigma really is.

[michael focus97.com lee]

I'll send some JPEGs to your email address, definitely. I'm wondering why you'd want the 100% crops? If I send the large files, you'll be able to zoom wherever you want. I just want to find a suitable subject when I can get a bit of time.

 

How are you liking your 80-400, by the way? Is it sharp enough for you? It seems Sigma has the APO designation on their most expensive lenses...

[les]

I am sure that I said that before, but here it goes again:

It is heavy; It is Sharp; OS works as advertised; It has a slow AF; AF works a LOT better on better body (I bought 1V after trying it out in the shop with Sigma 80-400).

I could not see any big difference between Sigma 80-400 and Canon 100-400 in AF speed (it does not mean it is not there: I tried both lenses in a pretty dim interior of the shop, and both lenses appeared to work with equal speed and no hunting. In bright light the Canon may be faster focusing, but believe me, Sigma on 1V is plenty fast enough, unlike on EOS30, but 100-400 is not a great champion on EOS30 either...)

 

In short: I am happy with 80-400, weight could be a bit less, and it is a shame that no HSM was used on this lens. So, it could be improved, but I have no intention of replacing it with Canon 100-400 (and it is not a money issue).

 

 

 

My comments on Sigma 80-400 are here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007wjO

 

and here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007wjO

 

Some pictures are here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=395688

 

The previous thread on this subject: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009NL8

[vaibhaw]

From the MTF chart of these two lenses, the 24-70 F2.8 EX DG Macro looks much better than the 24-60 F2.8 EX DG, especially for APS-C sized sensors as we don't have to read beyond 15 mm of x-axis. In fact if MTF chart is compared this sigma 24-70 performs as good as Canon 24-70 F2.8L, which is the best in this zoom range.

 

The Sigma-japan website has MTF chart but the US website doesn't, here is the link to japan website: http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/lens/standardzoom/index.htm

 

MTF chart of Canon 24-70 F2.8L can be found here: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=8503

[maarten_klap]

Hi, I own the sigma 24-60/2.8 EX and I dont see any degradation in sharpness @ F2.8. I choose the 24-60 over de 24-70 because of the 77mm filter size and the poor performance of the 24-70/ex wide open.

 

I am not so sure yet about micro contrast and color representation. Pictures taken with my 70-200/F4L look nicer and better, even though the sharpness does not look not mutch better than the 24-60. I think the contrast of the 70-200/F4 is probably the cause.

[maarten_klap]

I have the 24-60 and like its size, weight and 77mm filter size. It does not degrade in sharpness wide open which makes it very usable @f2.8. Build quality is good, but I miss HSM.

 

The sharpness is not as good as my 70-200/f4 L but this could also be because the contrast is less than the L. It would be nice to see a comparisson between the 24-60 and the 24-70L

[joseph_albert]

There is no way I'd ever even consider purchase of the Sigma 24-70 on account of the 82mm filter threads. The accumulated aggravation of dealign with that over the life of the lens just isn't worth it for a $350 3rd party lens. You'll probably end up paying more for filters and accessories than for the lens itself, not to mention carrying the stuff around just to use on a single lens.

<p>

If you want high image quality and moderate price, you probably are better off with prime lenses instead of zooms. It is a fact of life that the more moderately prices lenses make compromises. Control of flare (which is not just an issue of ghosting from the sun in the image but also affects color saturation and contrast in other situations), distortion, performance in the corners wide open at one end of the zoom range, vignetting wide open at at the wide end of the zoom range-- these are the sorts of things that may be compromised in the cheaper lens.

<p>

Joseph Albert

[nordic landscapes]

Although opinions are divided, I see that most of you agree that the new Sigma 24-70 lens is very good. Also the Tamron 28-75 has excellent reviews, but I'm really interested in a zoom starting at 24mm, as I use the 24-28mm bit all the time for my landscapes (http://www.focusgallery.nl/Nicolas_Lietaer). I wouln't want to switch all the time between a 24mm prime and a 28-75 zoom. As there seems to be very little reviews on the 24-70 lens, I'm rather tempted to go for the Sigma 24-70. I would like to buy the best possible zoom starting at 24mm that fits on my Minolta Dynax 7, but it doesn't seem that Minolta have zooms starting at 24mm. Is there anything better than the Sigma 24-70 ? I'm actually not interested in less than 24mm (I'm using an analog camera).

 

For the Sigma 24-70, the only thing I'm still worried about is vignetting (giving the size of the lens). If I have a UV filter on the 24-70 lens, and I have the LEE filter system on top of that, should I expect vignetting ? My LEE filter system is set up for taking maximum 2 filters at a time. Of course, I would then have to buy the "wideangle" adapter from LEE. I would be using it on my analog reflex camera (Minolta).

 

Can anyone comment on possible vignetting for the Sigma 24-70 lens ?

 

Thanks!

Nicolas.