Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 EX DF for Nikon - thoughts needed!

[neil_lupin]

Hi All!

 

I have a Nikon F80 and have upgraded all my lenses to the Sigma EX

range which I've been really impressed with. I haven't yet replaced

my Nikkor G 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 and I'm very tempted by the Sigma EX

f/2.8 28-70 EX DF. I could definitely use the extra stop of light and

I could never afford a Nikkor AFS!!

 

I've seen the Sigma new for about £260 in the UK and could do with

people's thoughts on this lens and if anyone knows of a good deal in

the UK or France for this lens, please let me know!!!!

 

Am I also right in saying there is a non-DF version of it too? Does

anyone know the pros and cons of both?

 

Thanks, Neil

[patrick_davies1]

I used to own the Sigma 28-70 F/2.8 EX. I think a new rev has come out since then. I was happy with the results, but I sold it in favor of a Nikon 28-105mm and then the Nikon 24-85mm AFS. I've been happier with the results of the Nikkors, and I don't miss the light loss. And I found 70mm just a bit short for my taste. 85mm and 105mm are more useful to me.

 

If you need speed, try a 50mm F1.8 or a F1.4.

[david_walker1]

Neil,

 

I have a Sigma 28-70 EX f/2.8D purchased about 2 years ago that I have used on my FE2 and most recently my D100. I spent a lot of time comnparing it with non-zoom Nikkors that I have using film but was never convinced that it was as sharp as it should be. However, the results I've seen from it on my D100 are phenomenal (sp?). I did a portrait sitting recently for an executive headshot. At 100% you could see every follicle of the poor guy's clean shaven beard.

 

Sigma's get a bad rap on Photo.net, however the pro that runs the camera shop I bought the lens at swears by them. The bad rap may be due to uneven QC so I would suggest checking any lens you buy carefully after purchase. One warning, my 28-70 f/2.8 is VERY BIG, bigger than the comparable Nikkor I think.

 

Focus speed is ok on my D100, certainly on par with my Nikkor 20mm D. I have no Nikkor AFS lenses to compare it to.

[rolf_lockwood]

This will be a 'sorta' answer because I've never used the Sigma 28-70 EX. I looked at a couple of new examples in a shop, tried them on bodies, and had very bad feelings about quality. Both the lenses I tried were a lot less than smooth in both zooming and focusing. There was binding of some sort, a metallic raspiness that I didn't like at all. So, as I would suggest that you do, I tried the Tokina 28-80 2.8 when a slightly used one appeared in a local shop. Build quality was miles ahead of the Sigma so I bought it and like it a lot. Tokina also does a 28-70 2.8 (the newish 'SV' model, the 2.6-2.8 Angenieux-derived version having been discontinued apparently)which is a fair bit cheaper, more or less on par with the Sigma. I have no experience with that one, but I would definitely cast a vote for the 28-80.

[roto]

This beats me! How can someone judge a lens without having tried it? This is something that really make me mad: reading posts written by people who judge lenses from the looks and the feeling they had that day they looked at it in the shop...

 

If you don't know what you are talking about, please, don't say anything.

 

Anyway, back to the point: I own a Tokina AT-X 280 PRO (28-80/2.8) and I can tell you it's a dog (wide open: it recovers quickly if you stop it down a bit, but then why would you buy a 2.8 lens if you have to use it at 5.6?) And it's not just my exemplar: I tried a few and they are all the same. Unfortunately in Switzerland return policies are not as good as in the States, so I had to keep the f**king lens...

 

Sure, it's well built, so what? It's a nice and heavy door stopper these days.

 

On the other side, I have two Sigmas and I'm 100% happy with them: both build quality and optical rendition are quite good. I don't know about the 28-70/2.8, though. Just don't waste your money with the Tokina!

[neil_lupin]

I appreciate there are a lot of different views out there! But I've got the 17-35 and 70-200 Sigma EX lenses and I'm 100% happy with both!

 

Does anyone have any experiences of the non-DF versus DF version of the Sigma EX 28-70 f/2.8??

 

And does anyone have any recommendations of the best deal available either in the UK or Paris (off there today for a week). Thanks, Neil

[Miha]

Hi, Neil !

I'm using the Sigma f/2.8 28-70 EX DF for almost two years - I got the lens allmost imediatelly after it came out. I'm very satisfied with it (my previous lens was 2,8-4 28-70 also from Sigma).

This lens also got excellent results by the major German photo magazines.

 

The non-DF version is (to my knowledge) the old model of the same lens. I would not suggest to buy it, since there may be problems with the chip compatibility with newer cameras.

 

Hope this helps.

Miha

[neil_lupin]

Thank you for that! I've just seen the new version of the lens in Jessops, but they are asking £300!!!! I'm sure there are other suppliers that can undercut the price, and Jessops here in England do price match, so the question is now, who knows of the best deal in the UK for the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 DF, Nikon fit... if I can get a quote, I can get the lens today in time for my holiday!!! Neil

[doug_seigars]

I had the old version of the Sigma 28-70 2.8, and I would not buy another Sigma again. I have owned three Sigmas at various times and all of them failed. The 28-70 broke with a slight bump to the front when I was hiking. I admit that I'm rough on equipment because of the types of situations in which I prefer to photograph, but I've never had a Nikon fail. At least in my experiance, Sigmas have poor build quality.

[rolf_lockwood]

As Neil has already bought -- or at least decided to buy -- his Sigma, this response is for Roberto only. Give me a break, man! Relax! You didn't read my post very carefully. I said very clearly that I had experience only with the mechanical quality of a pair of new Sigma 28-70 EX lenses I tried in a shop. I went in there with the intention of buying the Sigma, which seemed great on paper and from reviews I'd read, but both of them sounded raspy -- metal against metal -- and I felt the obvious mechanical binding in each of them as well. Would you buy a lens like that? I think not. I didn't need any more experience with them, didn't need to do any more 'testing' to know that neither one of them would have pleased me even if it was wonderful optically. If the lens is binding right out of the box, what's it going to do in a dusty/sandy environment like the ones I work in sometimes? I have one Nikkor zoom that's essentially toast after apparently ingesting dirt at the Pikes Peak Race to the Clouds a couple of years ago. It binds like crazy. My Tokina, on the other hand, didn't mind it at all. So with respect, may I suggest you read more closely before you vent? Too bad your Tokina's a 'dog', by the way. My 28-80 isn't, though I agree that it's better at 5.6 than 2.8. Seen many lenses other than Leitz products that aren't? Optically and mechanically it's terrific. Just like my Tokina 80-200 2.8 and 17. Wish I could afford the equivalent Nikkors, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't see enough difference to warrant the extra expense. Optically, mechanically, or otherwise.