Sigma 24mm/F2.8 AF Super Wide

maxwell1295 · 04-23-2008, 09:45 AM

I came very close to selling a lens that I probably would've regretted selling. It's a lot better than I thought it would, but by the time I figured that out it was almost too late.

I had this lens listed on eBay after picking it up cheap in a local shop for resale. I figured I'd flip it on eBay, sell my kit lens, and use the $$$ to buy the Sigma 17-35/F2.8-4 zoom lens. That was until I took the 24mm out the other day during lunch and shot some pics with it. I really started to like this lens. So much that I panicked when I realized that it was on eBay with 7 people watching it within 12 hours of it being listed. I killed the auction (it was "Buy-It-Now") so I could take closer look at this lens.

Here are some test images I've taken over the past few days (Exif data should be intact):

In the shop:

100% crop

Outside:

100% crop

Brick wall (wide open at F2.8)

Center crop:

Corner crop:

It's definitely a little mushy in the corners wide open, but it's very sharp in the center at all apertures. The corner softness is pretty much gone at F4. It even does a decent job with macros (more like a closeup than a macro) although that's something I probably wouldn't use it for. Photodo rates this lens a 4 and I tend to agree with their rating. It looks to be a very good lens and I can't complain at all about the price I paid for it ($60).

**xs400** · 04-23-2008, 11:09 AM

If I were you, I'd keep it. I really like that last shot of the flower - very nice color.

maxwell1295 · 04-23-2008, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by xs400

If I were you, I'd keep it. I really like that last shot of the flower - very nice color.

I would like to, but I think the Sigma 17-70 would be just as good (and more versatile) in this spot and I would have to sell this lens (and a few others) to get it. What it comes down to is the need for a faster, slightly longer kit lens than the need for a pseudo-wide angle (on digital) lens.

HermanLee · 04-23-2008, 11:13 PM

Those shots are pretty sharp.
But I understand your need of 17-70.
I have a lot of primes right now, and been thinking to sell some to get a more versatile zoom for events/wedding.
I will keep my best primes for sure for the serious moment ...I mean seriously taking art photography

not just point and shoot.

I haven't been using my FA*24/2 that much. Looking at your 24mm Sigma/2.8 makes me can't wait weekend to use mine.

Have fun with whatever you decide.

**germar** · 04-24-2008, 05:22 AM

Agent Smart:

I came across this lens when I was researching (and saving up for) for SMC A 24mm lens. I read a couple of glowing reviews, so when I was able to pick up a nice copy on ebay for a third of what I expected to pay for the Pentax, I gave it a whirl.

I couldn't be happier with the lens. Okay it doesn't have that exact Pentax color, but the images this lens produces are wonderfully sharp and extremely pleasant. Its a great landscape lens that's very good indoors wide open.

The Sigma Super Wide II is an undervalued "sleeper" lens in my opinion. Unless you're already got a SMC A 24mm in your inventory, I'd keep it ... you're not going to make much money selling it and its really a nice little chunk of glass.

Regards,

germar

maxwell1295 · 04-24-2008, 05:24 AM

I'm going to hold off on the 17-70 for now and keep the 24mm. I just sold off my kit lens, so the 24mm the only thing I have that's even close to be fairly wide. I really do like this lens. I just have to figure out a way to fit it into my lineup.

maxwell1295 · 04-24-2008, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by germar

Agent Smart:

I came across this lens when I was researching (and saving up for) for SMC A 24mm lens. I read a couple of glowing reviews, so when I was able to pick up a nice copy on ebay for a third of what I expected to pay for the Pentax, I gave it a whirl.

I couldn't be happier with the lens. Okay it doesn't have that exact Pentax color, but the images this lens produces are wonderfully sharp and extremely pleasant. Its a great landscape lens that's very good indoors wide open.

The Sigma Super Wide II is an undervalued "sleeper" lens in my opinion. Unless you're already got a SMC A 24mm in your inventory, I'd keep it ... you're not going to make much money selling it and its really a nice little chunk of glass.

Regards,

germar

Thanks for helping to knock some sense into me. You're right about it being a sleeper lens. It's slighly cooler (colorwise) than my Pentax lenses, but that's easily taken care of in PP. it's also built very well with the metal construction.

I don't know if you saw what I paid for it ($60), but I saw one sell on eBay for $160+ last week. Selling the 24mm plus the kit lens plus my F35-70mm would go a long way towards financing the 17-70. But now I think I'm going to keep it and get the 17-70 anyway....

axl · 05-08-2009, 04:57 PM

thanks for this Alan, I just go my today, I'll be testing it for next few days, but from first impressions, I think I'm really going to like this one...

BR

Raybo · 05-08-2009, 06:12 PM

It was a STEAL at $60!

axl · 05-09-2009, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Raybo

It was a STEAL at $60!

indeed!
I had to pay £69 + shipping for my copy, still good price for UK, and I like the lens...

BR

dazman · 05-09-2009, 03:18 AM

Great shots, Alan. Your images show the 24mm to be a lens I would class as a keeper, but I'm also a big fan of the 17-70. Your decision to have both lenses is the right move. Use them for 2 months, then just sell the one that's spending more time in the camera bag than on the camera.

Tesselator · 01-16-2011, 03:04 AM

Processed images or images that were taken stopped down from this lens can look OK. It's a pretty mediocre lens however. Their on-line resale prices reflect this as well. The lens typically sells for $20 ~ $70.

So, while it might be a "price-performer" it is not on it's own a generally good performer relative to other 24/2.8 lenses from other manufacturers.

Of the on-line reviews that I've read people seem to rate it much higher than it actually is. I'm not sure why but it might be their surprise that such a low-dollar lens can perform even this well.

The front I believe rotates with focus so not great for effects filters.
The manual focusing is a bit sloppy - even when it was new.
It's not a AF speed demon tho not too bad.
The AF is rather noisy.
It's all metal body construction feels kinda nice in the hand.
The paint (surfacing) was applied without a primer coating so well used copies often show chips and whole areas where the paint has worn through to the metal.
The barrel markings are also only painted on as opposed to that recessed etched type found on some other makes and models - so these too wear off with time and use.

--
Sorry for bumping such an ancient thread but I was searching for ID images and reviews of this lens when I came across this. There's not many threads about this specific lens on-line so I though it was worth adding information to this one.

jeffrey r · 01-16-2011, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Tesselator

Processed images or images that were taken stopped down from this lens can look OK. It's a pretty mediocre lens however. Their on-line resale prices reflect this as well. The lens typically sells for $20 ~ $70.

Not sure where you've been looking, but the AF version of this lens definitely goes for more than $20-$70. More accurately, between $150-$200, and it's a good lens at that price.

macTak · 01-16-2011, 02:55 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by jeffrey r

Not sure where you've been looking, but the AF version of this lens definitely goes for more than $20-$70. More accurately, between $150-$200, and it's a good lens at that price.

Bingo. I have this lens, and it has always given me great results. This lens has always been considered an excellent optical performer (as good or better than the Pentax 24mm versions). It even got a 4 on Photodo as this thread mentions. The front does not rotate on focusing. It actually commands a good price (for the AF version in good shape I'd say more like $200-230) and in my opinion quite deserves it. It's very sharp and focuses quite close, and has good bokeh. The only downsides are a fair amount of (correctible) lateral CA, and poor flare resistance.

**Just1MoreDave** · 01-16-2011, 05:29 PM - **1 Like**

The AF is super-quiet on my copy, and manual focusing is not sloppy at all. Oh wait, it's the MF version.

The paint does suck.

Anyone who can find this lens for $20 should buy it. You aren't going to see any other 24mm lens for that price. My Sigma is sharper than my Kiron 24/2 (until they're equal at f8) and my Vivitar/Komine 24/2 (everywhere). It's really cool on a film camera, like using a DA15.

04-23-2008, 09:45 AM	#1
maxwell1295 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Long Island, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,703	Sigma 24mm/F2.8 AF Super Wide I came very close to selling a lens that I probably would've regretted selling. It's a lot better than I thought it would, but by the time I figured that out it was almost too late. I had this lens listed on eBay after picking it up cheap in a local shop for resale. I figured I'd flip it on eBay, sell my kit lens, and use the $$$ to buy the Sigma 17-35/F2.8-4 zoom lens. That was until I took the 24mm out the other day during lunch and shot some pics with it. I really started to like this lens. So much that I panicked when I realized that it was on eBay with 7 people watching it within 12 hours of it being listed. I killed the auction (it was "Buy-It-Now") so I could take closer look at this lens. Here are some test images I've taken over the past few days (Exif data should be intact): In the shop: 100% crop Outside: 100% crop Brick wall (wide open at F2.8) Center crop: Corner crop: It's definitely a little mushy in the corners wide open, but it's very sharp in the center at all apertures. The corner softness is pretty much gone at F4. It even does a decent job with macros (more like a closeup than a macro) although that's something I probably wouldn't use it for. Photodo rates this lens a 4 and I tend to agree with their rating. It looks to be a very good lens and I can't complain at all about the price I paid for it ($60).

04-24-2008, 05:22 AM	#5
germar Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: North Palm Beach, Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 728	Under appreciated lens Agent Smart: I came across this lens when I was researching (and saving up for) for SMC A 24mm lens. I read a couple of glowing reviews, so when I was able to pick up a nice copy on ebay for a third of what I expected to pay for the Pentax, I gave it a whirl. I couldn't be happier with the lens. Okay it doesn't have that exact Pentax color, but the images this lens produces are wonderfully sharp and extremely pleasant. Its a great landscape lens that's very good indoors wide open. The Sigma Super Wide II is an undervalued "sleeper" lens in my opinion. Unless you're already got a SMC A 24mm in your inventory, I'd keep it ... you're not going to make much money selling it and its really a nice little chunk of glass. Regards, germar

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Help with Sigma Super-Wide 24mm/2.8	dgaies	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	12-18-2009 10:02 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 24mm 2.8 macro super-wide II; Sigma 20-40mm/2.8	DSims	Sold Items	14	11-18-2009 05:30 PM
Sigma Super-wide ll 1:2.8 24mm	Heinrich Lohmann	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	02-20-2008 08:26 AM

04-23-2008, 11:09 AM	#2
xs400 Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,929	If I were you, I'd keep it. I really like that last shot of the flower - very nice color.

04-23-2008, 11:51 AM	#3
maxwell1295 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Long Island, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,703 Original Poster	Originally posted by xs400 If I were you, I'd keep it. I really like that last shot of the flower - very nice color. I would like to, but I think the Sigma 17-70 would be just as good (and more versatile) in this spot and I would have to sell this lens (and a few others) to get it. What it comes down to is the need for a faster, slightly longer kit lens than the need for a pseudo-wide angle (on digital) lens.

04-23-2008, 11:13 PM	#4
HermanLee Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Southern California, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 729	Those shots are pretty sharp. But I understand your need of 17-70. I have a lot of primes right now, and been thinking to sell some to get a more versatile zoom for events/wedding. I will keep my best primes for sure for the serious moment ...I mean seriously taking art photography not just point and shoot. I haven't been using my FA*24/2 that much. Looking at your 24mm Sigma/2.8 makes me can't wait weekend to use mine. Have fun with whatever you decide.

04-24-2008, 05:24 AM	#6
maxwell1295 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Long Island, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,703 Original Poster	I'm going to hold off on the 17-70 for now and keep the 24mm. I just sold off my kit lens, so the 24mm the only thing I have that's even close to be fairly wide. I really do like this lens. I just have to figure out a way to fit it into my lineup.

04-24-2008, 05:32 AM	#7
maxwell1295 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Long Island, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,703 Original Poster	Originally posted by germar Agent Smart: I came across this lens when I was researching (and saving up for) for SMC A 24mm lens. I read a couple of glowing reviews, so when I was able to pick up a nice copy on ebay for a third of what I expected to pay for the Pentax, I gave it a whirl. I couldn't be happier with the lens. Okay it doesn't have that exact Pentax color, but the images this lens produces are wonderfully sharp and extremely pleasant. Its a great landscape lens that's very good indoors wide open. The Sigma Super Wide II is an undervalued "sleeper" lens in my opinion. Unless you're already got a SMC A 24mm in your inventory, I'd keep it ... you're not going to make much money selling it and its really a nice little chunk of glass. Regards, germar Thanks for helping to knock some sense into me. You're right about it being a sleeper lens. It's slighly cooler (colorwise) than my Pentax lenses, but that's easily taken care of in PP. it's also built very well with the metal construction. I don't know if you saw what I paid for it ($60), but I saw one sell on eBay for $160+ last week. Selling the 24mm plus the kit lens plus my F35-70mm would go a long way towards financing the 17-70. But now I think I'm going to keep it and get the 17-70 anyway....

05-08-2009, 04:57 PM	#8
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	thanks for this Alan, I just go my today, I'll be testing it for next few days, but from first impressions, I think I'm really going to like this one... BR

05-08-2009, 06:12 PM	#9
Raybo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 872	It was a STEAL at $60!

05-09-2009, 01:14 AM	#10
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by Raybo It was a STEAL at $60! indeed! I had to pay £69 + shipping for my copy, still good price for UK, and I like the lens... BR

05-09-2009, 03:18 AM	#11
dazman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,949	Great shots, Alan. Your images show the 24mm to be a lens I would class as a keeper, but I'm also a big fan of the 17-70. Your decision to have both lenses is the right move. Use them for 2 months, then just sell the one that's spending more time in the camera bag than on the camera.

01-16-2011, 03:04 AM	#12
Tesselator New Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 5	Processed images or images that were taken stopped down from this lens can look OK. It's a pretty mediocre lens however. Their on-line resale prices reflect this as well. The lens typically sells for $20 ~ $70. So, while it might be a "price-performer" it is not on it's own a generally good performer relative to other 24/2.8 lenses from other manufacturers. Of the on-line reviews that I've read people seem to rate it much higher than it actually is. I'm not sure why but it might be their surprise that such a low-dollar lens can perform even this well. The front I believe rotates with focus so not great for effects filters. The manual focusing is a bit sloppy - even when it was new. It's not a AF speed demon tho not too bad. The AF is rather noisy. It's all metal body construction feels kinda nice in the hand. The paint (surfacing) was applied without a primer coating so well used copies often show chips and whole areas where the paint has worn through to the metal. The barrel markings are also only painted on as opposed to that recessed etched type found on some other makes and models - so these too wear off with time and use. -- Sorry for bumping such an ancient thread but I was searching for ID images and reviews of this lens when I came across this. There's not many threads about this specific lens on-line so I though it was worth adding information to this one.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-16-2011, 07:34 AM	#13
jeffrey r Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 337	Originally posted by Tesselator Processed images or images that were taken stopped down from this lens can look OK. It's a pretty mediocre lens however. Their on-line resale prices reflect this as well. The lens typically sells for $20 ~ $70. Not sure where you've been looking, but the AF version of this lens definitely goes for more than $20-$70. More accurately, between $150-$200, and it's a good lens at that price.

01-16-2011, 02:55 PM - 1 Like	#14
macTak Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 759	Originally posted by jeffrey r Not sure where you've been looking, but the AF version of this lens definitely goes for more than $20-$70. More accurately, between $150-$200, and it's a good lens at that price. Bingo. I have this lens, and it has always given me great results. This lens has always been considered an excellent optical performer (as good or better than the Pentax 24mm versions). It even got a 4 on Photodo as this thread mentions. The front does not rotate on focusing. It actually commands a good price (for the AF version in good shape I'd say more like $200-230) and in my opinion quite deserves it. It's very sharp and focuses quite close, and has good bokeh. The only downsides are a fair amount of (correctible) lateral CA, and poor flare resistance.

01-16-2011, 05:29 PM - 1 Like	#15
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	The AF is super-quiet on my copy, and manual focusing is not sloppy at all. Oh wait, it's the MF version. The paint does suck. Anyone who can find this lens for $20 should buy it. You aren't going to see any other 24mm lens for that price. My Sigma is sharper than my Kiron 24/2 (until they're equal at f8) and my Vivitar/Komine 24/2 (everywhere). It's really cool on a film camera, like using a DA15.