Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

bonovox · 09-29-2007, 06:28 AM

I'm considering buying a Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX DF (I can get it new for $300AUD).
It will be a general walk around lens - especially for portraits and candids.

Has anyone got one? If so, can you let me know its pros and cons?

Thanks

Last edited by bonovox; 09-29-2007 at 06:50 AM.

Bnack · 09-29-2007, 08:57 AM

So I actually have this lens in an EF mount that I use on a canon EOS 3. It's a really nice lens for the money in my experience. The 2.8 throughout is pretty nice to have, although it's a little soft when you shoot it wide open. He's the big con for this lens though... it's a beast. It's got an 82mm thread, and when you combine a big honkin lens with hood on it.... EVERYONE stares at it. There's no confusing someone with this lens for your average tourist. So particularly for candids.... it's not the best lens out there really. Anyways... that's my two cents, hope it helps.
P.S. here's a link to a photo I took with the lens. If you click on the tag it'll bring up others.
Jebus on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

bonovox · 09-29-2007, 09:10 AM

I like what I see!
Size isn't an issue - I'm happy to be conspicuous. I think anyone carrying a DSLR stand out to a degree anyway (since so many people use tiny little pocket size cameras these days).
How much do you usually stop it down to escape softness at the long end?

Bnack · 09-29-2007, 09:31 AM

I would say you're in pretty good shape at f/4 on the long end. The other thing to note is that I use this on a film camera, so it's a little shorter lens for me than it will be for you. But as I said... it's been a really nice lens for me, I think you're hard pressed to find a zoom with better optics in that price range. I say if you don't care about size... than you should go for it.

and · 09-29-2007, 09:40 AM

I have one and I think it sucks. Its big and heavy because its f2.8 but then its so soft at f2.8 that you have to use it minimum at f4 then whats the point of having such a big heavy lens... I have used mine once this whole year. I think of the sigmas the only one I have actually been impressed with what Ihave seen, is the 18-50 f2.8. I believe the tamron alternative to this one is miles better. I actually ended up using my ultra cheap sigma 18-50 DG DC instead, so much smaller and lighter too.

bonovox · 09-29-2007, 11:12 AM

I thni I'll test it before I buy to make sure it isn't a bad copy of the lens (it sounds like you may have a bad copy, when most reviews seem to rate it pretty highly).
Thanks for the input.

and · 09-29-2007, 11:45 AM

Hopefully mine is a horrid sample yes.. deffinetley test this one properly if you want to get one. Sigmas QC is... Well my first 3 lenses were sigmas but now I have sworn to never buy one again.

philmorley · 09-29-2007, 01:42 PM

Hi, there are two versions, the df and the dg. and there is also the 28-70 and the 24-70

the 24-70 dg has 82mm filter (df as well?) and ways 715g
the 28-70 dg has 67mm filter and from memory the df 77mm

I had two copies and wasn't happy with either, and a guy at work did the same (so 4 out of 4 bad copies??) got told at the time 28-70 df -> 24-70 df -> 28-70 dg -> 24-70 dg

I went and bought the tamron 28-75, which absolutley left it for dead and didn't cost much more. Personally I would go the tamron (or sigma 17-70 which a lot of people like but I haven't used) or if you want the big lens the 24-70 can be had for around $500 new on ebay (its recently reviewed on photozone).

Phil

09-29-2007, 06:28 AM	#1
bonovox Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ireland's wild west Posts: 555	Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 I'm considering buying a Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX DF (I can get it new for $300AUD). It will be a general walk around lens - especially for portraits and candids. Has anyone got one? If so, can you let me know its pros and cons? Thanks Last edited by bonovox; 09-29-2007 at 06:50 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM - VS - Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro	Braciola	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	10-15-2010 04:54 AM
Pentax 17-70mm f/4 or Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 or sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4?	shang	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	05-24-2010 05:30 AM
Sigma 24-70mm, Sigma 28-70mm, or Tamron 28-75mm?	gkreth	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	05-23-2010 01:01 PM

09-29-2007, 08:57 AM	#2
Bnack New Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 20	So I actually have this lens in an EF mount that I use on a canon EOS 3. It's a really nice lens for the money in my experience. The 2.8 throughout is pretty nice to have, although it's a little soft when you shoot it wide open. He's the big con for this lens though... it's a beast. It's got an 82mm thread, and when you combine a big honkin lens with hood on it.... EVERYONE stares at it. There's no confusing someone with this lens for your average tourist. So particularly for candids.... it's not the best lens out there really. Anyways... that's my two cents, hope it helps. P.S. here's a link to a photo I took with the lens. If you click on the tag it'll bring up others. Jebus on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

09-29-2007, 09:10 AM	#3
bonovox Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ireland's wild west Posts: 555 Original Poster	I like what I see! Size isn't an issue - I'm happy to be conspicuous. I think anyone carrying a DSLR stand out to a degree anyway (since so many people use tiny little pocket size cameras these days). How much do you usually stop it down to escape softness at the long end?

09-29-2007, 09:31 AM	#4
Bnack New Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 20	I would say you're in pretty good shape at f/4 on the long end. The other thing to note is that I use this on a film camera, so it's a little shorter lens for me than it will be for you. But as I said... it's been a really nice lens for me, I think you're hard pressed to find a zoom with better optics in that price range. I say if you don't care about size... than you should go for it.

09-29-2007, 09:40 AM	#5
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476	I have one and I think it sucks. Its big and heavy because its f2.8 but then its so soft at f2.8 that you have to use it minimum at f4 then whats the point of having such a big heavy lens... I have used mine once this whole year. I think of the sigmas the only one I have actually been impressed with what Ihave seen, is the 18-50 f2.8. I believe the tamron alternative to this one is miles better. I actually ended up using my ultra cheap sigma 18-50 DG DC instead, so much smaller and lighter too.

09-29-2007, 11:12 AM	#6
bonovox Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ireland's wild west Posts: 555 Original Poster	I thni I'll test it before I buy to make sure it isn't a bad copy of the lens (it sounds like you may have a bad copy, when most reviews seem to rate it pretty highly). Thanks for the input.

09-29-2007, 11:45 AM	#7
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476	Hopefully mine is a horrid sample yes.. deffinetley test this one properly if you want to get one. Sigmas QC is... Well my first 3 lenses were sigmas but now I have sworn to never buy one again.

09-29-2007, 01:42 PM	#8
philmorley Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: in a house in Armidale, Australia Posts: 472	Hi, there are two versions, the df and the dg. and there is also the 28-70 and the 24-70 the 24-70 dg has 82mm filter (df as well?) and ways 715g the 28-70 dg has 67mm filter and from memory the df 77mm I had two copies and wasn't happy with either, and a guy at work did the same (so 4 out of 4 bad copies??) got told at the time 28-70 df -> 24-70 df -> 28-70 dg -> 24-70 dg I went and bought the tamron 28-75, which absolutley left it for dead and didn't cost much more. Personally I would go the tamron (or sigma 17-70 which a lot of people like but I haven't used) or if you want the big lens the 24-70 can be had for around $500 new on ebay (its recently reviewed on photozone). Phil