[jgredline]

Here is a link to another site with samples of this lens...
Very nice and very rich.....
Sigma 24-70 F2.8 EX DG Macro: Dyxum forums

[heatherslightbox]

My 17-70 is supposed to be arriving tomorrow and I can't wait to go out to play with it.
It came down to it and the Tammy 28-75, but the Sigma won out for it's versatility. If I had gotten the 28-75, I probably would've gotten a wider angle prime or zoom to cover anything wider than the 28 and that would've simply meant more money that I really don't have at this point (although I could've used the kit lens for wider if I had to). When I go out, I don't want to be hauling a bunch of lenses around if I don't have to.

I want to pick up another film body someday, so the best solution I've come up with that won't totally break the bank is to get another FF manual wide prime (maybe 24 or 28mm). I would pair it with my 49 Ltd. and my F70-210 and it would work for film.

Heather

[little laker]

Vinzer
If Little Laker gives it the thumbs up, then it is a great lens as he is one of the best photographers here...

I don't agree with you here jgredline, there are so many amazing photographers here including yourself. I don't think that I can honestly rate anyone here, although there are some people with more knowledge.

I could have possibly been called one of the better low budget photographers here until a month ago or so when I bought a couple of thousand in new equipment. Including the 24 - 70

[little laker]

The main reason I went after it was indeed for the extra 4mm...Most folks would think there is not much difference, between 24 and 28, but atleast for me, the difference is huge..

I made the choice for the same reasons
Plus I thought that the image quality was a little better than the 28 - 70.

I did try the 28 - 70mm f2.8, and had very good results in difficult conditions as well.

[jgredline]

My 17-70 is supposed to be arriving tomorrow and I can't wait to go out to play with it.
It came down to it and the Tammy 28-75, but the Sigma won out for it's versatility. If I had gotten the 28-75, I probably would've gotten a wider angle prime or zoom to cover anything wider than the 28 and that would've simply meant more money that I really don't have at this point (although I could've used the kit lens for wider if I had to). When I go out, I don't want to be hauling a bunch of lenses around if I don't have to.

I want to pick up another film body someday, so the best solution I've come up with that won't totally break the bank is to get another FF manual wide prime (maybe 24 or 28mm). I would pair it with my 49 Ltd. and my F70-210 and it would work for film.

Heather

Heather.
I really considered the 17-70 as well, but what sold me on the 24-70 was the constant F/2.8...For me it came down to context..Since I will be using it for hiking and I hike in the canyons where light is not good, I felt it was best for me..Usually I take my 28-75 Tamron and it is usually good but often I had wished for an extra mm or two..It is amazing how much 4mm truly is...

I am sure you made a good choice and please post some pics when you get it..

[jgredline]

I made the choice for the same reasons
Plus I thought that the image quality was a little better than the 28 - 70.

I did try the 28 - 70mm f2.8, and had very good results in difficult conditions as well.

Humble Stu...
Hey, sounds like a good soup...
I never thought I would be saying this, but so far I have to agree the image quality is better than the tammy...If not it is certainly on par...

[axl]

Yes, There is some lens flare. But to be fair, I had a giant greasy fingerprint on the side of the lens closest to the Body when I took this pic...I have since then added a UV filter to it and seems to have cured the problem...Personally, I think a bigger lens hood would be the answer to that, but then what do I know..

thanx for that, yes bigger hood could help, but then I don't know much either...

The main reason I went after it was indeed for the extra 4mm...Most folks would think there is not much difference, between 24 and 28, but atleast for me, the difference is huge..

that's exactly why I'm leaning towards this lens, and not tamron 28-75. Tamron has great reviews everywhere you look (with exception of built quality) but at 28mm it's just too narrow..

I don't agree with you here jgredline, there are so many amazing photographers here including yourself. I don't think that I can honestly rate anyone here, although there are some people with more knowledge.

I could have possibly been called one of the better low budget photographers here until a month ago or so when I bought a couple of thousand in new equipment. Including the 24 - 70

Yeah, right...
You know you're good, I wrote it before and I don't have any problem to write it agaitn. You having this Sigma and not selling it in favour of some other lens is big encouragement for many photographers on this forum who are indecisive...

Humble Stu...
Hey, sounds like a good soup...
I never thought I would be saying this, but so far I have to agree the image quality is better than the tammy...If not it is certainly on par...

Part I - you're right
part II - good to read that, thanx for posting the pics and opinions,
It seems I have decided, now I just have to find decently priced CPL for 82 mm

[vinzer]

vinzer,
2 of the 3 sample Sigma SD14 pictures linked to on my main page were taken with this lens. The Duck shot wasn't, I used my Zeiss 200mm f2.8
If you'd like you can pixel peep with the full sized images linked to it.
I think that you'd be impressed with the IQ, and in my opinion the lens makes most of the difference.

I'd give you the exact link, except the internet connection here isn't working right, so I can't access my own page
(someone please let me know if my site is acting up as well )

I checked your site, and it's fine from my end of the world.

I'm totally sold on the lens. Thanks.

Vinzer
If Little Laker gives it the thumbs up, then it is a great lens as he is one of the best photographers here...

I agree. I have the utmost respect for him. And you, too.

I made the choice for the same reasons
Plus I thought that the image quality was a little better than the 28 - 70.

I did try the 28 - 70mm f2.8, and had very good results in difficult conditions as well.

Now you're throwing a wrench in my plans for the 24-70. Haha. So you're saying that if I didn't need the 4 mm on the wide end, the 28-70's just as good?

[jgredline]

Now you're throwing a wrench in my plans for the 24-70. Haha. So you're saying that if I didn't need the 4 mm on the wide end, the 28-70's just as good?

Being that I own both Lenses and that the Tamy is indeed one of my Favs, If not for the 4mm, I would not have purchased the Sigma...But that 4mm is huge for me.

tHE 4MM is a real noticeable gain on the wide end, while the 5mm loss on the long end is not a big deal to ''me''..Can't hardly notice that.

[little laker]

I checked your site, and it's fine from my end of the world.


Now you're throwing a wrench in my plans for the 24-70. Haha. So you're saying that if I didn't need the 4 mm on the wide end, the 28-70's just as good?

Thanks for letting me know about my site working.

I personally thought the image quality with the sigma was just a little bit better.
But that took some pixel peeping to come to that conclusion, which I usually don't do.
You might see the difference in quality on a poster size or bigger picture

[benplaut]

How's the autofocus compared to, say, the FA50 or a Sigma prime? (as benchmarks). I've read "noisy and slow" from canon and nikon mounts, but we're a bit more used to that

Also, I take back what I said in that other thread... THIS is the lens to paint white! And get a big metal tube hood, too.

[little laker]

It's a little slow focusing, however it's always been spot on for me.
I only have one autofocus prime though, so I'm not the best comparison.

Also, I take back what I said in that other thread... THIS is the lens to paint white! And get a big metal tube hood, too.

lol, I agree with you here.
It's a big lens, and I've only seen one smaller Canon lens in the field.

[jgredline]

How's the autofocus compared to, say, the FA50 or a Sigma prime? (as benchmarks). I've read "noisy and slow" from canon and nikon mounts, but we're a bit more used to that

Also, I take back what I said in that other thread... THIS is the lens to paint white! And get a big metal tube hood, too.

I agree with Stu.
It is a little slow to focus, but spot on..It does not hunt what so ever.
I have three primes and all three are much faster than this ''beast''

White?, hmmm...tHAT will get their goat LOL

[jgredline]

Hey Stu
Post up some picks with this beast. I will go out this evening with it and will post some more pics later...

Funny...I am much more excited about this Lens than the K20D I ordered a couple of days ago...I guess, because I know it is the lens that makes the difference...I mean, it is very cool and exciting to see images people take..I enjoy other folks photos as much or more than I enjoy mine...All those images I posted in this thread where all taken with my ''lowly'' K110D...I love that body... no shake reduction, no dust removal system, 6MP ''only'', no nothing...Just load it up with a freshly charged set of Lithium CRV-3 batteries, a large 4 gig card and fire away....Over 1000 Images with out having to carry spare batteries or a spare card....Well, sorry for going off on a tangent...

[little laker]

I have limited access to my website at the moment, so here I go.

and here's a link to the full sized image


full sized image

and I don't have access to the full sized images for these 2 at the moment.




I'm looking forward to seeing what the pic's are like with it on your K20