[Denis]

I purchased this lens a few days ago and so far it appears to be fairly good. Anyone else has experience with this lens. I will post some test photos in the next few days.

The few test photos taken so far, indoor, showed some potential for sharp images. Sunny day today so I should be able to give it a good workout. In the meantime let me know your experiences if you own or used to own this lens.

---

Last edited by Denis; 05-03-2008 at 03:19 PM.

[benplaut]

that's a new one... I thought there was only the 24-60 and 20-40?

[axl]

that's a new one... I thought there was only the 24-60 and 20-40?

agree there, I never heard of 20-60 f2.8 from sigma...
I'd really double check what are you buying

[Tyler]

I can't find anything on the lens either.

[ftpaddict]

Maybe the OP made a typo?

[benplaut]

Maybe the OP made a typo?

in sig, too

[Denis]

that's a new one... I thought there was only the 24-60 and 20-40?

Not awake when I typed this subject. It is a 24-60 F2.8, not some new type, sorry about that. I have to admit that it got some people looking.

[axl]

Not awake when I typed this subject. It is a 24-60 F2.8, not some new type, sorry about that. I have to admit that it got some people looking.

OK, 24-60 f2.8 makes sense...
as for the lens itself, hard to say, because I don't have it... Some people like it some don't I suppose it depends on what copy (good/bad) you have. Generaly though, it's bigger sibling 24-70 f2.8 and Tamron 28-75 f2.8 are favoured more...

[Denis]

OK, 24-60 f2.8 makes sense...
as for the lens itself, hard to say, because I don't have it... Some people like it some don't I suppose it depends on what copy (good/bad) you have. Generaly though, it's bigger sibling 24-70 f2.8 and Tamron 28-75 f2.8 are favoured more...

The price was right, new $315 cdn tax included( around $300us). So far images are a little soft at 2.8 but sharp by F4. Not uncommon in a zoom lens like this one. I'll process test images tonight if time permit and post them here.

[Denis]

Here is a 100% crop of a quick image taken outside my house. Full image available at the link below:

K10D 24mm F5.6 1/1000th with Sigma 24-60 F2.8





Link for full: http://www3.telus.net/public/boucherd/PF/IMGP2278.jpg


Comments Please

[Snapshot12]

According to some ppl,this is a much better lens than the sigma 24-70mm f2.8...

I think it came out after the 24-70mm f2.8 too,and sigma dumped the stupid 'Dual Focus' thing too...

[augustmoon]

I got the Sigma 24-60 last week (the Amazon-Cameta $220 deal, that I couldn't pass up)

I have the DA*50-135 and wanted a companion zoom for it (if just that DA* started off at 28 or even 30, I'd never take it off except to take headshots with the FA 77). I'll probably get the DA*16-50 in a couple months, or maybe the Pentax 17-70, depending on what kind of IQ the 17-70 turns out.

I was thinking about getting the Tamron 28-75 for the meantime as the 50-135 starts out a bit long for a walk around lens, and is a bit large for one as well, so I borrowed a Tamron 28-75 and took some test shots with it. At the same time I returned the Tamron 28-75, I then borrowed the 24-70 from Sigma and much preferred the Tamron over the Sigma 24-70. I liked the Tamron lens, and found it to be sharp and have pleasing color and contrast, but from 50-75, the Pentax DA*50-135 beat it out with no question, so for $350 just to cover 28-50, I decided to pass on the Tamron, and just wait to get what I could eventually get better use out of. (The DA*50-135 has spoiled me with the K20D) My coworker has a good copy of the 16-50, and after using it, I know i will eventually get one.

But when I saw this deal on the Sigma, I couldn't resist. It was a bit wider and much cheaper for the meantime, I figured that only $220 for 24-50 was a justifiable interim solution. I would say that I found the Tamron to be sharper than the Sigma, and the Sigma has a slight yellow cast, which is only slightly perceptible to me when i am fine tuning the white balance in Lightroom, but is more noticeable right away I am shooting the exact same scene with this and either my 18-55 II kit lens or the DA*50-135, or my primes. (this is with the same color temp dialed in) but I adjust my color temp to my liking when working with the raw files anyway, so not a big deal, just strange. Still doesn't match up to the DA*50-135. But a noticable improvement over the 18-55 mark II kit lens. And it focuses better (finds a lock faster) than the kit lens (but the Sigma is 2.8). I liked this 24-60 over the Sigma 24-70 I tried for a few days, as the 24-70 did not look to be as sharp as the 24-60 and the Sigma yellow tint was more apparent with the 24-70.

A bit soft at 2.8, but no more so than any other zoom I have ever used. It gets sharper as it is stopped down to f/5.6 to my aging pixel peeping pupils.

So for the price I think it is a really good deal. It is actually an extremely good deal if the Focal Length Range is a good fit with you.

I had it with me yesterday at work, and at lunch I walked down to the waterfront here in San Diego, and they were practicing for the Red Bull Air Races. I didn't know they were practicing on Friday!, so I was cursing myself for not having the 50-135 with me as the 24-60 was just a bit short for the task.

[Denis]

I got the Sigma 24-60 last week (the Amazon-Cameta $220 deal, that I couldn't pass up)

I have the DA*50-135 and wanted a companion zoom for it (if just that DA* started off at 28 or even 30, I'd never take it off except to take headshots with the FA 77). I'll probably get the DA*16-50 in a couple months, or maybe the Pentax 17-70, depending on what kind of IQ the 17-70 turns out.

I was thinking about getting the Tamron 28-75 for the meantime as the 50-135 starts out a bit long for a walk around lens, and is a bit large for one as well, so I borrowed a Tamron 28-75 and took some test shots with it. At the same time I returned the Tamron 28-75, I then borrowed the 24-70 from Sigma and much preferred the Tamron over the Sigma 24-70. I liked the Tamron lens, and found it to be sharp and have pleasing color and contrast, but from 50-75, the Pentax DA*50-135 beat it out with no question, so for $350 just to cover 28-50, I decided to pass on the Tamron, and just wait to get what I could eventually get better use out of. (The DA*50-135 has spoiled me with the K20D) My coworker has a good copy of the 16-50, and after using it, I know i will eventually get one.

But when I saw this deal on the Sigma, I couldn't resist. It was a bit wider and much cheaper for the meantime, I figured that only $220 for 24-50 was a justifiable interim solution. I would say that I found the Tamron to be sharper than the Sigma, and the Sigma has a slight yellow cast, which is only slightly perceptible to me when i am fine tuning the white balance in Lightroom, but is more noticeable right away I am shooting the exact same scene with this and either my 18-55 II kit lens or the DA*50-135, or my primes. (this is with the same color temp dialed in) but I adjust my color temp to my liking when working with the raw files anyway, so not a big deal, just strange. Still doesn't match up to the DA*50-135. But a noticable improvement over the 18-55 mark II kit lens. And it focuses better (finds a lock faster) than the kit lens (but the Sigma is 2.8). I liked this 24-60 over the Sigma 24-70 I tried for a few days, as the 24-70 did not look to be as sharp as the 24-60 and the Sigma yellow tint was more apparent with the 24-70.

A bit soft at 2.8, but no more so than any other zoom I have ever used. It gets sharper as it is stopped down to f/5.6 to my aging pixel peeping pupils.

So for the price I think it is a really good deal. It is actually an extremely good deal if the Focal Length Range is a good fit with you.

I had it with me yesterday at work, and at lunch I walked down to the waterfront here in San Diego, and they were practicing for the Red Bull Air Races. I didn't know they were practicing on Friday!, so I was cursing myself for not having the 50-135 with me as the 24-60 was just a bit short for the task.

You are right about the slight yellow in certain light conditions. I shoot raw only so it is easily fixed. As for cost it is a good deal for the money. I compared images with DA 16-45 and result at the same aperture, F4 and up, gave me very similar sharpness, color slightly different as expected as lens construction is not similar.

Overall it is a decent lens, more use needed to fit this lens in a specific category. Took it out last night and managed some decent photos in very low light conditions.

I have the impression this lens was passed by many due to its range.
Many opted for the 28 to 70 or 75 range instead. I would not be surprised if Sigma drops it due to low interest. Many found comments have rated the sharpness better than the 24-70 or 28-70 which can make it a lens to own. The Tamron 28-75 is highly rated but only if you find a good one. The price, $500cdn around here, makes it to high for me to consider.

[VeijoM]

You are right about the slight yellow in certain light conditions. I shoot raw only so it is easily fixed. As for cost it is a good deal for the money. I compared images with DA 16-45 and result at the same aperture, F4 and up, gave me very similar sharpness, color slightly different as expected as lens construction is not similar.

Overall it is a decent lens, more use needed to fit this lens in a specific category. Took it out last night and managed some decent photos in very low light conditions.

I have the impression this lens was passed by many due to its range.
Many opted for the 28 to 70 or 75 range instead. I would not be surprised if Sigma drops it due to low interest. Many found comments have rated the sharpness better than the 24-70 or 28-70 which can make it a lens to own. The Tamron 28-75 is highly rated but only if you find a good one. The price, $500cdn around here, makes it to high for me to consider.

Hi!

I also bought this lens some time ago. I posted some pics in dpreview thread:

myLBA, Sigma DG 24-60mm 1:2.8 EX, many pics: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I have to say it is one very nice lens. I take this as a prime covering normal focal lenght and giving some extra at portrait end, and yes, some wide angle also. So, in my future lens line-up this will stay in the middle. So far I have noticed it has it's own characteristics. It has very nice bokeh making it ideal for portraits. It is also quite uncontrasty (at least at bigger apertures) and seems to be more prone for overexposure than my other lenses. But, definitely a lens "to fall in love" and to grow into. Feels like a brick in your hand, and that is a plus

-Veijo-

[zorobabel]

Hi!
It is also quite uncontrasty (at least at bigger apertures) and seems to be more prone for overexposure than my other lenses.
-Veijo-

When you say big appertures you mean f2.8 and f4 right? I should be getting mine Wednesday, only 2 days left now