Sigma 24 mm 1.8 or Sigma 24-70 mm 2.8?

**StephenMerola** · 08-11-2009, 11:52 AM

If it back focuses then you can use the focus adjustment in the camera to fix it. Or, that person could have a bad copy. I have the 28mm f/1.8 and it focused perfect right out of the box.

Matheias · 08-11-2009, 12:41 PM

I'm a not so proud owner of the 24 1.8. It's not a bad lens but I find it really hard to find the proper subject for it.
It's a bit too long for landscapes and way too heavy for a walkabout lens. It's too soft on the larger appertures and the AF is really insecure indoors and subjects farther than 1 meter.

The few times I use it it's for macro shots and portraits. I'll probably replace this lens with the DA 21mm in the future.

Here's a sample shot at f2.0 K200D

Marc Sabatella · 08-11-2009, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by creoleart

I was just told by another sigma 24 mm 1.8 that it is back focuses all the time

Just because their particular copy happens to backfocus, that doesn't mean yours would too. I also wouldn't be too sure the problem is with their lens and not their camera - I'd bet most BF & FF problems are the simple result of slightly misaligned AF sensors, as opposed to whatever not-very-well-understood mumbo-jumbo that could possibly cause a lens to backfocus.

creoleart · 08-11-2009, 02:58 PM

Yes I was wondering about the backfocusing issue! Again I won't know until I have it on my camera! I mean I don't believe that every copy would backfocus! You always have to pray you get a good copy I guess!

jptreen · 08-11-2009, 04:34 PM

I have the Pentax 21/3.2 and the Sigma 24/1.8. For context I used to own an old CZJ 20/2.8 and I have another of other lenses (zooms, inc the DA*16-50) that cover that kind of length too...

Why then don't I get rid of one of them? Why don't I whittle it down? The answer is that each of these lenses gives me something that the others don't.

The Sigma fast wide I have is a fast-wide-normal on APS-C and my go-to-walkabout-lens when I'm shooting film. It's not too big for a walkabout for me, it's just a bit much if you want to travel with that *plus* a lot of other lenses.

Here it is on film.

And here, maybe not the most impressive of photos in the world, but it would have been impossible with a 2.8 zoom (doubly so with the 21 ltd) because it was shot wide open at ISO3200 on a K100D Super.

I guess my point, if I have one, is that this lenses speed makes it like a wide angle lens. I paraphrase someone else here...You don't need one at all until you can't do without it.

My answer...get both. And a 21/3.2, because I freely admit that there are places you can go where it matters that the 24/1.8 weighs and takes up more space than the 21/3.2+25/2.8Macro+70/2.4 combined...

The moral of this story is to never get more than one lens of the same or similar FL in the first place because you can be sure that you'll find a reason to need both.

**Mallee Boy** · 08-11-2009, 06:09 PM

Good points jptreen.

I also have the DA 21 f3.2.

and it is the lens I reach for first when packing, along with the FA 43 & DFA 100mm.

Cheers.

creoleart · 08-11-2009, 09:38 PM

Wow you guys are lucky enough to have both of them but for me I am lucky if I'll consider myself VERY lucky if I can just get the one!!

Ok so what about bridal shoots, any of these two sigmas a good choice for those? capturing that beautiful dress in its full length?

maxwell1295 · 08-12-2009, 08:11 AM

I'd recommend these:

Sigma 24-60
Pentax 16-50
Tamron 17-50
Tamron 28-75

I think a lot depends on your working distance. If you in tight spaces the 16-17mm lenses might come in handy. If you have a little room to work with, the Sigma 24-60 or Tamron 28-75 are excellent choices. With zooms you always the ability to zoom in/out with your feet as well as with the lens. If you're looking for something you can use in low light, the 24/1.8 might be a better choice. I prefer fast zooms combined with fast primes (for shallow DOF and redundancy).

opiedog · 08-12-2009, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by maxwell1295

I'd recommend these:

Sigma 24-60
Pentax 16-50
Tamron 17-50
Tamron 28-75

I think a lot depends on your working distance. If you in tight spaces the 16-17mm lenses might come in handy. If you have a little room to work with, the Sigma 24-60 or Tamron 28-75 are excellent choices. .

also remember that you can't crop what's not there, so if you use a 17-50 you can probably crop to get a tighter shot, but with a 28-75, you can't get back what's not in the picture to begin with

my 2 cents.

jordan

creoleart · 08-12-2009, 09:03 AM

I am thinking of this lens in terms of weddings, so I am sure that at some point I will find myself in both situations with little room where I would need that 16-17 or where I would need the zoom.
But Jordan makes a good point too with cropping to a tighter shot when using the 17-50.
I have read good reviews about both the 28-75 and 17-50, so I guess now it would come down to which angle I like the best and would use the most.

Thanks for your feedbacks. You guys are giving me a lot of different options to think about!

maxwell1295 · 08-12-2009, 09:51 AM

Confusing, isn't it?

creoleart · 08-12-2009, 10:41 AM

That's for sure!! And it is not helping my "bridezilla" syndrome either!!!!

But I have been thinking about the 17-50, yes it gives me the wide aperture but I already have an 18-55, which gives me more of less the same range but with a smaller aperture! So if I just get the flash on that 18-55 I will be fine (except in situation where I can't use the flash, then I will have to figure out something else!!). So I'd rather spend money and get a lens that is going to give a range that I don't already have, so I am leaning more towards the 28-75 now. Does that make sense?

Eigengrau · 08-12-2009, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by creoleart

I was just told by another sigma 24 mm 1.8 that it is back focuses all the time, so they only use that one for ring shots!!!

My wife has a Sigma 28mm/1.8 for her Sony, and we're going to sell it off as soon as we can track down a Minolta 28/2.0 or 35/2.0.

It backfocuses (and of course Sony doesn't have focus adjustment except on the A900), it isn't sharp enough for my standards wide open, and it is too bulky for what it is. I don't find it performing well until f/4.0, at which point it still performs at basically the same level as the kit zoom.

The FA 35/2.0 is an infinitely better lens IMO.

There are so many superb offerings in Pentax mount from 31mm-43mm that I think you'd be much better served going with a different option. Even Sigma's own 30/1.4 would be a much better choice IMO.

Photozone did a lens review of the Sigma 20/1.8, which shares many design features with the 24/1.8 and 28/1.8. It receives pretty low marks, and for the most part it describes my experience with the lens. Link

The Sigma certainly has it's uses, and some of the pictures posted by other members are excellent, but as a general purpose lens for weddings and low light I'm afraid you might find it wanting. This is a critical focal range on APS-C and having a top-performing lens here will pay for itself many times over as a wedding photographer.

Miserere · 08-12-2009, 11:26 AM

Sandrine, you seem to be all over the place, lens-wise. The two lenses you are considering are very different in that one is a prime, and one is a zoom. One needs a prime generally because they are faster (meaning wider aperture) and have a better IQ. I would also say they are smaller than zooms, but the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 is large for a prime.

Now, you either need an f/1.8 lens, or you don't. If you're going to shoot indoors without flash, then the f/2.8 of the zoom is just not fast enough.

I own a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 24mm f/1.8, but they serve completely different purposes. The Tamron is my most used lens by far, but when I need to photograph indoors without flash, I put it away. Why? Because f/2.8 isn't fast enough. So then I bring out the fast primes.

Here you can see a gig I shot with the Sigma. The shots without flash are all wide open at f/1.8...and ISO 1600, the max on my K10D. f/1.8 was barely wide enough and I would have preferred a 24mm f/1.4 (which only exists on Canon mount, and for a small fortune).

Regarding Eigengrau's comments about sharpness, I agree that it isn't the sharpest wide open, but it improves substantially by f/2, and my copy is certainly very good by f/2.8 and better than my Tamron zoom is at that aperture. One thing to consider is that many wedding photographs don't necessarily need to be razor sharp, so a slight softness might actually be a positive thing.

Peter Zack u owns the 28mm version of the Sigma f/1.8 and uses it extensively for his weddings. I'm sure I've heard him say that it's one of his workhorses for photos inside the church.

As has been mentioned, flare is a b!+ch with this lens, so you either avoid it, or embrace it and use it artistically:

Your decision is easy, Sandrine: Do you need the wide aperture or don't you?

.

creoleart · 08-12-2009, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Miserere

Sandrine, you seem to be all over the place, lens-wise.
.

You can say that again!!!

I just can't afford those nice prime Pentax lenses right now so that is why I was looking at the Tamron or Sigma.

Okay at this point I am looking for something affordable and versatile, something I will be using most of the time and from what I have read, people get a lot of use out their tamron 28-75. If I need that wide aperture I will have to use my 50mm 1.4 for now. And then my next choice will probably be that sigma 24mm 1.8.

08-12-2009, 11:26 AM	#29
Miserere Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boston Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,993	Sandrine, you seem to be all over the place, lens-wise. The two lenses you are considering are very different in that one is a prime, and one is a zoom. One needs a prime generally because they are faster (meaning wider aperture) and have a better IQ. I would also say they are smaller than zooms, but the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 is large for a prime. Now, you either need an f/1.8 lens, or you don't. If you're going to shoot indoors without flash, then the f/2.8 of the zoom is just not fast enough. I own a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 24mm f/1.8, but they serve completely different purposes. The Tamron is my most used lens by far, but when I need to photograph indoors without flash, I put it away. Why? Because f/2.8 isn't fast enough. So then I bring out the fast primes. Here you can see a gig I shot with the Sigma. The shots without flash are all wide open at f/1.8...and ISO 1600, the max on my K10D. f/1.8 was barely wide enough and I would have preferred a 24mm f/1.4 (which only exists on Canon mount, and for a small fortune). Regarding Eigengrau's comments about sharpness, I agree that it isn't the sharpest wide open, but it improves substantially by f/2, and my copy is certainly very good by f/2.8 and better than my Tamron zoom is at that aperture. One thing to consider is that many wedding photographs don't necessarily need to be razor sharp, so a slight softness might actually be a positive thing. Peter Zack u owns the 28mm version of the Sigma f/1.8 and uses it extensively for his weddings. I'm sure I've heard him say that it's one of his workhorses for photos inside the church. As has been mentioned, flare is a b!+ch with this lens, so you either avoid it, or embrace it and use it artistically: Your decision is easy, Sandrine: Do you need the wide aperture or don't you? . Last edited by Miserere; 08-12-2009 at 11:32 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K20D, D-BG2 grip, Sigma 17-70, Sigma 10-20, SMC Takumar 1000mm	deadwolfbones	Sold Items	23	10-21-2009 02:57 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax AF-540FGZ Flash, Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6, Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3	davebest	Sold Items	12	06-25-2009 02:48 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Lens Blowout; 50mm 1.4, Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 400mm, etc.	nufenstein	Sold Items	13	03-30-2009 12:00 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: FA 77mm limited, Sigma 17-70mm DC Macro, Sigma 70-300mm APO DG	chemxaj	Sold Items	10	03-17-2008 08:55 AM

08-11-2009, 11:52 AM	#16
StephenMerola Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Wisconsin Photos: Albums Posts: 423	If it back focuses then you can use the focus adjustment in the camera to fix it. Or, that person could have a bad copy. I have the 28mm f/1.8 and it focused perfect right out of the box.

08-11-2009, 12:41 PM	#17
Matheias New Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Finland Posts: 11	I'm a not so proud owner of the 24 1.8. It's not a bad lens but I find it really hard to find the proper subject for it. It's a bit too long for landscapes and way too heavy for a walkabout lens. It's too soft on the larger appertures and the AF is really insecure indoors and subjects farther than 1 meter. The few times I use it it's for macro shots and portraits. I'll probably replace this lens with the DA 21mm in the future. Here's a sample shot at f2.0 K200D

08-11-2009, 02:27 PM	#18
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by creoleart I was just told by another sigma 24 mm 1.8 that it is back focuses all the time Just because their particular copy happens to backfocus, that doesn't mean yours would too. I also wouldn't be too sure the problem is with their lens and not their camera - I'd bet most BF & FF problems are the simple result of slightly misaligned AF sensors, as opposed to whatever not-very-well-understood mumbo-jumbo that could possibly cause a lens to backfocus.

08-11-2009, 02:58 PM	#19
creoleart Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Layton, UT Posts: 101 Original Poster	Yes I was wondering about the backfocusing issue! Again I won't know until I have it on my camera! I mean I don't believe that every copy would backfocus! You always have to pray you get a good copy I guess!

08-11-2009, 04:34 PM	#20
jptreen Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: "around" Posts: 116	I have the Pentax 21/3.2 and the Sigma 24/1.8. For context I used to own an old CZJ 20/2.8 and I have another of other lenses (zooms, inc the DA16-50) that cover that kind of length too... Why then don't I get rid of one of them? Why don't I whittle it down? The answer is that each of these lenses gives me something that the others don't. The Sigma fast wide I have is a fast-wide-normal on APS-C and my go-to-walkabout-lens when I'm shooting film. It's not too big for a walkabout for me, it's just a bit much if you want to travel with that plus* a lot of other lenses. Here it is on film. And here, maybe not the most impressive of photos in the world, but it would have been impossible with a 2.8 zoom (doubly so with the 21 ltd) because it was shot wide open at ISO3200 on a K100D Super. I guess my point, if I have one, is that this lenses speed makes it like a wide angle lens. I paraphrase someone else here...You don't need one at all until you can't do without it. My answer...get both. And a 21/3.2, because I freely admit that there are places you can go where it matters that the 24/1.8 weighs and takes up more space than the 21/3.2+25/2.8Macro+70/2.4 combined... The moral of this story is to never get more than one lens of the same or similar FL in the first place because you can be sure that you'll find a reason to need both.

08-11-2009, 06:09 PM	#21
Mallee Boy Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,904	Good points jptreen. I also have the DA 21 f3.2. and it is the lens I reach for first when packing, along with the FA 43 & DFA 100mm. Cheers.

08-11-2009, 09:38 PM	#22
creoleart Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Layton, UT Posts: 101 Original Poster	Wow you guys are lucky enough to have both of them but for me I am lucky if I'll consider myself VERY lucky if I can just get the one!! Ok so what about bridal shoots, any of these two sigmas a good choice for those? capturing that beautiful dress in its full length?

08-12-2009, 08:11 AM	#23
maxwell1295 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Long Island, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,703	I'd recommend these: Sigma 24-60 Pentax 16-50 Tamron 17-50 Tamron 28-75 I think a lot depends on your working distance. If you in tight spaces the 16-17mm lenses might come in handy. If you have a little room to work with, the Sigma 24-60 or Tamron 28-75 are excellent choices. With zooms you always the ability to zoom in/out with your feet as well as with the lens. If you're looking for something you can use in low light, the 24/1.8 might be a better choice. I prefer fast zooms combined with fast primes (for shallow DOF and redundancy).

08-12-2009, 08:40 AM	#24
opiedog Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: NC Posts: 787	Originally posted by maxwell1295 I'd recommend these: Sigma 24-60 Pentax 16-50 Tamron 17-50 Tamron 28-75 I think a lot depends on your working distance. If you in tight spaces the 16-17mm lenses might come in handy. If you have a little room to work with, the Sigma 24-60 or Tamron 28-75 are excellent choices. . also remember that you can't crop what's not there, so if you use a 17-50 you can probably crop to get a tighter shot, but with a 28-75, you can't get back what's not in the picture to begin with my 2 cents. jordan

08-12-2009, 09:03 AM	#25
creoleart Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Layton, UT Posts: 101 Original Poster	I am thinking of this lens in terms of weddings, so I am sure that at some point I will find myself in both situations with little room where I would need that 16-17 or where I would need the zoom. But Jordan makes a good point too with cropping to a tighter shot when using the 17-50. I have read good reviews about both the 28-75 and 17-50, so I guess now it would come down to which angle I like the best and would use the most. Thanks for your feedbacks. You guys are giving me a lot of different options to think about!

08-12-2009, 09:51 AM	#26
maxwell1295 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Long Island, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,703	Confusing, isn't it?

08-12-2009, 10:41 AM	#27
creoleart Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Layton, UT Posts: 101 Original Poster	That's for sure!! And it is not helping my "bridezilla" syndrome either!!!! But I have been thinking about the 17-50, yes it gives me the wide aperture but I already have an 18-55, which gives me more of less the same range but with a smaller aperture! So if I just get the flash on that 18-55 I will be fine (except in situation where I can't use the flash, then I will have to figure out something else!!). So I'd rather spend money and get a lens that is going to give a range that I don't already have, so I am leaning more towards the 28-75 now. Does that make sense?

08-12-2009, 11:18 AM	#28
Eigengrau Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Colorado Photos: Albums Posts: 250	Originally posted by creoleart I was just told by another sigma 24 mm 1.8 that it is back focuses all the time, so they only use that one for ring shots!!! My wife has a Sigma 28mm/1.8 for her Sony, and we're going to sell it off as soon as we can track down a Minolta 28/2.0 or 35/2.0. It backfocuses (and of course Sony doesn't have focus adjustment except on the A900), it isn't sharp enough for my standards wide open, and it is too bulky for what it is. I don't find it performing well until f/4.0, at which point it still performs at basically the same level as the kit zoom. The FA 35/2.0 is an infinitely better lens IMO. There are so many superb offerings in Pentax mount from 31mm-43mm that I think you'd be much better served going with a different option. Even Sigma's own 30/1.4 would be a much better choice IMO. Photozone did a lens review of the Sigma 20/1.8, which shares many design features with the 24/1.8 and 28/1.8. It receives pretty low marks, and for the most part it describes my experience with the lens. Link The Sigma certainly has it's uses, and some of the pictures posted by other members are excellent, but as a general purpose lens for weddings and low light I'm afraid you might find it wanting. This is a critical focal range on APS-C and having a top-performing lens here will pay for itself many times over as a wedding photographer.

08-12-2009, 12:11 PM	#30
creoleart Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Layton, UT Posts: 101 Original Poster	Originally posted by Miserere Sandrine, you seem to be all over the place, lens-wise. . You can say that again!!! I just can't afford those nice prime Pentax lenses right now so that is why I was looking at the Tamron or Sigma. Okay at this point I am looking for something affordable and versatile, something I will be using most of the time and from what I have read, people get a lot of use out their tamron 28-75. If I need that wide aperture I will have to use my 50mm 1.4 for now. And then my next choice will probably be that sigma 24mm 1.8.