Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-09-2010, 06:45 PM   #1
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
Thoughts on the Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8

I've heard such mixed reviews about it, I'm not really sure what to believe. Also, the range that it covers doesn't look too attractive to me, but the small size and the constant f/2.8 aperture does. I'm a little concerned about getting it though, because I've seen tests where the photos looked not sharp at all, had falloff and vignetting on the edges at 24mm f/2.8 and some bad barrel distortion. Then the other side of the tests shows that it's one of Sigma's sharpest lenses. I saw it for $200 or less about a year ago on many websites, but now it seems that it's also gone up dramatically in price.

04-09-2010, 08:10 PM   #2
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
how much has it gone up? if it's around less than $300, it can't be beat. for $400 bucks, you might as well be considering getting the 24-70 instead.

24-60 seems alright if you are going to pair it with the upcoming Sigma 85 or Sigma 70-200 zoom. atleast that would avoid the redundancy in the focal lengths.
04-09-2010, 09:41 PM   #3
Pentaxian
Aegon's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,413
Vignetting from a full-frame ready lens? Really?

I owned this one for a while, it was unbeatable for its price. Speaking of price, you won't find it for yesterday's price anymore. It was sold for $200 from Cameta under clearance, and those of us who found it bought it, in my case I bought it without first feeling the need for a lens of this type.

And that, in my opinion, is where the only significant problem arises. 24-60 isn't as useful as 18-55 or 16-45 or 16-50 or 17-70. 24 was always a smidge too long. 60 was never long enough. Of course these limits cover my most used focal ranges, but the lens didn't feel wide enough for general use and it didn't feel long enough for portraits.

And if it doesn't feel right, then I don't need it.

I noticed Sigma's trademark yellowing with this lens. But it isn't a big deal.
04-09-2010, 09:43 PM   #4
Pentaxian
Aegon's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,413
Oh, and it is big and heavy. But it is an ƒ2.8 zoom from Sigma. Of course it is big and heavy.

04-10-2010, 12:10 AM   #5
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Aegon Quote
Oh, and it is big and heavy. But it is an 2.8 zoom from Sigma. Of course it is big and heavy.
Although it was a 2.8-4 DC lens, the 17-70mm seemed incredibly light. I suppose the DC and Full Frame difference would account for that though. Isn't it interesting though how you can use the DC lenses on full frame though and yet there are still so many differences between the lenses too?
04-10-2010, 06:29 AM   #6
Pentaxian
danielchtong's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 839
QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
I've heard such mixed reviews about it, I'm not really sure what to believe. Also, the range that it covers doesn't look too attractive to me, but the small size and the constant f/2.8 aperture does. I'm a little concerned about getting it though, because I've seen tests where the photos looked not sharp at all, had falloff and vignetting on the edges at 24mm f/2.8 and some bad barrel distortion. Then the other side of the tests shows that it's one of Sigma's sharpest lenses. I saw it for $200 or less about a year ago on many websites, but now it seems that it's also gone up dramatically in price.
This lens has been discontinued for some time. I got it around the time when Henry of Canada was disposing of it (with 7 yrs warranty). And it is an EX F2.8 lens. Really a great deal. Agreed that its 24mm is not wide enough as a travel lens. But I have Zen 16mm so it is ok (just for me)

It was made in Japan and all lenses have now gone up in price too. That gives you a bit of perspective now

Earth Dwelling in China w/images - Steve's Digicams Forums
04-10-2010, 08:46 PM   #7
Veteran Member
deejjjaaaa's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: steel city / rust belt
Posts: 2,046
QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
the 17-70mm seemed incredibly light.
Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 DC "Macro" is 450g and 79mm x 82.5mm

Sigma 24-60/2.8 EX DG is 550g and 83.6mm x 87.2 mm

to call it big and heavy was just a joke.
04-10-2010, 08:51 PM   #8
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by deejjjaaaa Quote
Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 DC "Macro" is 450g and 79mm x 82.5mm

Sigma 24-60/2.8 EX DG is 550g and 83.6mm x 87.2 mm

to call it big and heavy was just a joke.
Well, if you actually look at it and photos of it, the thing does look pretty big. So I don't doubt that it's no kit lens, but yeah I was wondering why it was heavier than my 17-70mm which was not that small itself.

04-10-2010, 10:12 PM   #9
Veteran Member
deejjjaaaa's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: steel city / rust belt
Posts: 2,046
QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
Well, if you actually look at it and photos of it, the thing does look pretty big. So I don't doubt that it's no kit lens, but yeah I was wondering why it was heavier than my 17-70mm which was not that small itself.
I do not need to look, unlike you I had both and still have 24-60/2.8...
04-10-2010, 10:48 PM   #10
Pentaxian
Aegon's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,413
QuoteOriginally posted by deejjjaaaa Quote
to call it big and heavy was just a joke.
I guess the 77mm filter size made me think it was big. Perhaps, also, that I use mostly DA primes, whose dimensions and mass tend toward pixieville. But I wasn't joking, and I found this lens to be the right combination of bigness and heaviness that I regularly left it at home.

As an objective matter, perhaps many of you will tolerate its size. Subjectively, I was not joking.
04-10-2010, 10:48 PM   #11
Veteran Member
deejjjaaaa's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: steel city / rust belt
Posts: 2,046
Sigma 24-60/2.8 EX DG vs Nokia cell phone and access badge (= credit card size), note that it has filter and small metal hood mounted, that adds to its height a little bit :

04-10-2010, 10:57 PM   #12
Veteran Member
deejjjaaaa's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: steel city / rust belt
Posts: 2,046
QuoteOriginally posted by Aegon Quote
I use mostly DA primes
it is not fair to compare FF fast (f2.8) zoom vs slow (f>=2.4) APS-C (at least formally APS-C) primes.
04-10-2010, 11:07 PM   #13
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
Original Poster
Well now it looks tiny compared to that phone! I guess I just needed something that I knew the size of well enough to compare it too, now it looks actually fairly small, and it makes sense why the range is a little more limited now.
04-11-2010, 06:49 AM   #14
Pentaxian
Aegon's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,413
The included plastic hood starts near the 77mm front element and then petals out like a wide-angle hood. Which slightly annoyed me because 24mm wasn't very wide on digital.

Luckily it comes in a pouch, easily fitting the lens with reverse-mounted hood. Luckily, it is smaller than a bowling ball. But your luck runs out because a bowling ball comes with finger holes, and this pouch instead comes with a belt loop. You are going to need a nice big belt for this to comfortably tag along.



How about we go to the lens review section:
• "Cons: heavy"
• "It is a bit on the heavy side, at 550g, but that's due to the impressive 16 elements in 15 groups, including 4 aspherical and 2 SLD elements, as well as the 9 blade aperture."
• "Cons: a little heavy for its size"
• "Cons: heavy"
• "Considering its f2.8, it's not too heavy either."
• "Cons: big and heavy"
• "The lens feels substantial when attached to the camera, which can be both a positive and a negative. It feels like quality, but it's pretty heavy."

In my mind, "well built" is a euphemism for "heavy", so keep an eye out for that phrase in the review section and you'll be just short of consensus.

But if you shoot other Sigma lenses, maybe this one won't feel so heavy to you.

Last edited by Aegon; 04-11-2010 at 06:58 AM. Reason: removed unrelated content
04-11-2010, 07:27 AM   #15
Pentaxian
Mike.P's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South Coast .. UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,753
I bought the lens for a good price a while back from an American seller on Ebay. I don't find it big or heavy and when I go out it normally goes with me along with the MKI 70-200mm f2.8.



Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
f/2.8, k-mount, pentax lens, sigma 24-60mm, slr lens, tests
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sigma 24-60mm F2.8 DG EX bladerunneruk Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 12-21-2009 03:16 PM
Help me decide: Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 OR Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Macro NicholasN Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 01-21-2009 03:50 PM
Sigma 20-60mm F2.8 Denis Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 05-06-2008 09:50 PM
Sigma 24-60MM F2.8 EX Rmpjr7 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 04-09-2008 04:57 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:03 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top