• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

My Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG is here!

996GT2

Diamond Member
Edit: More Sample Shots:

Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3

I know some users have reported focusing errors and extreme softness wide open, so I've included some test shots of mine:

Shots were taken at 24mm (full wide) ISO 400 using JPEG basic compression on my D70 (photobucket has a 1MB file limit). A tripod and remote control was used for all shots.

The AF point used was the center of the DNA Structures CD.

f/2.8
f/4
f/5.6
f/8
f/11

I think it's pretty nice even at f/2.8, but I'll let you guys look at the pictures and decide for yourselves.

EDIT: Impressions of the lens:

Build quality is excellent; it's not quite as bombproof as the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 I used last week, but I wouldn't put it too far behind in terms of build quality. It is noticeably better than the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 in terms of build quality (a friend of mine has the Tamron).

Specified weight is 555g, or 19.7 oz without hood or filters. This is lighter than the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 (760g), but heavier than the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, at 430g. The weight of this Sigma says a lot about its excellent build quality.

The lens is IF and does not rotate on focus or zoom; it also has a zoom lock at 24mm as well as an aperture ring so it's compatible with older cameras and accessories like extension tubes. The lens is shortest (about 3.5") at 24mm and extends about 2 inches at full zoom (60mm).

It focuses with the camera's built in AF motor (so D40 and D60 are out), but AF is quick and accurate.

The lens is 24-60mm, which is a less useful range than 18-55mm. But...the fast aperture and great optics make it worth the tradeoff IMO. It is compatible with full frame 35mm and digital cameras.

Sigma did not skimp with the optical construction of this lens:
16 elements in 15 groups; 2 super low dispersion elements; 4 aspherical elements.

Image quality on mine is great; sharp even at f/2.8. I haven't gotten to seriously shoot with it yet, but will get to tomorrow.

It comes with a nice Sigma "EX" carrying case and lens hood, as well as 4 year warranty.

Best part: the lens only ran me $235 shipped from Cameta Camera, brand new with 4 year Sigma warranty. It even came with a Hoya 77mm UV filter, cleaning kit, free 1 year subscription to PC Photo, and 50 free prints! This is dramatically lower than Sigma's $570 MSRP, and a steal for the build and optical quality this lens offers.
 
Originally posted by: angry hampster
Not bad. I thought the D70 controlled ISO noise better than that though. Some spots are really nasty.

Some of that might be due to the fact that I used JPEG basic compression to fit it in less than 1 MB for photobucket. Usually, I find that pictures at even ISO 1250 are quite usable.
 
IT HAS A ZOOM LOCK?! Jesus christ the Sigma 24-70 EX has needed one of those for years! It is absolutely impossible to shoot long exposures with the 24-70 at 24mm if it's not level to the ground or pointed down. The zoom creep is quite awful because of the weight of the extended elements. That's one of the few things I don't like about that lens.


Also, I think it's funny how much lower Sigma lenses sell compared to their MSRP. The 24-70 retails for $670. I bought mine for $350 three years ago. I'll be selling it this winter for the sexy new HSM version.
 
996GT2: don't you miss the range from 17-24? personally, I cannot imagine myself using anything above 24mm (nikon equiv) for most shots that i like to take.
 
Originally posted by: andylawcc
996GT2: don't you miss the range from 17-24? personally, I cannot imagine myself using anything above 24mm (nikon equiv) for most shots that i like to take.

I haven't really missed the 18-24mm range, since most of the shots I've taken lately allow me to get far back enough to not need it. I do have plans to get a Tokina 12-14mm f/4 in the future, but for now I think the much better optical quality and speed of the Sigma is worth trading the 6mm from my 18-55mm VR.
 
I'm the opposite. I would love something like a 14-30. I don't need much else. Anything past like 25 and I'll usually want to pull out the 70-200 anyway.The canon 16-35 is perfect, but is way too expensive for me.
 
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
I'm the opposite. I would love something like a 14-30. I don't need much else. Anything past like 25 and I'll usually want to pull out the 70-200 anyway.The canon 16-35 is perfect, but is way too expensive for me.

Canon 17-40? Tokina 12-24?
 
Originally posted by: angry hampster
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
I'm the opposite. I would love something like a 14-30. I don't need much else. Anything past like 25 and I'll usually want to pull out the 70-200 anyway.The canon 16-35 is perfect, but is way too expensive for me.

Canon 17-40? Tokina 12-24?

Already have a tamron 17-50 and it has 2.8 over the canon's 4. The tokina also has 4 but I might be willing to overlook that for the extra 5 on wide. Too bad it doesn't have canons USM or sigma's HSM though. I love my full-time manual focus. Something I miss on the tamron 17-50.
 
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Originally posted by: angry hampster
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
I'm the opposite. I would love something like a 14-30. I don't need much else. Anything past like 25 and I'll usually want to pull out the 70-200 anyway.The canon 16-35 is perfect, but is way too expensive for me.

Canon 17-40? Tokina 12-24?

Already have a tamron 17-50 and it has 2.8 over the canon's 4. The tokina also has 4 but I might be willing to overlook that for the extra 5 on wide. Too bad it doesn't have canons USM or sigma's HSM though. I love my full-time manual focus. Something I miss on the tamron 17-50.

If you're looking for ultrawide get a Sigma 10-20 or a Canon 10-22. Tokina's got an 11-16 f/2.8, but no ring focusing motor. I owned the Sigma 10-20 and loved it. I sold it for Tokina's 10-17 fisheye, which I then sold when I got my 5D. I go through too many lenses.
 
Originally posted by: angry hampster
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Originally posted by: angry hampster
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
I'm the opposite. I would love something like a 14-30. I don't need much else. Anything past like 25 and I'll usually want to pull out the 70-200 anyway.The canon 16-35 is perfect, but is way too expensive for me.

Canon 17-40? Tokina 12-24?

Already have a tamron 17-50 and it has 2.8 over the canon's 4. The tokina also has 4 but I might be willing to overlook that for the extra 5 on wide. Too bad it doesn't have canons USM or sigma's HSM though. I love my full-time manual focus. Something I miss on the tamron 17-50.

If you're looking for ultrawide get a Sigma 10-20 or a Canon 10-22. Tokina's got an 11-16 f/2.8, but no ring focusing motor. I owned the Sigma 10-20 and loved it. I sold it for Tokina's 10-17 fisheye, which I then sold when I got my 5D. I go through too many lenses.

How is the Sigma 10-20 compared to the less expensive and faster Tokina 12-24mm? 2mm is not very much to trade when both lenses are super wide angle.
 
Originally posted by: 996GT2


How is the Sigma 10-20 compared to the less expensive and faster Tokina 12-24mm? 2mm is not very much to trade when both lenses are super wide angle.

2mm makes a huge difference on the wide end, actually. The extra bit of wideness along with HSM sealed the deal for me with the Sigma. The Tokina is a good lens, but I don't find myself ever needing anything faster than f/4 on a wide angle lens anyway, and I like Sigma's HSM.
 
Back
Top