Equipment New toy, Sigma 24 - 70mm EX f2.8

Just picked up a Sigma 24-70mm EX f2.8
Just got it yesterday, not had a chance to get out and try it though.
I've only tried focus chart shots, and it has no back or front focus issues and seems sharp even at f2.8 right through the focal range. With the Canon L equivalent costing twice as much I think it performs extremely well, but I'll only find out when I get out and about with it.

It is, however, bigger and heavier than I expected.



Next to the 50mm f1.8




Next to the 50mm f1.8

 

Its a good (hefty) lens as long as your not relying on AF speed & accuracy, particularly in low light which is the lenses weakness. Other than that its very sharp and color rendition is also good (assuming a good copy). Congrats, looking forward to seeing some results

-Matt

 

Any reason you went with that range? What else is in your collection?

Darn tempting...

 

I'm gradually upgrading my lenses, currently I have :
EFs 18-55mm f3.5/5.6
EF 50mm F1.8 MkII
EF 28-105mm f3.5/4.5 USM MkII
Sigma 100-300 f4.5/6.7
(18-55mm, 50mm, 24-105mm, 100-300mm)

The Sigma 24-70mm EX f2.8 will replace the 28-105mm f3.5/4.5
With my next purchase probably being the Sigma 10-20mm EX f4/5.6 or 12-24mm EX f4.5/5.6
Followed by the Sigma 70-200mm EX f2.8

Which would give me 10-20mm(12-24mm), 24-70mm and 70-200mm

 

Cheers, the 10-20 is a beautiful lens, I need to look at something like that 70-200, any reason it's your last priority? I suppose you do have something covering that region already tho...

 

Most of the shots I'm taking at the moment are landscapes, so the 70-200 would have the least use, therefore the lowest priority for me.

 

I concur with Vers on this, I use this lens exclusively for live music photography, and the AF is slow and inaccurate in low light (on a 400D), but on the whole the lens is an exceptional performer for the money.

 

Now let us see some shots with the new toy!

 

Well unfortunately it has to go back to be replaced, it has a tendency to front focus a fair bit when wide open at f2.8.
Was hoping I wouldn't be one of the unlucky ones to get a bad sample, f4 and above it appears fine, but no point buying an f2.8 if it doesn't perform at that aperture.

Here's hoping I get a good replacement.

 

Good ol' Sigma QC...rather lack thereof.

 

Yeah, it's quite annoying, if you get a good sample then no worries they can be up there with Canon, but it's getting that good sample in the first place.
One thing that can be said for Canon, at least they seem to be right 99% of the time, but that's why you pay the premium.

 

Its sad, but Canon's QC has become quite bothersome as well lately. I had to send my 70-200 in for calibration a few days after I got it and after reading slews of issues on FM I'm beginning to think what seem to be isolated issues are actually becoming more widespread. Even looking back on how the MKIII debacle was handled by Canon you've got to ask yourself if they are doing their best to please the consumer...certainly releasing a flagship camera with known faults is not the best way of doing so. Anyhow I think the effects of the 'faster, faster, more, more' production mentality is starting to take a toll on QC with every Camera corp. Hopefully my 40D gets here in 100% working order...heard of people having issues with AF (hopefully I won't become a statistic).

 

I hate to say this, but it's more then likely your camera. The 400D isn't known for it's great AF sensor (in low light, action situations), which is what really drives the lens. Good low light AF sensors is one of the reasons you pay more for the higher grade bodies. To expect good low light AF, especially in concerts, is asking a bit much from a entry level body.

 

Although the 400D is not known for the best AF performance (both low light and good), I can tell you that the Sigma, even mounted on a 1D series body, lacks low light AF capability. This is its known weakness (AF speed, accuracy -> low light performance) and a good reason for many to choose the 24-70L even with the enormous price difference.

 

I bought the same lens when i was in the states last week. Impressed with it so far, the rubbery coating on the lens and hood is quite weird and its a big beast of a thing.

 

It is a nice lens, though I still find it a little soft when wide open even on the replacement lens.
I'll play around with it for a week or so and see how it fairs, otherwise it'll be going back again for replacement.

I originally bought from an ebay powerseller, but sent it back and got a refund, then I just bought one from Jessops (used the LENS10 code for a 10% discount) so if there are any issues it will be easier to deal with a shop just along the road.

 

I find it a bit soft wide open too but i just put it down to the cost of the lens. I'll put up a pick to compare as i have world wide warranty so can send it off for re calibration/replacement if necessary.

 

I have found my sigma to be a little soft wide open too, however it is not too bad, I can pretty much compensate for it with a bit of light photoshopping.

 

So... if budget were no issue, would you have gone with the Canon instead? It's of course nearly three times the price by the check I just did. Is it or would it be worth it?

 

Just to throw my 2 cents in here; yes, always. Having shot briefly with the Sigma and for a few days with the Canon, there really is no competition in terms of autofocus performance or general build quality. I found the Sigma really quite cheap to hold despite the surprising weight, and the MF/AF clutch system was confusing at best. If you can put these to the back of your mind (as I'm sure you would after a while using the lens) the image quality is, as has been pointed out, very good for the price...however I know which one I'd prefer.