Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Test Shots

[ktixx]

I recently purchased a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=350973&is=REG&addedTroughType=search) as an alternative to the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. Take note that this Sigma lens is a newer/better form of the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=399297&is=DEMO&addedTroughType=search). From the shots I have seen so far I am very happy with the $400 purchase. Here are some test shots that I did to compare the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 to the Canon 50mm f/1.8 (aka: "Thrifty Fifty") on detail/sharpness. All shots were taken under the same Lighting conditions with a Self Timer and a tripod at ISO 100 and focal length 50mm. The 1st image below is a full shot of the battery (Sigma 24-70 @f/13), the rest of the images are 100% crops at different f/stops:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b255/Ktixx/Full_Image.jpg

SIGMA__________________________________CANON______ ________________________
f/2.8
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b255/Ktixx/Test_Shots/S_2_2.jpg__http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b255/Ktixx/Test_Shots/Canon_2.jpg

f/5.6
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b255/Ktixx/Test_Shots/S_5.jpg__http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b255/Ktixx/Test_Shots/Canon_5.jpg

f/8.0
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b255/Ktixx/Test_Shots/S_8.jpg__http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b255/Ktixx/Test_Shots/Canon_8.jpg

f/13.0
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b255/Ktixx/Test_Shots/S_13.jpg__http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b255/Ktixx/Test_Shots/Canon_13.jpg

To my very surprised eyes, I think the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 outperforms the 50mm f/1.8 in every aspect tested. Overall I am very happy with the results.
Ken

[coldrain]

To my very surprised eyes, I think the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 outperforms the 50mm f/1.8 in every aspect tested. Overall I am very happy with the results.
Ken
So as "macro" lens it performs very well. How does it perform outside, focussing to different distances? How does it focus in low light? Any CA?
Shamefully my 18-50 f2.8 Sigma is a bit of a dissaster with focussing.

[cdifoto]

You must have a really bad 50mm. Mine looks awesome compared to those shots. (Not an L obviously...but awesome compared to your copy)

[cdifoto]

Oh yeah...by the way...that Sigma does look pretty d@mn good.

Excellent buy if it proves itself in real life shooting as well.

[ktixx]

You must have a really bad 50mm. Mine looks awesome compared to those shots. (Not an L obviously...but awesome compared to your copy)

I was actually thinking the same thing... now that you said the same thing I may contact canon about this one

[ktixx]

So as "macro" lens it performs very well. How does it perform outside, focussing to different distances? How does it focus in low light? Any CA?
Shamefully my 18-50 f2.8 Sigma is a bit of a dissaster with focussing.

The thing is, this lens really isn't a "Macro" Lens - it has a minimum focusing distance of 1.4' vs the Canon 50mm 1.5'. As a "Macro" lens it has a Magnification of 1:3.8, not very Macro. I am not sure why they put that "Macro" in the title. The picture above was a crop of a much larger image. basically add about 2 inches on each side when viewing the entire picture as a 4x6 print.

I was purely testing this on sharpness therefore I didn't touch on focusing speed. When I first got the lens it was VERY stiff - zoom and focus. The motor sounded like it was struggling to focus. The more I use it (within one or two days) it has started to loosen, however it still seems like the focusing is still slow. In low light, the lens certainly searches, however if I am ever shooting in low light I will most likely be using my Speedlite 580, which assists the 20D so that it can practically focus in pitch black (this was certainly one of the most impressive aspects of the 580ex).
I am not saying this lens is an equal replacement for the 24-70L in every aspect, I am just saying that for 1/3 of the cost ($400 vs. $1200) this Sigma lens was definitely worth it for me.

I will do some outside testing as soon as I get something to shoot outside :)
Ken

[LoveOfSelene]

I do agree, it's a very good lens for the money.

I had the same problem as Ktixx did with the stiffness though...but after around 6months it has gone away. I do admit, with the material that they use for the outside of the lens...dust and dirt always stick to it.
Never had problems focusing in low light, ie concert's, highschool dances. I use the 420 for the assist beam and it works great, still is great in total darkness. The speed of the focus is about right, imho i can't see the difference in focusing speed when compaired to my 85mm...though, the sound of the focusing motor are like night and day.

Here are some of the shots that were dug up in my archives today.
http://binhsphotography.com/2470/index.htm

[cdifoto]

That stiffness is a Sigma thing I think. My Bigma is stiff as well. The focus ring is still a little snug since I rarely ever manual focus...but the zoom ring loosened up over time.

[ReF]

The thing is, this lens really isn't a "Macro" Lens - it has a minimum focusing distance of 1.4' vs the Canon 50mm 1.5'. As a "Macro" lens it has a Magnification of 1:3.8, not very Macro. I am not sure why they put that "Macro" in the title. The picture above was a crop of a much larger image. basically add about 2 inches on each side when viewing the entire picture as a 4x6 print.

I was purely testing this on sharpness therefore I didn't touch on focusing speed. When I first got the lens it was VERY stiff - zoom and focus. The motor sounded like it was struggling to focus. The more I use it (within one or two days) it has started to loosen, however it still seems like the focusing is still slow. In low light, the lens certainly searches, however if I am ever shooting in low light I will most likely be using my Speedlite 580, which assists the 20D so that it can practically focus in pitch black (this was certainly one of the most impressive aspects of the 580ex).
I am not saying this lens is an equal replacement for the 24-70L in every aspect, I am just saying that for 1/3 of the cost ($400 vs. $1200) this Sigma lens was definitely worth it for me.

I will do some outside testing as soon as I get something to shoot outside :)
Ken

the AF speed and accuracy is what really gets me with 3rd party lenses. try shooting some portraits at f2.8 focused on the eyes (of course) and see how consistent the AF is. then see if the lens can perform with moving subjects, and try the same under dim (ish) lighting without the AF lamp. there are some situations where the AF/external flash cannot be used. if the lens can't perform in low light or AF accurately or consistantly then the f2.8 aperture seems pretty useless to me. when my 17-40 f4 L completely outperformed my f2.8 tamron (dim lighting + moving subjects + external AF lamp/flash not usable), i knew the tamron had to go. from that point on it was all first party gear for me.

BTW that sigma does look a lot better than the one i tested, and the 50 looks like it has problems.

[ktixx]

Could someone with the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and an energizer battery shoot the same shots and post them? The 100% crop is 300x300. I think I am going to reshoot those shots and see if it was user error.
Thanks
Ken

[ktixx]

I updated the canon 50 f/1.8 shots, I think they look a lot better. I realized that I am going to have to re-do the sigma shots because the 50 has a shorter minimum focus, which is throwing off the image size when cropped to 300x300. Cut and Dry - The sigma performs very well in this test and i am really enjoying shooting with it. I will try and get out to take some real-life (non macro) pics in the near future.
Ken