PDA

View Full Version : Sigma 24-70 f/2.8... first blush



D70FAN
02-17-2006, 09:02 PM
I will be posting a review of the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. Since I just recieved it today I haven't had much chance to shoot it in full daylight, but at first blush it is exactly what I expected. A lens that seems to rival the Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8.

Kudos to Sigma4Less for having the lowest price ($354) and shipping it same day (afternoon order). 2nd day UPS air was $32.68 and still $15 cheaper than anybody else.

This shot is 26mm, f/2.8, 1/40sec., HH, ISO200, taken at sunset.

timmciglobal
02-17-2006, 09:33 PM
Maybe it's just my fasination with L glass costing more then my best suit bit I find the shot lacking contrast and a bit soft...

It's nice for the cost though and F2.8

Tim

D70FAN
02-17-2006, 10:17 PM
Maybe it's just my fasination with L glass costing more then my best suit bit I find the shot lacking contrast and a bit soft...

It's nice for the cost though and F2.8

Tim

Thanks for the feedback. This shot is at all neutral (D70) camera settings, and as it came from the camera. No PP. There isn't a lot of contrast shooting the backside of a sunset, but the lens managed to capture the image contrast and color almost perfectly. The center is soft as the focus point was set on the flag.

I would hope that for $700 more that the 24-70 L would be vastly superior. Since I don't own a Canon I can't compare, but this review is interesting:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2470_28/index.htm

cdifoto
02-17-2006, 10:59 PM
Stupid question maybe....

Is the Nikkor version priced the same or similiar to the Canon L? If so, are the optics supposed to be on par with one another? Or is the Nikkor just Nikon's brand of the Sigma price point?


Just curious.




Sigma looks good there George. I hate the lack of HSM though. I don't understand why Sigma would leave it off of ANY EX series lens.

coldrain
02-18-2006, 03:31 AM
Yes, the 28-70 f2.8 Nikkor is over 1000$ too. The photo seems to have a colour cast, George. A bit too pink. And you used quite a small aperture. I am curious to see more diverse shots of your new lens.

D70FAN
02-18-2006, 06:57 AM
Stupid question maybe....

Is the Nikkor version priced the same or similiar to the Canon L? If so, are the optics supposed to be on par with one another? Or is the Nikkor just Nikon's brand of the Sigma price point?


Just curious.

Sigma looks good there George. I hate the lack of HSM though. I don't understand why Sigma would leave it off of ANY EX series lens.

The Nikor 28-70 f2.8 D is one of the best zooms Nikon builds, and and reflected in the price of around $1400 (vs. the Sigma at $354).

You, I, and just about everyone who owns this lens agree that the lack of HSM on an EX lens is unfortunate, but focus appears to be fast and accurate, and my real purpose for getting this lens was to have an equivalent to the Nikkor AF 24mm f/2.8 (about $300) and the 60mm f/2.8 (about $380).

Hopefully I will get a better chance to give it a run today or tomorrow as this is the final day of my mother-in-laws visit (no she is not the stereotypical MIL and is actually welcome here;) ).

Time will tell if this is a keeper, and Sigma4Less has a 7 day return policy, but so far, so good.

D70FAN
02-18-2006, 07:11 AM
Yes, the 28-70 f2.8 Nikkor is over 1000$ too. The photo seems to have a colour cast, George. A bit too pink. And you used quite a small aperture. I am curious to see more diverse shots of your new lens.

The pink color-cast may be partly due to the sunset, and partly due to the lens, and I will check that today (time permitting). The idea was to test the lens for focus at f/2.8 right out of the box.

I'm as curiuos as you are on this one;). Again, the goal was to have a 24mm f/2.8 and a 60mm f/2.8 equivalent for about the price of one. If 35 and 50 are thrown in, so much the better. Those two lenses at f/2 and f/1.8 are hard to beat, but I have found that most of the time I shoot them at f2.8 to f4 anyway.

There is nothing more fun than getting a new toy, and having money left over to eat...

coldrain
02-18-2006, 07:16 AM
Time will tell if this is a keeper, and Sigma4Less has a 7 day return policy, but so far, so good.
I am pretty sure it will be a keeper, if the colour cast is moderate. And CDI, Nikon lenses just always are called Nikkor, I do not know the history of that name. Nikkor is just the brand name of Nikon lenses.
With Nikkor lenses you do not have a special letter/letter combination like Canon's "L" or Sigma's "EX" (or Tamron's "SP" or Minolta's "G"). I do think "ED " is the closest.

jamison55
02-18-2006, 08:59 AM
To me it looks like a low contrast image of a low contrast scene. The actual sharpness seems fine (though I suspect it would looks tons sharper at full resolution). Can't wait to see some shots in higher contrast lighting.

The color looks fine as well, I bet it's representative of the pink, warm Arizona sunset that George was experiencing. If it's at all like the Sigma lenses I own, the color cast will be slightly warm in normal lighting (which most people find pleasing).

cdifoto
02-18-2006, 10:03 AM
Thanks for that info guys. I knew Nikkor was Nikon's brand of lens but I didn't know if they had different series' or not (L vs consumer), nor which category that one fell in, if any.


Truth is I never even looked at the Nikons when I was looking for my first dSLR - I don't really know why. I just bee lined for the Canons, saw the XT was what could afford, and never looked back.


BTW Bigma is a wee bit warm too. But as Jamie said...most people like it, especially when people are your subjects.

D70FAN
02-18-2006, 11:18 AM
To me it looks like a low contrast image of a low contrast scene. The actual sharpness seems fine (though I suspect it would looks tons sharper at full resolution). Can't wait to see some shots in higher contrast lighting.

The color looks fine as well, I bet it's representative of the pink, warm Arizona sunset that George was experiencing. If it's at all like the Sigma lenses I own, the color cast will be slightly warm in normal lighting (which most people find pleasing).

One of the nice things about shooting in RAW is being able to suit your color tasts after the fact. The Nikkor shoots a little cooler. I'll probably adjust this in-camera as I go along.

D70FAN
02-18-2006, 11:20 AM
Thanks for the comments guys. It really helps to have several pairs of eyes experienced with other lenses and systems.

P.S. Here is what was going on, on the other side, and may explain a little more about the first shot.

ktixx
02-18-2006, 11:27 AM
George,
The first things i noticed from my Sigma 24-70 copy was that the zoom and focus was ridiculously stiff. In addition, I find that without my 580ex attached focusing in low light is impossible. The lense just searches and searches. I don't consider this a problem, because I think I will almost always use a flash in high speed shooting situations, and for the times I am in low light where I want a long capture I can just use manual focus. Have you found the same problems with this lens?

as a side note...I find the optical performance of the lens incredible for the price, and I agree that I think sigma is stupid for not putting an HSM in this lens...
Ken

D70FAN
02-18-2006, 11:42 AM
George,
The first things i noticed from my Sigma 24-70 copy was that the zoom and focus was ridiculously stiff. In addition, I find that without my 580ex attached focusing in low light is impossible. The lense just searches and searches. I don't consider this a problem, because I think I will almost always use a flash in high speed shooting situations, and for the times I am in low light where I want a long capture I can just use manual focus. Have you found the same problems with this lens?

as a side note...I find the optical performance of the lens incredible for the price, and I agree that I think sigma is stupid for not putting an HSM in this lens...
Ken

Actually, the stiff zoom is kind of nice, but maybe it is a little too stiff. From what I have read it loosens up as time goes on.

The D70 has a separate AF assist lamp so the only time the lens hunts is when contrast is really low. Even the high end lenses that I rent go hunting occasionally. They are just quieter about it (AF-S).

Other than the low light focus issue I think everybody's experience with this lens is similar. Wish it had HSM... But sharp as a tack. Like I said first blush.:)

cdifoto
02-18-2006, 11:56 AM
Bigma's my only Sigma lens but I'll add that my zoom and focus rings were both a bit stiff but they do loosen up some eventually. I think it's just a Sigma quirk.

D70FAN
02-18-2006, 06:08 PM
Bigma's my only Sigma lens but I'll add that my zoom and focus rings were both a bit stiff but they do loosen up some eventually. I think it's just a Sigma quirk.

As an observation... The lenses with stiff zoom don't have a zoom lock? The focus ring on the 24-70 is just right. I really like what I see from the Bigma, but, in the end, will opt for the 70-200 f/2.8 next... and then the the 80-400 OS.

So far, at least on the Nikon dSLR side, Sigma seems to be a winner.:)

coldrain
02-18-2006, 06:12 PM
As an observation... The lenses with stiff zoom don't have a zoom lock? The focus ring on the 24-70 is just right. I really like what I see from the Bigma, but, in the end, will opt for the 70-200 f/2.8 next... and then the the 80-400 OS.

So far, at least on the Nikon dSLR side, Sigma seems to be a winner.:)
Next, try a Tokina 12-24 f4 for some wide angle magic and a Tamron 90mm f2.8 SP Di Macro ;)

D70FAN
02-18-2006, 06:21 PM
Next, try a Tokina 12-24 f4 for some wide angle magic and a Tamron 90mm f2.8 SP Di Macro ;)

While the Tammy has received kudos around the circuit, the Tokina seems to be sharp but plagued by other issues.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1224_4/index.htm

I'm hoping that the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 will cover the 90mm and 160mm f/2.8 areas that I would like to shoot... in one lens.

cdifoto
02-18-2006, 06:44 PM
As an observation... The lenses with stiff zoom don't have a zoom lock? The focus ring on the 24-70 is just right. I really like what I see from the Bigma, but, in the end, will opt for the 70-200 f/2.8 next... and then the the 80-400 OS.

So far, at least on the Nikon dSLR side, Sigma seems to be a winner.:)


Bigma has a zoom lock but only in the 50mm (fully closed) position. I don't think it's really stiff per-se. It's just a tough turn because of all that extension you're moving. Despite the speed differences, I tend to favor Bigma over the 70-200. It has a LOT more reach and is nearly as sharp when used properly.

The 70-200 almost makes me feel impotent. :eek: :p

D70FAN
02-18-2006, 07:04 PM
Bigma has a zoom lock but only in the 50mm (fully closed) position. I don't think it's really stiff per-se. It's just a tough turn because of all that extension you're moving. Despite the speed differences, I tend to favor Bigma over the 70-200. It has a LOT more reach and is nearly as sharp when used properly.

The 70-200 almost makes me feel impotent. :eek: :p

Shows I don't know much about the Bigma. I'm pretty sure that zoom locks are all at the widest end just to keep the lens from extending during transport.

I rarely need the super long zoom, but occasionally need a faster long zoom. That said the Bigma is on the list.

cdifoto
02-18-2006, 07:09 PM
Shows I don't know much about the Bigma. I'm pretty sure that zoom locks are all at the widest end just to keep the lens from extending during transport.

I rarely need the super long zoom, but occasionally need a faster long zoom. That said the Bigma is on the list.


Yeah I think pretty much all zooms with locks only keep it closed to prevent zoom creep. However, I've read complaints that there's no lock at 500mm...and I always think to myself, "What would be the point? Do you plan to wave it around like Rambo with a machine gun and don't want it to slip from its longest length?"

Anyway I prioritized the Bigma then went for a speedier short lens. IMO, it's good to have both. Sometimes you need that reach, sometimes you need the speed. Since there's no such thing as a 2.8 megazoom, and the really long primes are way out of my league, I carry both.

It's good you have Bigma on your list...once you do get it you'll love it.

D70FAN
02-18-2006, 07:16 PM
Yeah I think pretty much all zooms with locks only keep it closed to prevent zoom creep. However, I've read complaints that there's no lock at 500mm...and I always think to myself, "What would be the point? Do you plan to wave it around like Rambo with a machine gun and don't want it to slip from its longest length?"

Anyway I prioritized the Bigma then went for a speedier short lens. IMO, it's good to have both. Sometimes you need that reach, sometimes you need the speed. Since there's no such thing as a 2.8 megazoom, and the really long primes are way out of my league, I carry both.

It's good you have Bigma on your list...once you do get it you'll love it.

I played with a Bigma about 2 months ago, and was impressed, but the lens budget makes me set priorities. First the 2.8's to cover my most common shots... then the exotics. We'll see if the 18-125 ends up on e-bay (I think not).

The Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR is still in the running as well.

cdifoto
02-18-2006, 07:21 PM
I played with a Bigma about 2 months ago, and was impressed, but the lens budget makes me set priorities. First the 2.8's to cover my most common shots... then the exotics. We'll see if the 18-125 ends up on e-bay (I think not).

The Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR is still in the running as well.


I know all about budgets. Once B&H gets some 2GB SanDisk Extreme III's back in stock, I'm snagging the 50mm f/1.4 and 2 of the cards. Then I am absolutely done (for awhile). I can't afford to keep buying lens after lens (or the really BIG ones) like a lot of people do. Plus I'm still on 2 entry level bodies (XTs). Can't get myself into anything superior at this point in time.

D70FAN
02-18-2006, 07:26 PM
I know all about budgets. Once B&H gets some 2GB SanDisk Extreme III's back in stock, I'm snagging the 50mm f/1.4 and 2 of the cards. Then I am absolutely done (for awhile). I can't afford to keep buying lens after lens (or the really BIG ones) like a lot of people do. Plus I'm still on 2 entry level bodies (XTs). Can't get myself into anything superior at this point in time.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step...

...or so I've been told. And I don't have a problem...:eek:

cdifoto
02-18-2006, 07:55 PM
Admitting you have a problem is the first step...

...or so I've been told. And I don't have a problem...:eek:

I don't have a problem either...I like all my lenses! :D

D70FAN
02-20-2006, 09:25 PM
I've decided that the Sigma 24-70 is a keeper. In fact I don't want to put anything else on the camera. AF is fast and accurate, and the lens is as sharp as the equivalent Nikkor. A little noisy, compared to HSM and AF-S but not as bad as I thought.

On a Nikon this lens is almost flawless. Too bad it doesn't have HSM.

Photos to come, no time right now.

cdifoto
02-20-2006, 09:29 PM
I've decided that the Sigma 24-70 is a keeper. In fact I don't want to put anything else on the camera. AF is fast and accurate, and the lens is as sharp as the equivalent Nikkor. A little noisy, compared to HSM and AF-S but not as bad as I thought.

On a Nikon this lens is almost flawless. Too bad it doesn't have HSM.

Photos to come, no time right now.

Good to hear...and glad you're happy with it. No HSM is a drag though and makes NO sense on the part of Sigma to exclude it on ANY EX lens. Ah well.

ktixx
02-20-2006, 10:08 PM
...No HSM is a drag though and makes NO sense on the part of Sigma to exclude it on ANY EX lens. Ah well.
I've Emailed sigma 2x over 2 months about this...still no response...Don't know if I will ever get one...

ktixx
02-25-2006, 04:01 PM
Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro DF
Canon 20d
ISO 100
1/60
f/11

http://www.kenandjamystenger.com/dcresource/Farm_House_S_1.jpg

D70FAN
02-25-2006, 05:02 PM
Thanks ktixx. I'm going to try to get out to the desert tomorrow. I get a new lens and then have no time to enjoy it...

D70FAN
03-15-2006, 09:17 PM
This lens just keeps blowing me away...

Bullitt
03-15-2006, 09:54 PM
Awesome photo George, so pure...

D70FAN
03-15-2006, 09:59 PM
Awesome photo George, so pure...

Thanks. This lens is a revalation. What you shoot is what you get.

Bullitt
03-15-2006, 11:09 PM
What camera program settings do you usually use, mine don't seem to come out with that clarity, mind you, I use jpeg as I don't have a program to handle Raw, is that what makes the difference? Also, I like to add a little more saturation to my jpeg's and maybe that breaks down the quality in the end after saving a couple times?

Bullitt
03-15-2006, 11:20 PM
One of my favorites...

jamison55
03-16-2006, 03:38 AM
Nice one, George!

D70FAN
03-16-2006, 06:15 AM
What camera program settings do you usually use, mine don't seem to come out with that clarity, mind you, I use jpeg as I don't have a program to handle Raw, is that what makes the difference? Also, I like to add a little more saturation to my jpeg's and maybe that breaks down the quality in the end after saving a couple times?

All camera settings are "normal". Shot in RAW (I recommend investing the $99 in NC4), and tweeked very slightly in Nikon Capture. The Advanced RAW tools allow changing camera settings after the fact. Much easier than changing settings (like sharpness, contrast, and color mode) in the camera shot-to-shot. Shooting in JPEG vs. NEF is like using a polaroid vs. film.

My shots (using the Nikkor 18-70 DX, Sigma 18-125, and even the 50 f/1.8)didn't have this kind of clarity until I started renting more expensive lenses, like the Nikkor 28-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. Since I can't really afford the Nikkors, prefer 24mm to 28mm as my minimum focal length, read good reviews on the Sigma, and could afford $354 and as it turns out it was a good choice.

D70FAN
03-16-2006, 06:16 AM
One of my favorites...

Very nice shot. Title: "Anywhere I hang my hat is home"?

D70FAN
03-16-2006, 06:19 AM
Nice one, George!

Thanks Jamie. I printed it yesterday and have two 8 x 10 copies out the door.:) I'll try an 11 x 14 tonight.

rawpaw18
03-16-2006, 12:16 PM
One of my favorites...

Darrell,
Mighty fancy shootin' dar pardner. I like your theme gallery. Do you always carry a skull, hat, rope, boots and fence posts with you on most of your shoots?:D What mountain range is in the background?

Bullitt
03-16-2006, 03:36 PM
That photo is called "An Old Friend"... and I have many props on the ranch we live on in Montana. The background is the Madison Mountain Range about 55 miles SW of Bozeman near a town called Ennis, flyfishing capital of the USA I'm told by the regulars... Very nice country around here... And thank you for the kind words on the photo and gallery...

astro
03-16-2006, 09:33 PM
I personally have the Sigma 28-70 F/2.8 for my *ist DS.
It's a very sharp lens, but as others have found in this thread, it lacks contrast/color vividness.

I prefer using my primes over it.

Bullitt
03-16-2006, 10:16 PM
I personally have the Sigma 28-70 F/2.8 for my *ist DS.
It's a very sharp lens, but as others have found in this thread, it lacks contrast/color vividness.

I prefer using my primes over it.

I am finding that out with this Sigma 18-50 f2.8, fast but lacking contrast and color vividness, always have to post process to add something to the photo, thinking of going to either Nikkor 24-120VR or Nikkor 18-200VR...

Bluedog
03-17-2006, 06:20 AM
Nice results indeed George. Have you tested it for front to back focus using a chart? Seen a lot of Canon users complain about problems and having to replace or send them in for adjustment.

D70FAN
03-17-2006, 07:35 AM
I personally have the Sigma 28-70 F/2.8 for my *ist DS.
It's a very sharp lens, but as others have found in this thread, it lacks contrast/color vividness.

I prefer using my primes over it.

The 24-70 f/2.8 is a whole different animal. Looking at the MTF charts shows that the two lenses have very different contrast characteristics, and it shows in the results (at least with a D70). I looked at a lot of lenses and with the exception of quiet focus (it's still very fast) the 24-70 was the performance/cost winner. YMMV.

As a Nikon user, for $350, given the choice of the Sigma 24-70 EX or the Nikkor 18-70 DX the Sigma would win hands-down, no contest. It is bigger and heavier, but the payoff is in the results.;)

D70FAN
03-17-2006, 07:46 AM
Nice results indeed George. Have you tested it for front to back focus using a chart? Seen a lot of Canon users complain about problems and having to replace or send them in for adjustment.

Yup, I have heard of problems that Canon users have with Sigma and Tamron when it comes to focus. On the D70 I have never had a focus issue with either manufacturers lens. AF with the 24-70 is spot on, and darn fast. Noisy when it racks, but that only happens when I forget to take off the lens cap (:o ).

Maybe I'm not looking for an issue, but I don't see any focus problems. I think I have posted this before, but it may be a better example.

D70FAN
03-17-2006, 08:07 AM
I am finding that out with this Sigma 18-50 f2.8, fast but lacking contrast and color vividness, always have to post process to add something to the photo, thinking of going to either Nikkor 24-120VR or Nikkor 18-200VR...

If you look at the 18-50's MTF chart you will see why this is the case, as contrast starts falling off pretty quickly at about 7.5mm, while the 24-70 (a full frame lens) goes out to about 12.5-15mm.

I have rented the 24-120 VR twice thinking that the first one was damaged, but the results with both were less than pleasing. The VR is nice, but what you get is lack of blurr with a soft image at any aperture.

I have read good reviews on the 18-200 VR, but I don't think you will realize better color and contrast than the Sigma 18-50.

Esoterra
03-17-2006, 08:56 AM
George I read your post on the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and I was very impressed with your pics you posted. I currently have the Sigma 18-200 DC for my D70s and I am debating wether to get the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. Whats holding me back is that I already have that focal range, but your report on the sharpness and clarity of the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 makes me wonder if its worth investing. what do you think?

Bullitt
03-17-2006, 12:38 PM
If you look at the 18-50's MTF chart you will see why this is the case, as contrast starts falling off pretty quickly at about 7.5mm, while the 24-70 (a full frame lens) goes out to about 12.5-15mm.

I have rented the 24-120 VR twice thinking that the first one was damaged, but the results with both were less than pleasing. The VR is nice, but what you get is lack of blurr with a soft image at any aperture.

I have read good reviews on the 18-200 VR, but I don't think you will realize better color and contrast than the Sigma 18-50.

I sure wish I had the choice of trying the 24-70 f2.8 on my camera before buying to see if it really does have better contrast and color vividness than my 18-50 f2.8. The camera shop that deals with Sigma here does not always have the entire line of lenses and I would hate to order the lens somewhere and find it does not produce anything better than what I already have.

What do you mean by "full frame lens" compared to the 18-50mm?

ktixx
03-17-2006, 04:59 PM
What do you mean by "full frame lens" compared to the 18-50mm?
The 24-70 can be used on a 35mm camera or digitals like the Canon 1Ds which has a full frame sensor (same size as a 35mm slide). The 18-50 is made for digital cameras with a 1.6x crop factor. If you put the lens on a full frame camera (35mm slide or 35mm sensor) you will have vinetting at all focal lengths.
Ken

Bullitt
03-17-2006, 08:44 PM
The 24-70 can be used on a 35mm camera or digitals like the Canon 1Ds which has a full frame sensor (same size as a 35mm slide). The 18-50 is made for digital cameras with a 1.6x crop factor. If you put the lens on a full frame camera (35mm slide or 35mm sensor) you will have vinetting at all focal lengths.
Ken

Could that possibly be the reason the 24-70 f2.8 "might" have a little more contrast and more vivid colors than the 18-50 f2.8 in the Sigma line of lenses?

I do not know this for sure but my photos always seem to be washed out a little with the 18-50mm lens and have to post process them to make them come to life...

aparmley
03-17-2006, 11:04 PM
Nice George. Those are some nice images. You too Bullit - Gorgeous land up there.

Don - I think the reason why we have Tamron and Sigma focus issues is because Canon doesn't share their communication system with those players and perhaps nikon does. So they have to reverse engineer the lenses for the Canon cameras. That and lower QC at their manufacturing facilities . . are my best guesses. I have read where George commented on the latter part before. . .

cwphoto
03-18-2006, 07:01 AM
George, I think you have a winner here - and change!

D70FAN
03-18-2006, 07:55 AM
George I read your post on the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and I was very impressed with your pics you posted. I currently have the Sigma 18-200 DC for my D70s and I am debating wether to get the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. Whats holding me back is that I already have that focal range, but your report on the sharpness and clarity of the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 makes me wonder if its worth investing. what do you think?

I have the Sigma 18-125 (similar to the 18-200 optically) and it is pretty sharp at most settings, and does pretty a pretty good job in the 24-70 range. I loved this lens for it's good points and I never had a complaint (except occasional vignetting).

After renting the Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 a couple of times I knew that there was more to a lens than just sharpness, but I just couldn't cough-up $1400, and got tired of running over to Tempe Camera every time I wanted to use a great lens . So I started looking around for something I thought might be similar.

I tried several 24-XXx and 28-XXx lenses and found that the Tamron 28-70 f/2.8 to be very close (to the Nikkor) image-wise, but like the Nikkor, 28mm was just too long for my liking, as a lot of my pictures seem to be taken at 22-28mm. I found the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 after researching for months and actually talking to a couple of people actually using the lens.

For $354 the risk of disappointment was low, and now it's really hard to take the lens off of the camera, even to use the 50 f/1.8.

Except for the weight, this is the lens that Nikon should have kitted with the D70. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than the 18-70 DX and it didn't cost $1400 either.;)

D70FAN
03-18-2006, 07:57 AM
George, I think you have a winner here - and change!

Thanks Christian. Just trying to move up to your and Jamies standards.:) Seems to get the job done on the Nikon.

D70FAN
03-18-2006, 08:47 AM
I sure wish I had the choice of trying the 24-70 f2.8 on my camera before buying to see if it really does have better contrast and color vividness than my 18-50 f2.8. The camera shop that deals with Sigma here does not always have the entire line of lenses and I would hate to order the lens somewhere and find it does not produce anything better than what I already have.

What do you mean by "full frame lens" compared to the 18-50mm?

Sometimes you just have to take a chance. Most reputable on-line dealers have a decent return policy, and if you use a credit card your have dual options.

Kens explanation is pretty good, but I will add that a lens built for full frame cameras is designed to cover an area equivalent to 36mm x 24mm. A DC/DX/EF-S lens is designed to cover an APS-C sensor which is ~24mm x 16mm. While this makes the APS-C lens smaller and lighter, for equivalent focal lengths, it also means that the lens design and quality has to be pro grade to get the same edge sharpness results as using the sweet spot on a prosumer full frame lens.

If you go to the Sigma site you will see an MTF chart under each lens (I wish all manufacturers would do this). MTF shows vertical and diagonal contrast (0-1) and how well the lens can handle the image to the vertical edges of the film or sensor. This is 0-24mm on full frame lenses and 0-15mm on digital lenses. What you look for is greater than .7 contrast rating out as far on the distance scale as possible. The longer the two sets of solid lines can maintain contrast above .6 the better. If the dotted lines can track closely then so much the better. The red lines represent medium line resolution and the green lines high line width resolution, in the vertical and diagonal planes.

Compare the 18-50 f/2.8 DC lens to the 24-70 f/2.8 EX. Keep in mind that the MTF charts have different end points, so you have to look at where the red/green lines cross the 15mm line to compare. While the 18-50 starts out with better contrast/sharpness at the image center, by the time it gets to mid frame it falls off pretty fast, and while the 24-70 starts out lower it maintains a higher contrast/sharpness characteristic to 15mm. Keep in mind that MTF readings are taken at max aperture, so bumping one stop can make a world of difference.

Hope this helps.

Bullitt
03-18-2006, 08:03 PM
Thank you for the explanation George, it helped to understand a little more about the issue. I also checked the 18-125 and 18-200 on the charts and if I understood it right, the 18-125 should have a little more sharpness and contrast to it than the 18-200 lens? I believe I may try and order the 24-70 f2.8 somewhere and trade the 18-50 f2.8 into the local shop for something in the longer distance...

JCJiffy
03-20-2006, 03:57 PM
I've had my Sigma 24-70 for about a month now, and I'm also in love with this lens. It is bulky and weighty, but the images are worth the hassle.

http://www.somatis.com/gallery2/d/5081-1/DSC_0964.jpg

jeisner
03-20-2006, 05:50 PM
Don - I think the reason why we have Tamron and Sigma focus issues is because Canon doesn't share their communication system with those players and perhaps nikon does. So they have to reverse engineer the lenses for the Canon cameras. That and lower QC at their manufacturing facilities . . are my best guesses. I have read where George commented on the latter part before. . .

Sigma, I was told, choose to reverse engineer, rather than pay for those details so they a more likely to have problems.. Many Sigma lenses (esp when wide open and nearer their wide end) tend to back focus on pentax too... Although only zooms, I have never had any problems with Sigma primes, well other than bad copies due to poor QC...

Bullitt
03-20-2006, 09:34 PM
I've had my Sigma 24-70 for about a month now, and I'm also in love with this lens. It is bulky and weighty, but the images are worth the hassle.

http://www.somatis.com/gallery2/d/5081-1/DSC_0964.jpg


Do you find it to have better quality than the Nikkor 18-70 you have?

Bullitt
03-22-2006, 11:55 PM
Got the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, haven't had time to test it but will soon. Should I get a circular polorizer filter, never had one before... They cost a little bit for an 82mm lens :eek: ...

rawpaw18
03-23-2006, 03:39 AM
Darrell,
Did you get rid of your 18-50? I'd be curious if the sharpness
you have been looking for is better with your new lens.
Keep us posted. Personally I do not have a polarizer
filter, but with your shooting subjects and style, I think
it would really punch up the BIG SKY . Enjoy.
-Rich

D70FAN
03-23-2006, 06:12 AM
Do you find it to have better quality than the Nikkor 18-70 you have?

Late answer but...

I started with the 18-70 DX (original D70 kit). Many of the Grand Canyon shots in my gallery used that lens. A good lens, but at the time too short (I thought) so I bought the Sigma 18-125. Same good sharpness, but better range. The 24-70 f/2.8 is head-and-antlers above either of those lenses, and most other consumer priced lenses I've tried under $400-$600. I'm not saying that the Sigma is perfect, but it certainly has made a difference in my results, and how I shoot.

Esoterra
03-23-2006, 09:22 AM
Got the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, haven't had time to test it but will soon. Should I get a circular polorizer filter, never had one before... They cost a little bit for an 82mm lens :eek: ...

Correct me if I am wrong, but I beleive that the diameter of the sigma 24-70 f/2.8 is 77mm, not 82...unless you are using a step up ring to the 82mm circular polaraizer. I use a polarizer on bright sunny days when there are big puffy cumulus clouds in the sky as it really makes the clouds pop out, and gives the sky a nice dark blue cast. although, if you check out Georges Sedona pics he said he didnt use a polarizer and his pics look great. If you check out B&H their polarizers range between $80-190 and I think it has something to do with the quality of the filters?? If anyone has any pictures or info on quality between the different polarizers that would be helpful. At a local camera store here in Las Vegas they are selling the Hoya Circular Polarizer for 76$ and at ritz (wolf) camera they are selling a 77mm Circular Polarizer for $49...but I think its low end quality and Im wondering if I will sacrifice quality for cost. Congrats on your new lens Bulitt. I get mine today sometime and I share in your delight!

D70FAN
03-23-2006, 10:01 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I beleive that the diameter of the sigma 24-70 f/2.8 is 77mm, not 82...unless you are using a step up ring to the 82mm circular polaraizer. I use a polarizer on bright sunny days when there are big puffy cumulus clouds in the sky as it really makes the clouds pop out, and gives the sky a nice dark blue cast. although, if you check out Georges Sedona pics he said he didnt use a polarizer and his pics look great. If you check out B&H their polarizers range between $80-190 and I think it has something to do with the quality of the filters?? If anyone has any pictures or info on quality between the different polarizers that would be helpful. At a local camera store here in Las Vegas they are selling the Hoya Circular Polarizer for 76$ and at ritz (wolf) camera they are selling a 77mm Circular Polarizer for $49...but I think its low end quality and Im wondering if I will sacrifice quality for cost. Congrats on your new lens Bulitt. I get mine today sometime and I share in your delight!

OK. Consider yourself corrected. It's (the very expensive CP) 82mm!!! This ain't no wimpy lens...;) Also note the 9 blade diaphram. I am wondering if the 82mm-77mm (or even 72mm) step down ring would cause a problem with vignetting. Since this is a full frame lens I doubt that it would. I'll give it a try and let you know.

The sunny day Sedona pics were taken with the Sigma 18-125 DC with no CP. In fact I hardly use the one I have.

Here are the 24-70 f/2.8 specs right from the Sigma site:

- Lens Construction 14 Elements in 13 Groups
- Angle of View 84.1 -34.3 degrees
- Number of Diaphragm Blades 9 Blades
- Minimum Aperture F32
- Minimum Focusing Distance 40cm / 15.7 in.
- Maximum Magnification 1:3.8
- Filter Size Diameter 82 mm
- Dimensions Diameter 88.6mm X Length 115.5mm
- 3.5 in. x 4.5 in.
- Weight 715g/25.3 oz.

TenD
03-23-2006, 06:06 PM
I remember when I started posting in this forum, I would recommend the highest quality glass a person could afford, and right after my post you would post saying try the sigma 18-125. Now you see what higher priced glass can do, it's a subtle difference, but a significant one. I am intrigued you found a bargain that has some high priced glass attributes. I have been putting off a middle zoom because I am not ready to lay out another $1K for the 28-70 f/2.8L. I am always looking for alternatives.

D70FAN
03-23-2006, 07:59 PM
I remember when I started posting in this forum, I would recommend the highest quality glass a person could afford, and right after my post you would post saying try the sigma 18-125. Now you see what higher priced glass can do, it's a subtle difference, but a significant one. I am intrigued you found a bargain that has some high priced glass attributes. I have been putting off a middle zoom because I am not ready to lay out another $1K for the 28-70 f/2.8L. I am always looking for alternatives.

My intention was not to undermine your posts, so sorry if it seemed that way. The 18-125 DC is still a great lens, and I would, and do, still recommend it as a quality high ratio zoom starter lens. I have no plans to get rid of mine.

I still don't think that people need to blow $1000+ on good lenses. They just need to learn to compromise on features like HSM or VR. I looked long and hard before getting the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, and it was a truely pleasant surprise for $354. About $80 more than the 18-125 (when I bought it), so not a whole lot higher price.

Give either Sigma a try. One for utility, and the other for quality. You can get both for less than half the price of a Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8.;)

P.S. And a very useful extra 6mm (after CF) on the wide end.

Bullitt
03-23-2006, 08:51 PM
Rich,

Yes I did get rid of the 18-50, finding that I mostly used it at the 50mm range anyhow, so I thought I would add a little more range even though it is not much. I know there are other lenses with more range but once you use the f2.8 for awhile it's hard to go back... I will get out and test it a little more than what I was able to in a downtown environment when I bought it and let you know how it compares to the 18-50 f2.8. I will use this 24-70mm for my everyday lens, probably because it's the only one I have, LOL, but my next lens will be the 70-200 f2.8, it took all the restraint in the world to stop me from walking out of the shop with that one under my arm also...:( I may screw on the polorizer filter Monday when I go back into town just to see how it works...

Esoterra,

Yep, it's 82mm, and presumably why the filters cost so much but heck, if the polorizer helps with deeper skies and richer colors, I may have to pick one up this next week...

I will post some pictures once I get some sunshine back in my life, I thought it was springtime, who blew in all this cloud cover anyhow...:mad:

Esoterra
03-23-2006, 09:49 PM
I had a chance to use my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Ex today for the first time. Aside from the focus ring being stiff, everything seemed great. Here are a few pics. I shot too many of my pics at f/2.8 so some of them are a little blurry. Not to mention the harsh light... anyhow.. here are some examples. Post processing included Sharpening and exposure compensation adjustment, thats it. Oh yeah...this is EthelM gardens btw.

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/3835/ethelm147tf.jpg

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/2340/ethelm130fr.jpg

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/2764/ethelm038qe.jpg

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/9837/ethelm160rq.jpg

This next picture was taken with my Nikkor 50mm

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/8559/ethelm180ph.jpg

D70FAN
03-23-2006, 10:00 PM
I had a chance to use my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Ex today for the first time. Aside from the focus ring being stiff, everything seemed great. Here are a few pics. I shot too many of my pics at f/2.8 so some of them are a little blurry. Not to mention the harsh light... anyhow.. here are some examples. Post processing included Sharpening and exposure compensation adjustment, thats it. Oh yeah...this is EthelM gardens btw.


Ya gotta love Ethyl M's... Scenery and great chocolate all in one place. Probably one of the few Saguaros outside of Arizona.

The focus ring will loosen up fairly quick. learn to back off on the exposure setting by about .6 to 1EV in harsh light. F2.8 is managable, but like the Nikkor 28-70, F3.5 and above is where this lens really shines.

Thanks for the pictures. Keep em commin'.

P.S. You have to love that bokeh...

cwphoto
03-24-2006, 03:16 AM
There's nothing wrong with those images, great work.

Esoterra
03-24-2006, 12:34 PM
Thanks for your kind remarks cwphoto. As with any new lens, it is going to take me some time to get used to it and learn its strengths and weaknesses. So far, I am very happy with the results. Thanks for all the great feedback and comments to everyone here at DCresource.com.

Bullitt
03-24-2006, 12:41 PM
Nice shots Eso, can't wait to get out with mine when I see the sun again...

Esoterra
03-24-2006, 08:14 PM
OK. Consider yourself corrected. It's (the very expensive CP) 82mm!!! This ain't no wimpy lens...;) Also note the 9 blade diaphram. I am wondering if the 82mm-77mm (or even 72mm) step down ring would cause a problem with vignetting. Since this is a full frame lens I doubt that it would. I'll give it a try and let you know.

The sunny day Sedona pics were taken with the Sigma 18-125 DC with no CP. In fact I hardly use the one I have.

Here are the 24-70 f/2.8 specs right from the Sigma site:

- Lens Construction 14 Elements in 13 Groups
- Angle of View 84.1 -34.3 degrees
- Number of Diaphragm Blades 9 Blades
- Minimum Aperture F32
- Minimum Focusing Distance 40cm / 15.7 in.
- Maximum Magnification 1:3.8
- Filter Size Diameter 82 mm
- Dimensions Diameter 88.6mm X Length 115.5mm
- 3.5 in. x 4.5 in.
- Weight 715g/25.3 oz.

Ahh yes. I made the mistake of thinking the lens is 77mm in diameter, when its 82 as you say. so I had to make a return trip to the camera store to return the 77mm UV Filter. As far as a circular polarizer is concerned, I think I will buy one for my smaller diameter lens as it is much less expensive... 82mm is as WHOPPER!

D70FAN
03-24-2006, 08:36 PM
Ahh yes. I made the mistake of thinking the lens is 77mm in diameter, when its 82 as you say. so I had to make a return trip to the camera store to return the 77mm UV Filter. As far as a circular polarizer is concerned, I think I will buy one for my smaller diameter lens as it is much less expensive... 82mm is as WHOPPER!

I have ordered an 82mm to 72mm (and 72-62) step down ring. This should work on a full-frame lens without vignetting. I'm hoping to see these on monday (from B&H) and will let everyone know if it works.

D70FAN
03-27-2006, 02:14 PM
As I suspected, another advantage to buying full frame lenses is that you can step the filter size down by 10mm to 20mm...

As expected the step down rings arrived today from B&H. Of course I immediately attached both (82mm-72mm + 72mm-62mm) to the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 to see if I could still use my 62mm CP filter.

With just the step down rings there was no vignetting at 24mm or 70mm at f/2.8. Adding the CP filter to this stack (which actually looks pretty cool) showed no vignetting at 24mm f/2.8 but some vignetting at 70mm f/2.8. I did not have a 72mm CP, but will try this (in a store) in the near future. A 62mm slim filter (no front threads) might also work. I will see where the vignetting disappears as far as aperture with the standar 62mm CP. Also I probably did not have the 82mm portion of the step down ring screwed in all the way (I was in a hurry and heading back to work), so I will do a little more thorough check later when I get home.

I can pretty much guarantee that a 72mm CP will not have any problems using an 82mm - 72mm step down ring on this lens. I consider 72mm to be a median size. I suspect that this is true for all full frame lenses used on APS-C sensored digitals. This will probably not work well on digital only lenses.

An interresting side benefit of the double reduction ring is that it protects the lens without adding glass, and allows easy access to the lens cap (after you buy a 62mm lens cap) even with the hood on.

Anyway, more on this as time allows.;)

Bullitt
03-27-2006, 11:22 PM
As I suspected, another advantage to buying full frame lenses is that you can step the filter size down by 10mm to 20mm...

As expected the step down rings arrived today from B&H. Of course I immediately attached both (82mm-72mm + 72mm-62mm) to the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 to see if I could still use my 62mm CP filter.

With just the step down rings there was no vignetting at 24mm or 70mm at f/2.8. Adding the CP filter to this stack (which actually looks pretty cool) showed no vignetting at 24mm f/2.8 but some vignetting at 70mm f/2.8. I did not have a 72mm CP, but will try this (in a store) in the near future. A 62mm slim filter (no front threads) might also work. I will see where the vignetting disappears as far as aperture with the standar 62mm CP. Also I probably did not have the 82mm portion of the step down ring screwed in all the way (I was in a hurry and heading back to work), so I will do a little more thorough check later when I get home.

I can pretty much guarantee that a 72mm CP will not have any problems using an 82mm - 72mm step down ring on this lens. I consider 72mm to be a median size. I suspect that this is true for all full frame lenses used on APS-C sensored digitals. This will probably not work well on digital only lenses.

An interresting side benefit of the double reduction ring is that it protects the lens without adding glass, and allows easy access to the lens cap (after you buy a 62mm lens cap) even with the hood on.

Anyway, more on this as time allows.;)

Looking forward to seeing your results George before I buy an 82mm CP. I was in town today and looked at a used one but it was a Sunpack brand and just didn't do what I thought it would do, but maybe the sun wasn't just right today where I tried it, I'm not sure. I did buy a used Tiffen 812 filter though, has a bit of a "warming tone" to it, thought I'd try it as the price was cheap enough that there's no great loss if I don't like it.

Good luck on your testing...

D70FAN
03-28-2006, 06:17 AM
Looks like the vignetting goes away at about f/4-f5.6 @ 70mm. As I said earlier 24mm FL @ f/2.8 is not a problem. I'm sure that it would be a rare occasion that I would be shooting below f/8 using a CP filter, so the double step-down saved me about $130.:)

For the 72mm test I used a (thick) cheapo 72mm UV filter and there is no vignetting, so the 72mm step-down, with any 72mm filter, works fine, as would an 82mm-67mm step-down combo.

That's it.

Bullitt
03-28-2006, 08:38 AM
Thanks for the info George, saves quite a bit of money using this system...

Esoterra
04-10-2006, 05:28 PM
Well I have had a chance to mess around with my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and I am very happy with it so far. I don't think I will be taking this lens off for a while :) .Here are some sample shots

I caught dusk at the bottom of Death Valley. The colours were wonderful.
http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/4715/deathvalley6bh.jpg

http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/5404/deathvalley023nu.jpg

http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/4936/desertoasis011cq.jpg

I'm very happy with the sharpness throughout this picture below of our front yard at f/7
http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/2791/mountainsedge021mg.jpg

This picture below was taken inside our living room - wide aperture without a tripod. The only touchup was sharpness- hence I think it is a great indoor lens
http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/8708/mountainsedge045gb.jpg

http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/2164/mountainsedge053fv.jpg

aparmley
04-10-2006, 06:14 PM
Looks like Esoterra found himself quite a keeper there! Those images are great!

D70FAN
04-10-2006, 07:42 PM
Well I have had a chance to mess around with my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and I am very happy with it so far. I don't think I will be taking this lens off for a while :) .Here are some sample shots

I caught dusk at the bottom of Death Valley. The colours were wonderful.

I'm very happy with the sharpness throughout this picture below of our front yard at f/7


This picture below was taken inside our living room - wide aperture without a tripod. The only touchup was sharpness- hence I think it is a great indoor lens


It is a very addictive lens.;) Looks like you are seeing similar results to mine.

Very nice.

Bullitt
04-10-2006, 10:26 PM
A few shots with my 24-70 f2.8, experimenting here with a Tiffan 812 warming filter I picked up to try, very happy with the lens...:)

Shot 1

D70FAN
04-10-2006, 10:29 PM
Beutimus!!!

Bullitt
04-10-2006, 10:32 PM
Shot 2

Another shot of The Fan.

Bullitt
04-10-2006, 10:38 PM
And this from a little different angle...

Esoterra
04-11-2006, 10:50 AM
Very nice shots Bullitt. I am driving thru Montana on my way up to Calgary this July 4th holiday. I am excited to stop off and capture some nice scenery. Looks like I have a lot to look forward to. Thanks for posting!

andrewbw
04-11-2006, 11:11 AM
Love everyone's pictures and the comments on the Sigma. To those who've used both, or have a strong opinion one way or another: Which would you recommend as the better first-choice walkaround lens, the Sigma 24-70 or the Tamron 28-75? This would be for a Rebel XT.

Both lenses seem to get a lot of love here and elsewhere, and I get the sense neither would be a bad choice. The Sigma is generally a few dollars more, but, ignoring that difference, what's the final word on which is the better product?

Thank you!

Esoterra
04-11-2006, 11:19 AM
Here are some more from the same lens

http://img349.imageshack.us/img349/1529/em26gq.jpg

http://img349.imageshack.us/img349/9949/em60xf.jpg

Esoterra
04-11-2006, 12:50 PM
Love everyone's pictures and the comments on the Sigma. To those who've used both, or have a strong opinion one way or another: Which would you recommend as the better first-choice walkaround lens, the Sigma 24-70 or the Tamron 28-75? This would be for a Rebel XT.

Both lenses seem to get a lot of love here and elsewhere, and I get the sense neither would be a bad choice. The Sigma is generally a few dollars more, but, ignoring that difference, what's the final word on which is the better product?

Thank you!

If wide angle is more important then go Sigma. If zoom is more important then go Tamron. Also, I see some posts on this site saying that you are taking a risk getting a bad copy of the Tamron 28-75. Although you buy it new, the quality control process leaves some to be deisired and you could get a dud! I think the Sigma has some duds to but not as common! correct me if I am wrong.

aparmley
04-11-2006, 02:35 PM
If wide angle is more important then go Sigma. If zoom is more important then go Tamron. Also, I see some posts on this site saying that you are taking a risk getting a bad copy of the Tamron 28-75. Although you buy it new, the quality control process leaves some to be deisired and you could get a dud! I think the Sigma has some duds to but not as common! correct me if I am wrong.

With out an offical count its hard to say who has more quality control issues on Canon bodies. I avoided the Sigma because of it and the tamron. They both are iffy on Canon bodies.

cdifoto
04-11-2006, 02:38 PM
If you're a hobbyist and missing a shot won't get you fired or sued, then go ahead and save some bucks. Between the Tamron and the Sigma, it's pretty much a tossup as to which is better. The focal length differences are probably the only major factor to worry about.

D70FAN
04-11-2006, 02:42 PM
Love everyone's pictures and the comments on the Sigma. To those who've used both, or have a strong opinion one way or another: Which would you recommend as the better first-choice walkaround lens, the Sigma 24-70 or the Tamron 28-75? This would be for a Rebel XT.

Both lenses seem to get a lot of love here and elsewhere, and I get the sense neither would be a bad choice. The Sigma is generally a few dollars more, but, ignoring that difference, what's the final word on which is the better product?

Thank you!

I'm not sure that there is a "better" (of the two) from an image quality point-of-view. Part of the reason I chose the Sigma was for the wider FOV. 24mm (36mm digital crop) is about as long as I feel comfortable with in a walk around lens, and occasionally even that is not wide enough, and why I still carry and use my Sigma 18-125.

Fortunately in most cases I can take a few steps backward. I found that when using the Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 ($1400) I was out of the wide-angle comfort zone (42mm digital crop), and the additional steps backward required (compared with 24mm) often brought walls (or 3000 foot drop-offs;) ) into play as limiting factors.

The Tamron is a little smaller and lighter, the Sigma is built similar to the Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 (that is to say tank-like). Both of these lenses would have benefitted from HSM type focus, but for ~$350 there isn't anything to complain about.;)

Canon users have reported low light focus problems (without flash) with some 3rd party lenses. So you may want to test the lens in low light conditons first.

Hope this helps.

Bullitt
04-11-2006, 11:53 PM
Very nice shots Bullitt. I am driving thru Montana on my way up to Calgary this July 4th holiday. I am excited to stop off and capture some nice scenery. Looks like I have a lot to look forward to. Thanks for posting!

Thank you Chris, I will try and get future shots down in size so it's easier to view them.

Not sure where you are coming from but the western part of Montana has some very nice scenery. You will love Calgary, be sure to drive west of Calgary one day to visit Banff and the National Park which is just past Canmore about an hour from Calgary. Being Canadian "eh", I have to brag up the Canadian Rockies located in that area. You will see the foothills of the Rockies from Calgary but if you've never been there before, you must go for a day and see the great mountain range. Also, take a drive to the top of Olympic Park on the west side of Calgary some night and view the city from there, it's an awesome sight to see how much the city has grown in all directions...

Esoterra
04-12-2006, 10:28 AM
Thank you Chris, I will try and get future shots down in size so it's easier to view them.

Not sure where you are coming from but the western part of Montana has some very nice scenery. You will love Calgary, be sure to drive west of Calgary one day to visit Banff and the National Park which is just past Canmore about an hour from Calgary. Being Canadian "eh", I have to brag up the Canadian Rockies located in that area. You will see the foothills of the Rockies from Calgary but if you've never been there before, you must go for a day and see the great mountain range. Also, take a drive to the top of Olympic Park on the west side of Calgary some night and view the city from there, it's an awesome sight to see how much the city has grown in all directions...

A fellow Canuck...sweet! Although I was born in Ipswitch, England our family relocated to Calgary when I was 3 years of age. I remember so many great things about Calgary and surrounding area- from the stampede... the husky tower (now the Calgary Tower)...Banff... Jasper... Lake Louise....its all such a wonderful place. When I was a teenager we moved down to a small town called Magrath just south of Lethbridge and spent most of my adolescent years in the rolling wheat fields of the golden praries under the great shadow of Cheif Mountain- glacier national park, waterton park and such. So this summer I am going back for a 20 year reunion of sorts.

Bullitt
04-12-2006, 10:36 PM
You should have a great time I'm sure, and probably know the area better than me as I am originally from MJaw, Saskatchewan, the real home of wheatfields in Canada. Going back Thursday for a few days to visit with the relatives...

I spent a lot of time at Sunshine and Louise on my snowboard, great places.

Enjoy your reunion and take lots of photos for us to view...

Pomaric
05-09-2006, 12:17 AM
Just got one myself, there are some chromatic aberations, but overall its a pretty good lens...
http://erdmannphotography.com/lifeguard.jpg

D70FAN
05-09-2006, 03:19 PM
Just got one myself, there are some chromatic aberations, but overall its a pretty good lens...

Not bad for 32mm f/2.8. Hard pressed to see appreciable CA. Shot in RAW CA can be easily eliminated with a good RAW processor.

coldrain
05-09-2006, 03:32 PM
Not bad for 32mm f/2.8. Hard pressed to see appreciable CA. Shot in RAW CA can be easily eliminated with a good RAW processor.
Not quoting you for anyother reason than to tell you:
pssst George, hop over to the Canon forum as I have a new (CHEAP) toy that might be interesting for your future Sigma 70-200 f2.8...

Pomaric
05-09-2006, 10:03 PM
Not bad for 32mm f/2.8. Hard pressed to see appreciable CA. Shot in RAW CA can be easily eliminated with a good RAW processor.
I took care of them in photoshop camera raw before posting that, maybe i should have grabbed one before raw processing

D70FAN
05-10-2006, 09:40 AM
I took care of them in photoshop camera raw before posting that, maybe i should have grabbed one before raw processing

Thanks. At least I'm not going blind, as I was looking for CA in your posted image.

Oddly enough I haven't seen much CA, even compared to the $1400 Nikkor beast. A very nice beast incidentally.

I do like the shot, thanks for posting it.

Rhys
05-10-2006, 10:07 AM
Hmm. Focussing issues have been reported between Canon and Sigma also quality-control issues. It seems to be a fine lens on a Nikon though. It's also a very nice range covering from 24-70 (36 - 105).

When I got my lenses (which are fine) I went for the 28-75 because I was still thinking like a full-frame photographer. Although my lenses are all fine, I do feel that perhaps the 28-75 was not the best choice as it's too narrow for a real walk-around lens.

I have the feeling I might be changing to something like a 24-70 at some point. That would leave the door open for a 12-24.

Esoterra
05-13-2006, 09:21 AM
2000 photos later and 20/20 hindsight...make sure you put your camera in manual focus before putting/taking on/off the petal hood on the sigma 24-70 - seems that the front end is very loose and it is having a HORRIBLE time trying to focus in good light! Now my only hope is that my Sigma warranty will cover it!

Esoterra
06-07-2006, 06:21 PM
Yep, the warranty covered it. Not to bash the Sigma 18-200; although it was nice carrying the lighter lens around with nice focal range, I sure missed my 24-70! Next on the list is the 70-200!

D70FAN
06-07-2006, 06:32 PM
Yep, the warranty covered it. Not to bash the Sigma 18-200; although it was nice carrying the lighter lens around with nice focal range, I sure missed my 24-70! Next on the list is the 70-200!

Great minds think alike...;)

Now it's a race to see who is first.:p

Mere_Image
06-07-2006, 09:05 PM
Great thread gentlemen! I'm new to this site, however I have been reading quite a few postings from the shadows. I have a Nikon D50 on the way and, as a result of this discussion, I have just ordered the Sigma 24x70mm EX. Incredible photos! I'm convinced that this lens mounted to a Nikon could very well be one of the best price/performance combos ever!

Ken

dallas75287
06-07-2006, 10:28 PM
This len is definitely on my list. Looking at pricegrabber.com (http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_attrib.php?form_keyword=sigma+24-70mm+f2.8&topcat_id=&page_id=545&lo_p=0&hi_p=0), I see two versions for Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 for the Nikon body. One is DG Macro, and the other one is Aspherical. Is there a different in quality (sharpness, contrast, etc) between the two lens? I'm rarely take macro shots, should I avoid the macro version. Oddly, it is cheaper. Thanks.

D70FAN
06-07-2006, 11:15 PM
This len is definitely on my list. Looking at pricegrabber.com (http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_attrib.php?form_keyword=sigma+24-70mm+f2.8&topcat_id=&page_id=545&lo_p=0&hi_p=0), I see two versions for Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 for the Nikon body. One is DG Macro, and the other one is Aspherical. Is there a different in quality (sharpness, contrast, etc) between the two lens? I'm rarely take macro shots, should I avoid the macro version. Oddly, it is cheaper. Thanks.

The latest version is the EX DG Macro. It's not a true macro at 1:3.8 but does have a min focus of about 15 inches. Sometimes lens manufacturers fudge a little on the macro thing. This lens runs $364 on sigmaforless.com.

Mere_Image
06-08-2006, 02:00 AM
The latest version from Sigma is mfg# 548306, this model supersedes the previous version (mfg#546306). Both offer (from my research) the exact same features/characteristics. Also, the Sigma 24-70mm EX DG (mfg# 548306) can be found at DigitalFotoClub.com for $354.85 shipped!

Off subject and way more then you asked for, but here you go!
The differences that you are finding through pricegrabber are likely from what the web sites (resellers) are sharing with search engines like pricegrabber. This info. is known as META data and describes what is on the web page. Web crawlers such as pricegrabber use this hidden info. to provide the results when you search on a product for pricing info. This is why you sometimes see a very low price listed from a search only to find a higher price when you get to the web site. You can see this META data in Internet Explorer by going to the web page of interest and from the IE tool bar selecting View->Source. This will display the web page's source code and at the top in the <heading> section you will see <META> tags with descriptions. This info is what web crawlers such as pricegrabber utilize.

George, what constitutes a true macro function versus a non-true macro function?

dallas75287
06-09-2006, 08:18 PM
Thanks for the replies. Just one more question about Sigma lens (hopefully). How long is the warranty? I think Nikon offers a total of five years if you fill out the warranty card and mail it in time.

Esoterra
06-09-2006, 09:43 PM
1 year on the sigma warranty I believe

Esoterra
12-01-2006, 07:54 PM
The message you have entered is too short. Please lenghten your text to at least 10 characters.

Spot focus
12-03-2006, 02:22 AM
George, what constitutes a true macro function versus a non-true macro function?
Hi I believe ture macro is 1:1 or life size