24 - 70 lens

thebaz

Bought a Sigma 24 - 70 2.8 lens at the start of the summer, and already it is gathering dust, difficulting focusing , and poor quality.
The nikon branded lens is over double the price , is it a much sharper lens and worth the money ?
I already traded my Sigma 30 lens before, so not a big fan :mad:

AnimalRights

While this sounds a stupid idea I would loan it to one of the other people here for a week and then see what they make of it.

pete4130

I've had the Sigma and found the same as you, not great performance at all. I sold it on. I got the Nikon 24-70 last October in NY and wasn't impressed with it. It turned out mine was damaged before I bought it (suffered impact damage on the way to the shop or in the shop even though everything, the box etc was immaculate). It took about 4-5 months to send it back and get it all sorted. I'd had bad experiences with two 24-70 lenses form Sigma and Nikon and was already biased against the lens when I got it back.

Since I've gotten it back it's been amazing, silent, fast focusing and sharp. It's leagues ahead of the Sigma version and is worth the money it costs. I know I had a bad start with my Nikon 24-70 2.8 but it is truly fantastic.
I've used it on a D2 and a D40 as well and its wide enough to be useful as an everyday/walkabout lens.

The Nikon 24-70 is a great lens!

soccerc

pete4130 wrote: »

its wide enough to be useful as an everyday/walkabout lens.

The Nikon 24-70 is a great lens!

Echo everything Pete says, it's so versatile, fast and pin sharp

quilmore

soccerc wrote: »

Echo everything Pete says, it's so versatile, fast and pin sharp

+1
worth the money I'd say

MagicMarker

I think the term ''you get what you pay for'' applies to photography in a huge way. It's just not worth getting the cheaper option, although there are some exceptions.

thebaz

pete4130 wrote: »

Since I've gotten it back it's been amazing, silent, fast focusing and sharp. It's leagues ahead of the Sigma version and is worth the money it costs. I know I had a bad start with my Nikon 24-70 2.8 but it is truly fantastic.
I've used it on a D2 and a D40 as well and its wide enough to be useful as an everyday/walkabout lens.

The Nikon 24-70 is a great lens!

thanks all - Pete thats really what I was thinking , the Sigma is just too soft, even for my liking . Same issue with the Sigma 30 , never buy a Sigma again - and will look into trading for the more expensive Nikon version (when I get some spare cash :-)

Covey

Though I've Canon, the same here. With the exception of the 10-20, which is ok, all the others are too soft for my liking. I suppose you get what you pay (a lot) for

pete4130

MagicMarker wrote: »

I think the term ''you get what you pay for'' applies to photography in a huge way. It's just not worth getting the cheaper option, although there are some exceptions.

Totally agree with you. I've been down the Sigma route a few times and bar 1 or 2 lenses that were cracking it was a case of buy cheap, buy twice.
Hopw you get the nikon 24-70 soon!

Reoil

Worth the money. Wouldn't swap mine for anything.

pixbyjohn

I have the Nikons 17-55 f2.8 DX on my D80 and 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 on my D700. Far and away better lens than the Sigmas. I have had the 24-70 f2.8 ff sigma lens previously.

32finn

cant believe what im reading guys, i went up to conns tis morn and bought the sigma 24-70 getting delivered in the morn. have i just made a big mistake????????

PaulieC

I had the Canon version previously and I thought it was a bit soft. Moved it on and lost about half what I paid for it :mad:

AnimalRights

32finn wrote: »

cant believe what im reading guys, i went up to conns tis morn and bought the sigma 24-70 getting delivered in the morn. have i just made a big mistake????????

Just cancel it or find the bucks for the Nikon version.

Arciphel

32finn, is it the new HSM version or the old DG version that you have ordered?

I have a Sigma 24-70 f2.8, use it on my D700 and find it does everything I ask it to do. Sometimes I think we (as "photographers") have a tendency to blame our shortcomings on our gear rather than ourselves - or maybe I have just got a sharp copy, it's possible.

Here's some pics I have taken with it in the last 12-18 months since I bought it.

melekalikimaka

Arciphel wrote: »

32finn, is it the new HSM version or the old DG version that you have ordered?

I have a Sigma 24-70 f2.8, use it on my D700 and find it does everything I ask it to do. Sometimes I think we (as "photographers") have a tendency to blame our shortcomings on our gear rather than ourselves - or maybe I have just got a sharp copy, it's possible.

Here's some pics I have taken with it in the last 12-18 months since I bought it.

there are tests online showing comparisons... i guess its down to your own eye at the end of the day and what your personally happy with, i'm struggling to save for a d700 and nikon 24-70... from reviews and word of mouth i think saving for the nikon is a better idea

nick 56

i got the nikon lens and it is realy great but very (to my mind) expensive. i got mine in a shop called Gunns, it was the cheapest in dublin by a mile. Next time i will go to london and a shop called Greys which is both good and cheapish. check out their site.
I would rather spend the money on the lens and get a cheaper body
Good luck with whatever you chose.

pixbyjohn

32finn wrote: »

cant believe what im reading guys, i went up to conns tis morn and bought the sigma 24-70 getting delivered in the morn. have i just made a big mistake????????

If you haven't used a Canon or Nikon lens you won't be disappointed with the Sigma.
The Sigma's have been sold on here for 230 euro s/hand.
Hopefully you haven't paid a fortune for your Sigma

32finn

Arciphel wrote: »

32finn, is it the new HSM version or the old DG version that you have ordered?

I have a Sigma 24-70 f2.8, use it on my D700 and find it does everything I ask it to do. Sometimes I think we (as "photographers") have a tendency to blame our shortcomings on our gear rather than ourselves - or maybe I have just got a sharp copy, it's possible.

Here's some pics I have taken with it in the last 12-18 months since I bought it.

no, not the hsm one. the one i got is the 2.8 ex dg macro. will be using it on a d300 so fingers crossed

some nice shots there paul, if they are anything to go by, i need not worry

32finn

pixbyjohn wrote: »

If you haven't used a Canon or Nikon lens you won't be disappointed with the Sigma.
The Sigma's have been sold on here for 230 euro s/hand.
Hopefully you haven't paid a fortune for your Sigma

saw them sold on adverts alright, put an ad in the wanted section but nothing came up. paid €569 for it, it wasnt in when i went to pick it up so its being delivered to my door in the morn and i was givin a cpl filter for the inconvience.

uprising

I have the canon 24-70 2.8L, brilliant lens, have had generic len's before, just not the same, if I were to buy another lens it will have to be an L lens, don't mean to put down other len's, but really you get what you pay for.

mehfesto2

Think we had a chat about this Barry when we met briefly!

Im happy enough with mine - except in low light conditions (which is what I bough it for). There's a lot of lens flare and it's AF is all over the shop sometimes. That said for the money, it has given me some decent Live shots and for landscapes or portrait shots, Im more than happy.

Arciphel

Bumpity Bump,

Well 32finn, did you get your lens yet, whats the verdict?

32finn

Arciphel wrote: »

Bumpity Bump,

Well 32finn, did you get your lens yet, whats the verdict?

yep sure did. i have to say that i am very happy with it. ive used it at 3 weddings so far and a few portraits and it has performed very well. if there is a "hit & miss" thing with these lens i defo hit

bren2002

I have the Sigma 24-70 EX f2.8, and I have to say it's a cracking lens. I disagree with the comments on it's sharpness. I've never had any problems.

Anouilh

32finn wrote: »

cant believe what im reading guys, i went up to conns tis morn and bought the sigma 24-70 getting delivered in the morn. have i just made a big mistake????????

I don't think so... if it's working OK.

Read towards the end of this thread before reading the more negative posts at the beginning:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=230838

Front focusing problems with Sigma 30mm prime is also often discussed.

There can be some poor lenses in each batch, it seems. What puzzles me is why they are not tested before sale.

The Sigma 70-300 apo macro is often described as soft, but with a tripod in good sunlight the "macro" feature is very good, I think:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/2859943494/meta/

Arciphel

I think a lot of the front focussing problems with Sigma lenses though are on Canon bodies, not Nikon. Not sure why this is...

decsramble

Arciphel wrote: »

32finn, is it the new HSM version or the old DG version that you have ordered?

I have a Sigma 24-70 f2.8, use it on my D700 and find it does everything I ask it to do. Sometimes I think we (as "photographers") have a tendency to blame our shortcomings on our gear rather than ourselves - or maybe I have just got a sharp copy, it's possible.

Here's some pics I have taken with it in the last 12-18 months since I bought it.

What's the saying... "99% of lenses are sharper than 99% of photographers"

I have a few Sigma lenses and when I look at photos from when I first started using them they are soft. Looking at ones more recently they are better. One of two things happened, the lenses got a knock in my bag and became sharper or I became better and use them properly now, I'll let you decide which is more likely

32finn

Anouilh wrote: »

I don't think so... if it's working OK.

Read towards the end of this thread before reading the more negative posts at the beginning:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=230838

Front focusing problems with Sigma 30mm prime is also often discussed.

There can be some poor lenses in each batch, it seems. What puzzles me is why they are not tested before sale.

The Sigma 70-300 apo macro is often described as soft, but with a tripod in good sunlight the "macro" feature is very good, I think:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/2859943494/meta/

sorry anouilh not sure if im picking u up properly!

you say "Read towards the end of this thread before reading the more negative posts at the beginning:" i couldnt read towards the end of the thread at the time i first posted as the following posts had not yet been posted!!!!!!!!

thebaz

For any techies out their, I'm considering getting the Nikon 24 - 70 lens for my d 300 , which is not full frame.
Just wondering for indoor gigs , the odd wedding in churches , would the 17 - 55 be a better propisition ?

cheers

Borderfox

Probably would be Barry, is there VR on the 17-55?

Arciphel

Nope, no VR on the 17-55 lens either. There are a good few of them floating around second hand now, they can be picked up for about €600 - a lot cheaper than the 24-70/2.8! Also 24mm on a crop body like the D300 is now ~36mm, i.e. not very wide. The 17-55 is a fine lens.

stevenmc

I purchase the Sigma 24-70 f2.8,d on ebay a few months
back and was expecting great things from it but was left very disapointed, At the start i though i was doing something wrong,tried changing setting to get it to work , and again i have the same problem with the lack of sharpness, going to rent out the nikon verion to see the different ,

thebaz

yeah considering trading in my Sigma 24 - 70 , for the Nikon 17 - 55 , want a lens i can rely on