| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
|
  | sent on 23 Giugno 2013 Pros: Brightness , color balance , Bokeh Cons: Heavy with no OS, not real macro like Sigma 17-70mm f 2.8-4, bit soft at 2.8, Opinion: This one was the first constant aperture lens I have purchased. I have sticked with Sigma ever since and I am satisfied. At start this lens seemed to me a bit soft at 2.8 and perhaps it is ( don't have it any more to compare with more lenses) It was my main lens for about a year till it fell down while on camera and broke Though for sure it was softer at 2.8 than my Nikkor 1.4G. When stopped down produced excellent image quality with great color discrimination with minimal aberrations. Best shot from f4.5-9. It was heavy though and at low light conditions that did not help to have a steady shot. I would recommend the lighter Sigma 24-70mm and if you need good macro the new ( 2013) contemporary series Sigma 17-70mm. Heaviness was also a factor that this lens broke as it didn't sit quite balanced when resting the camera and at a small fall 50mm height) totally broke from base. ( my mistake but tooo heavy). Still have it in storage and thinking of repairing it |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
 | sent on 17 Dicembre 2022 Pros: Robust, all-rounder, bright, economical compared to the original Canon. Nothing to say about the optical side. Cons: The af mechanic was a disappointing and frustrating experience. Opinion: An all-rounder zoom for FF can be the 24-70 if f.2.8 is even better. I use handymen, from tourism, to play and work. Reasonable price when compared to the original Canon. At the time, the lack of the ultrasonic engine was also accepted. Excellent optical quality, we are talking about a new zoom cost € 600. Robust because I've been using it for 20 years or so. Zoom ring not very fluid but all in all acceptable. Used on film and digital. In short, it paid off. However, the focus ring that in addition to rotating slides back and forth that does not. Who... or did he think so? You are focusing and it runs between your fingers, you move it forward so that it does not bother and tac has come back. I would have been willing to buy the next version, which also had the ultrasonic focus motor, but Sigma reversed the direction of the focus ring... On the contrary to all the other Sigma lenses I had. In short, in order not to have a whitefly in af mode I use scotch tape. After this experience I abandoned my claims on Sigma. |
  | sent on 27 Dicembre 2018 Pros: Rugged, well built, versatile, sharp, even very much between F4 and F10, bright, good bokeh, decent performance "macro" shooting from 40-50 cm away Cons: Marked softness to f2.8, no stabilization, AF a bit slow (not a big deal, anyway) Opinion: Had for a couple of years (bought used and at last resold), I often paired it to my quasi-ubiquitous 28-300 VR, which is much more versatile but I starts from 28 when, in certain situations, I crave that greater wide that you can not always simulate "taking a few steps Back "(Interestingly, however, I am satisfied with the 28-300 on DX, which starts from well 42 mm equivalent). Sharp (and also very much between F4 and F10), bright, effective, there were only merits until some photos, taken towards 70 mm with little light, was not implacably plagued by the blur if you do not remember to shoot at least 1/100 and then with the need for high ISO , and fortunately that the D700 that I had at the time held them very well (the absence of stabilizer, to which the 28-300 you get used to it too much, it was felt!). The real troubles were beginning in the evening, or indoors without flash, when f2.8 revealed a marked softness, a noticeable collapse compared to the rest of the openings. Woe to take pictures freehand at 70 mm to f2.8 at 1/60 or around them, 50 shots and over on 100, between shake and softness, were to be trashing rabidly. The (very) soft focus at 2.8 was much less a problem in portraiture, but I do a portrait on average every 1000 photos... The autofocus is relatively slow, but it was not a problem for my type of shots, and anyway it seemed to me always quite accurate, most importantly. Rating: Altogether 8. |
 | sent on 06 Giugno 2018 Pros: Weight, ruggedness, sharpness, bokeh, colour rendition, excellent value for money Cons: Little Fluid Zoom Ring Opinion: Quote as written by Prodeettorre: «As a whole it defends itself very well, faithfully returning colors and sharpness. Let's not forget the quality/price ratio and nevertheless the quality/weight ratio. ' The chromatic rendering in my opinion is placed on a level of authentic excellence: neutral, without dominance. The contrast is balanced and the shadows are readable. The bokeh is pleasant, although in certain situations (diaphragming and with points of light) can be a little "nervous": Overall the image returned by this sigma is realistic, ie arouses the memory of the scene as well as it is exactly lived, and this is in Ultimately the prerogative of the best objectives. At 70 2.8 The lens is particularly suitable for portraits: at the same aperture it does not disfigure at all with my 85 Nikkor lenses. For those who love portraits is undoubtedly a perspective that gives satisfaction, but is defended with decorum in every circumstance, even indoor. In the landscapes, by diaphragm, remarkable results can be obtained, as in the rest testify the images present at the bottom of the page, sometimes indistinguishable from those obtained from far more noble optics. The AF is not a thunderbolt but the practical act has never bothered me. Sturdy object without being heavy: 700 grams for a full frame zoom with fixed aperture at 2.8 There are not many, also considering the weight of the individual fixed optics that it replaces (24, 28, 35, 50, 70). It is the classic honest and no frills lens that makes bringing home the result (a good result) in every situation. Over time I switched to using mostly fixed optics, but when I need flexibility combined with brightness I still use this Sigma with pleasure, and I never felt the need to change it to chase fads. I look good from selling it, because it is worth far more than the handful of euros that ricaverei. In Conclusion: The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro, while being dated and lacking features that today seem indispensable (stabilization, tropicalization, etc.), achieves in my opinion a good balance between practicality of use, cost and optical quality, and It is a good choice for those who look after the substance. |
 | sent on 28 Gennaio 2017 Pros: Price and weight. Cons: Maybe a little soft at all opening. Opinion: I used this lens on a Nikon D750 and I can only give it a more positive opinion. To look for the hair in the egg I might say that it seemed to me a little soft at all opening, but overall it defends very well, faithfully returning colors and sharpness. Do not forget the value for money and nevertheless the quality / weight ratio. Even close-range photography may also be considered acceptable, although this is certainly not the predominant use to which the target is targeted, even if labeled Macro. |
 | sent on 27 Gennaio 2017 Pros: Clarity and definition to high openings must be content to 2.8 (but it is a bell'accontentarsi). Not even looks good in comparison with optical Canon L series resistance Flare. Cons: AF a little slow if subject movement, as a handyman does not excel in everything Opinion: Purchased used to race when I noticed that I could not use the Sigma 18/200 3.5 / 5.6 per220 € I think that I could not wait any longer '... Optics solid, bright and well suited to landscapes, portraits with a discreet zoom range. is the classic lens which is held ever mounted for travel and any evenienza.rnNon could expect more 'for what I pagato.rn |
 | sent on 24 Dicembre 2015 Pros: Price, construction, sharpness and f2.8 fixed Cons: AF, sharpness Opinion: I bought this lens because I needed an intermediate lens on FF while racimolavo money for mutual Canon. I bought it at a very good price (190) and for what it costs I am very satisfied. For me it makes no sense to make comparisons with the Canon 24 70 2.8 L since they have a completely different price and obviously there is a reason. Having said that, I can express my opinion. Having read mixed reviews about this lens and how varied the yield from lens to lens soon as I bought it I gave to various tests. Fortunately my copy does not suffer from the front or back focus, though I must say that the AF is quite uncertain on occasion of light is not so favorable. The barrel is well done, although plastic feels solid. The sharpness instead is variable, f2.8 is soft at all focal lengths, to f4 I must say that the middle has an excellent sharpness and f8-f11 has a frame completely clear. To my opinion in f4 you can use it safely (the I paragonato with other objectives to say this as the Canon 70 200 f4 L and I must say that they are), f 2.8 would stop only on those occasions when I'd rather have a photo soft rather than move. rnOvviamente if you have money to spend I recommend the Canon 24-70 2.8 L that you can use it in any situation avedendo always good results, on the other hand if you are willing to come to some compromise I recommend it to any amateur. |
 | sent on 22 Settembre 2015 Pros: price, fixed 2.8, construction, suitable for FF Cons: weight, clarity, size Opinion: I tried a couple of times this lens that I was interested in the price / 2.8 fixed. Other zoom Similar fact much more expensive. My advice is: better a decent f4 which the canon 24 105L that a 2.8 to f4 that is worse than the canon. The quality is poor as the Tamron 28 75 2.8. I am a lover of 2.8 indispensable for portraits, like the rest also have a lens handyman but I say NO to such a compromise, a better f4. This is a speech only for FF, of aps-c obviously makes no sense, better as a handyman (in order of value / price / performance): sigma 17 50, 17 50 tamron smooth, Tamron 17 50 vc, sigma 18 50 . |
 | sent on 07 Ottobre 2014 Pros: rugged construction and precise AF speed and accuracy, well contrasted and crystalline clarity over f 5.6, very bright. Cons: for now I have not found specific defects, Unclear on the corners under f5.6 to 2.8 I find it unusable for softness and indeed wide open do not use it because I do not need! Opinion: I bought this beautiful lens used (like new) about a couple of months ago a 250e and I'm loving it immediatamente.rnla find fantastic although before the 'purchase I had read several reviews not so exciting, maybe I was lucky with the' exemplary honestly I do not find any of the defects found by other users of this economic gem. since I use are no longer able to remove it from the D700 to try it for example on the D7100 ... the 'AF despite the' absence of 'Ultrasonic find it fast, hooks up to' instant even in backlight, images are razor sharp and well-contrasted without any particular color dominances, the costruzsione is sturdy and little plasticky, soddisfatissimo are .... well, enough to take home the little brother to the 12-24 which I will review soon as I remove the 24-70 to put it to good to whip ! |
 | sent on 18 Dicembre 2013 Pros: robust and affidabile.il considerable weight, it makes the grip and balance with the car piacevole.ghiere more fluid to the point giustol'astuccio provided is useful and performs excellently its function Cons: slow autofocus in comparison to the usm version, but this is cheaper. rubber ferrules tends to whiten with the passage of tempol'attacco hood might be less cumbersome Opinion: I use it mainly for landscapes, so the speed of focus I do not interessa.rnbuona sharpness, especially diaphragms intermedi.il sizeable inspires some confidence in presarnutile as Macro, although actually it is not, but on several occasions I took advantage of this characteristic with the results of all rispetto.rnlo use intensively for 5 years, and I have never given any problems at tipo.rnio recommend its purchase to those who do not need a super-fast AF |
 | sent on 21 Febbraio 2013 Pros: In general: constructive solid, brightness, 'speed' AF.rnSu FF: focal range, from 40mm f4 performance over poi.rnSu in APS-C performance at all focal lengths from f4 onwards. Cons: In general: weight, tendency to stretch by tilting the camera (a button to stop the stroke would have been useful) definition at RT. rnSu FF: 24mm edges slightly definiti.rnSu APC-C: focal range (from lens becomes almost a portrait). Opinion: At the time it was the economical alternative to the 24-70 f2.8 L Canon. I tried for a long time both lenses on my 400D before purchasing the Sigma had seemed really less than the Canon only in color rendition. On APS-C 10MP I used it a lot and I have to say that the yield and 'really good, just a little soft at room temperature, although the crop factor takes him almost more' to be a perspective from portrait to zoom standard.rnLo I'm discovering little by little on FF 20MP (6D). The yield and 'still very good with focal lengths over 40mm up to f4, and 24mm at the edges are poorly defined also closing a lot of the diaphragm and the softness in TA and' very pronunciata.rnBuona resistance to flare, vignetting and CA decidedly minimally invasive approaches. |
 | sent on 12 Febbraio 2013 Pros: price, brightness and versatility Cons: Weight, diameter filters for those who use them Opinion: I have just this lens and I would say that I am pleasantly surprised, credovo was slow AF instead is a bit noisy but very fast and accurate. Sins sometimes in difficult conditions, but given the price I think is the most viable alternative to the canon to a honest price for people like me who takes pictures with a passion and not a profession. Impresses solidity. For now I would recommend this goal. |
|
| sent on 13 Gennaio 2013 Pros: brightness, focal range Cons: little sharpness, weight, autofocus Opinion: Versatile lens for the range of focal lengths and brightness to 2.8. sto talking about the version ex dg macro, I faint and decisive goal. The focus even after adjustment for-service (center sigma Italy) imprecise. Used for a wedding in quite disappointed. Tested on canon 7d with micro del'af but the focus is still slow and inaccurate. I guess the version HSM have resolved some of these problems. |
 | sent on 03 Dicembre 2012 Pros: strong and light Cons: heavy, noisy filters 82mm and f Opinion: now my travel companion for a year, much cheaper of the original canon can be considered a good alternative, a little soft ta but recovers well even with 1/2 stop, 82 mm filters are expensive and difficult to find, the noise of af is a bit above the average. I would change only the Tamron 24 -70 since stabilized. |
|
| sent on 24 Settembre 2012 Pros: Brightness, sharpness, price in relation to performance. Cons: AF is not suitable for sports photography, 82mm filters Opinion: It 'a goal-rounder with excellent performance, very solid. Despite the huge glass elements and a traditional AF micro-motor AF is fast enough but not exceptional. The yield better lens you closing the lens between f/3.5 and f/11, f/2.8 images are slightly "soft." The lens is prone to flare generate quite evident when shooting backlit. |
  | sent on 25 Settembre 2011 Pros: bright at all focal price Cons: is not precisely lowered inbattersi in a good copy lack of stabilization filters from 82mm Opinion: is my favorite handyman. its f2, 8 fixed at all focal lengths allows to dispense with the sabilizzazione. valid alternative to the canon 24-70 ..... perhaps the most viable alternative. the lens quality is excellent, if you really want to go see the hairs .... the downside is that buying filters 82mm coast. I highly recommend it for the rest, used with a f4, 5 in a focal between 30 and 60mm gives the best of exceptional .... |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
