24-70 ex dg macro

I'm new to DSLR photography and have bought first zoom lens for my Canon 400D - Sigma 24-70 ex dg macro. I've found that the zoom ring tends to stick/feel stiff at the shorter distances. Is this a common problem? Just that it's a new lens and is a bit stiff? Should it act like this, or is it a problem with the lens? It also appears heavy, but because I don't know what other zooms are like I have nothing to compare it with. Is this lens in fact heavier than others?

The stiffness in the zoom seems to be very common. the one I have (non-DG, non-macro version) has it also. It's a minor pain.

It is a heavy lens, but well built and produces what I consider to be very good results and like it very much.

For something lighter, a little sharper and full frame some suggest the 28-70 EX.

Mike

Your lens sounds normal. My zoom ring was stiff, but has freed up nicely with use. It took a couple months of moderate use for the sticky feel to work out. The lens is indeed heavy, but that is one of the prices one pays for a well-built, high quality, f/2.8 constant aperture zoom. This lens is my standard walk around and wedding lens on either my 5D or 1V.

I had the old version, which had the same "issue".
O.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollivr/

There's a lot of stuff going on inside the lens at the short end of the focal length range (things move one way and then the other way very quickly). I think this change in motion is the cause of the 'stickiness' that is felt.

I love my 24-70/2.8 and am very satisfied with its resolution and overall image quality.

--
'Do you think a man can change his destiny?'
'I think a man does what he can until his destiny is revealed.'

This is the very lens that I'm looking at purchasing but don't know if I'm convinced that the f/2.8 is really worth it. I read reviews about the softness it puts out at f/2.8.

This lens would replace my Nikon kit lens 18-70 ED. Is it really worth getting rid of the Nikon lens for a lens that would have to be stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6 to get a good sharp image anyway?

Thanks,

Frank

is the auto-focusing in low light. More light to the focusing sensors, quicker more accurate auto focus.

I use it at functions/events quite often with low light, with a flash, and a 3.5 lens will hunt some whereas the 2.8 locks right on. I get a higher percentage of sharp images with it as opposed to my 15-30.

Mike

I probably should have mentioned that the camera focuses at f2.8
but, with the flash, the image is actually captured at f5.6/f8.

Mike

I find my EX 24-70f2.8 quite good...even wide open.
at f2.8 no sharpening applied.



crop



Boris
--
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
http://www.pbase.com/borysd

Wow, great shot. Not soft at all. Is the lens to heavy for normal use everyday? My Sigma 70-200 is about 2.8lbs and can get heavy after a while.

About how much did you buy it for? Is it worth getting rid of my Nikon kit lens for the Sigma 24-70?

Thanks,

Frank

I have the 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG the macro version) and I use it with my SD9 more than any other lens. I got the lens new on eBay for $ 215.00. When I got a D50, I wanted the same lens but couldn't find a new one for anywhere near the price I paid for that SA mount one I bought. With price being a limiting factor, I bought a Tokina 28-70mm f2.8 AT-X. It's soft at f2.8 but sharpens up at around f4 and higher. Both lenses are heavy, as I expect them to be. These are not digital only lenses but are full-frame, I think the lens you use for your Nikon is digital only.

I did a test for someone comparing the Sigma 24-70mm EX DG (using the SD9) to the Tokina 28-70mm f2.8 AT-X using the Nikon D50. Not much of scientific test but you can see the strengths of both lenses. Here are the galleries:

Sigma http://ntotrr.smugmug.com/gallery/1976718/1/100676180
Tokina http://ntotrr.smugmug.com/gallery/1976598/1/100672547
--
My humble photo gallery: http://ntotrr.smugmug.com

Mike Gerstner said:

For something lighter, a little sharper and full frame some suggest
the 28-70 EX.

Click to expand...

24-70 is also full frame.
and is equally sharp.

I don't have the Nikon kit lens, but I tried the Canon kit lens few times, between the Sigma and the Canon kit lens, the Sigma is definetely better in every area. I am not talking about $$$ here.

However, I have finally got rid of it today, I just can't stand for the yellowish/warmer tone from that lens, also it makes so much noise, no full time manual focus, you have to flip the switch and push/pull the focusing ring/clutch? to switch between auto manual focus, real pain, since there is no HSM, the focusing speed is pretty slow even its a F2.8 lens, the 24-70L will address all these issue for me, I am not fantacizing, I have used my friends' many many time so I speaking from my personal experience, plus I already have the 24-105L, so it's overlapping, so glad to get rid of it for $275 US.

There are three f2.8 EX lenses in this range - the 24-70; 28-70; and 24-60. They have gotten some mixed reviews. Some really like them and some feel they are somewhat soft. I have shot all three - own the 28-70 and tried one copy of the other two on a limited basis. From my direct experience and post-reading, I would choose either the 18-50 f2.8 or 17-70 f2.8-4.5. The older 18-50 performs very well down to f4 and is usable at 2.8. The newer seems to be better at 2.8 and has better close-focusing (macro). The 17-70 gets rave reviews across the board and its images look every bit as good as the 18-50. Comments from Sigma are that it has less flare and CA than the 18-50 but isn't quite as sharp. There are those that would probably disagree on the sharpness.
These two are DC lenses so you wouldn't use them on full-frame cameras.

R
--
See Mr. Gecko full size at:
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker/image/61996346

See Sigma Lens Tests At:
http://www.lightreflection.com/sigmalenstests/matrix.htm



Save The Blonde

http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker