Lensrentals on the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 Art: a lot for less than the competition

If Sigma comes out with a compact 24-70/4 or 24-105/4 at the usual lower than OEM prices for e-mount that would sell well since the current options are either unsatisfactory to some or non-existent.

Jul 31, 2017permalink

tangbunna

while people jump to more than 1k dollars for the lens, extra hundreds for sharpness and all around quality isn't big deal.

Jul 31, 2017permalink

Everythingis1

Seems like a pretty great lens that is a bit too heavy for its weight class.

Jul 31, 2017permalink

linzdoctor7d

I rather buy the Tamron 24-70 since it comes with a 6-year warranty and the electronics aren't hacked!

Jul 30, 2017permalink

Mac McCreery

The quest for the Holy Grail continues................

Jul 30, 2017permalink

dansclic

Holy grail is a myth
You buy according to your needs, likes and dislikes, confidence in the brzndname, your budget and the perception of weight and ease of use.

Jul 31, 2017permalink

Mac McCreery

Irony..................

Aug 1, 2017permalink

Matt

All the positive specs become ancillary if sharpness isn't nailed. His accounting and the MTF's aside, even the photos in the article reveal less than acceptable sharpness. I was so hoping for this ART to be 'the one'. The search continues .....

Jul 30, 2017permalink

paulbysea

Interesting review. I do wonder though how often the difference in sharpness would be noticed in the real world between the Sigma and Canon/Nikon lenses? What I noticed most about the review and was irritated by was that whilst two imperial measurements were given for the weight of the lens, a metric weight wasn't. When is the USA going to enter into the 21st century and use metric measurements?

Jul 30, 2017permalink

Drive

The same day we—at least the ones of us in the EU—stop insisting on financing mom and dad farms that cost a lot of money and underperform American agriculture by a metric ton. We are equally sentimental about stupid traditionalist nonsense as our friends from across the pond.

Jul 30, 2017permalink

cale johnson

@paulbysea: 'When is the USA going to enter into the 21st century and use metric measurements?'

I hear Congress is taking this up in the fall. Should be any day now. Haha

Jul 30, 2017permalink

Fazal Majid

The difference between the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L (an excellent lens) and the LII (an outstanding lens) is very clear to see. The latter has a WOW! factor the older lens simply lacks.

As for metric, I'm with you. It's actually officially US government policy to go metric (Metric Conversion Act of 1975 and Executive Order 12770 of 1991). but there is no political will to make it a reality and the law goes unapplied. Americans can be very conservative in some ways.

Jul 30, 2017permalink

Steve_

It's a fair question, but no fairer than asking how often the difference between a full-frame DSLR and a crop sensor one or m43 camera might be (un) noticed.

From my view there's not a lot of room for a less-than-stellar 24-70/2.8 lens, as presumably your using a full-frame camera for its inherent image quality and a full-frame 24-70/2.8 is going to be fairly hefty and sizable. If you can relax your IQ requirements there may be many considerably smaller and lighter alternate lens or platform choices that end up providing comparable real-world results.

Jul 30, 2017permalink

Shiranai

Probably you won't notice much unless you do pixel-peeping in full-res. Some people need their lenses to perform absolutely tack sharp at full res, some don't.

Jul 31, 2017permalink

Lucas_

"When is the USA going to enter into the 21st century and use metric measurements?"
My take: never! It was already tried decades ago and failed miserably.

Jul 31, 2017permalink

Old Cameras

Do what most Americans do and become fluent in both standard and metric dimensions and in converting between the two.
Or maybe it's just me.
A mile is 1.609344 kilometers, exactly...

Jul 31, 2017permalink

Yxa

Well USA have buddies that also haven't implemented the SI system
Myanmar and Liberia but that's it.

Jul 31, 2017permalink

Don't knock Myanmar - it has wonderful people and culture even if the ruling government is corrupt. The U.S. has one of those characteristics as well

Jul 31, 2017permalink

pahnson

I used the Canon 24-70l and I had VERY VERY VERY high hopes for this lense. I was going to preorder but something held me back.
now, looking at this results its quite hart to be so excited anymore. The Canon is just GREAT, colors (! often forgotten!) and sharpness is just great... so now I am very unsure if I want a used canon 24-70 or a new sigma for the same price. IS is nice to have but in my opinion not THAT important at 70mm.
The Sigma 24-105 and 50mm Arti which I both own are great... I was hoping for stellar performance from the 24-70. I will wait for further reviews to decide.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

dialstatic

Same here. Have you considered Canon's 24-70 f/4 though? If you don't need 2.8, it really is a fantastic lens.

Jul 30, 2017permalink

pahnson

I like the shallow depth of field of 2,8. I have the Sigma 24-105 f4 OS which is somehow a perfect workhorse. The only thing I miss is a shallow depth of field. This somehow limits my work in terms of creativity. The fact that the 24-70 is f2,8 is the reason I am interested in it.
Right now I am leaning towards the Canon 24-70 2,8 II. I used it twice and its also just great.
But I will wait for more test results of the Sigma 24-70. The Sigma 24-105 is VERY good and damn sharp and even a bit better than the old Canon 24-105l which is why I chose the sigma. Its hard to believe that the new 24-70 Art is so much worse than the 24-70 Canon. Time will tell.

Jul 31, 2017permalink

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1119&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=918&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

If you think the Sigma 24-105 f/4 ART is "great," then you'll be perfectly happy with the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 ART, which is "better."

Sharpness looks equal or better across their shared range, and the 24-70 has less distortion.

8 months agopermalink

MrBrightSide

The only thing is, if you buy this lens, are you settling for something less than greatness in your pix? Will you, on your deathbed, say if I'd only saved up for a few months more I could have bought the Canon 24-70 and taken pictures that were 2 percent better and maybe that 2 percent would have pushed me into the top ranks of photographers, buying that lens was a one-way ticket to palookaville.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

pahnson

Well, if you use this lense you probably use a body for 2-4k and additional equipment.... so why would one bother to safe 300 bugs if its just worse than the canon 24-70?
I had VERY high hopes for this lense, but the sharpness is just disapointing. I could get a used canon 24-70 in perfect condition for below the price of the Sigma. I would have no IS, but thats not THAT important at 70mm....
I realy LOVE my 2 sigma arts, but this is somehow disapointing..

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Sezano

No you won't.

Jul 30, 2017permalink

Bing Chow

You can't buy your way to the top.

Jul 30, 2017permalink

Fazal Majid

I found the difference in photos taken with my old Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L mark I and mark II very noticeable after I upgraded, even though the Mark I was already a good lens, so I would think this would be the case between the Sigma and the Canon as well.

Jul 30, 2017permalink

russbarnes

There really isn't much price advantage here in the UK. I was, albeit fortunately, able to pick up a brand new Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 VR earlier in the year for £1400 from a UK High Street retailer and that's exactly the price of this Sigma now. I'd rather buy a 2nd hand Nikon 24-70mm than this Sigma lens. I also think the 'Art' tag is lost on a lens like this too, Sigma are stretching that label for sure on a release like this.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

msheikh921

Lenstip's review is more optimistic about it's sharpness, aside of the edges of frames at 70mm.
it's not a "kill'em all" sharpness monster like the 135 or 50-100mm art's, but its no slouch.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Lens sharpness is overrated. Want sharp - use a tripod.

Jul 31, 2017permalink

Rick Knepper

"•Not As Sharp as Competition"

Deserves the McCain thumbs down.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Michael - Visual Pursuit

The absence of chromatic aberrations even wide open is what makes the ART series shine, and this seems no exception. Image stabilization on top of that, and the combo outweighs test stand sharpness hands down.

Add to that the price tag, and this is a sure shot to buy.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Saurat

Image quality differences beween Sigma and branded lenses are insignificant unless one is enlarging photos to a ridiculous sizes. Not that real world facts make a difference to DPR commentariat and Angry Photographer fanboys.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Sezano

Thank you!

Jul 29, 2017permalink

AbrasiveReducer

This was not a test of all Sigma lenses. It was a test of a specific, $1300 lens that's pretty good but not great. If you are angry, be angry with Sigma.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Goodmeme

I agree. Image stabilisation makes this a good addition generally. Buying a lens like this for me (if I didn't already own the original 24-70L) would simply be a matter of how much I wanted stabilisation versus the Canon original. For a general purpose zoom lens, it's a reasonable decision to pick the stabilisation. I'd probably still get one of the Canons personally but as a pro I would possibly want the stabilisation just in case...

Jul 29, 2017permalink

A corollary is that the issue being discussed is "sharpness," which is not the only aspect of "image quality."

For Nikon shooters, the "branded" lenses are unfortunately disadvantaged on other "image quality" fronts, those being purple fringing, which is pretty horrid even on Nikon's top-of-the-line 24-70 lenses, and distortion.

We can all debate on what "image quality" issues are the most important, but let's not forget that there is more to "quality" than "sharpness" alone.

8 months agopermalink

Imagecafe

Still need to find a copy of the Nikon 24-70 2.8 that is sharper than the tamarin. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1008&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Jul 29, 2017permalink

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=507

In fairness, the Nikon will have probably no autofocus issues, whereas the Tamron may have significant issues in this regard. So one must choose their battles.

The Nikon also has the usual Nikon purple fringing unfortunately typical of their "standard" zooms.

The limitations of "lens tests" are always ever present as well; comparisons of flat targets photographed at short distances may not reveal the "real world" results of three-dimensional subjects considerably further from the camera.

8 months agopermalink

Theelderkeynes

For an equally thorough review see:

Jul 29, 2017permalink

LJ - Eljot

They did not mentiont the predecesor, but I looked up the old review of it at lenstip. In the center they are quite similar, but the new one is much better toward the corners.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

LMCasey

Doesn't quite fit the 'Art' moniker.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Sacred

Sure, it this lens was any better it would reflect in it's price tag, then everyone could whine about Sigma lenses being that much more expensive than oem, just like with 50 art.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

theprehistorian

Does seem a bit below par for a Sigma Art. Still, you can't win them all! I'm not sure I'd be interested in this anyway, the AF performance is iffy enough with the primes, I would think this would focus all over the place!

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Sacred

No it would not. Primes are f/1.4 lenses. Are you trying to say that focusing with f/2.8 lenses is harder?

Jul 29, 2017permalink

theprehistorian

It is with zoom lenses. They need calibrating for a number of focal lengths and distances, and that only works for the central AF points. Sigma sell a USB dock so you can give it a go. I've done it with the primes and the 24-35/2, but I wouldn't fancy it with a 24-70. Autofocus is an issue for the Sigmas, much as I like them.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

fishy wishy

Down to what speed do working pros take photos of people, using the image stabilisation? I would think using the full capabilites of stabilisation on a short lens like this could lead to low shutter speeds where blinking and subject movement could become a problem.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

MrBrightSide

It's a trade off for sure, but adults don't move as fast as you think so I can usually get one sharp photo of someone at 1/30 as long as I rip off 5 or 10 frames.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Ebrahim Saadawi

regardless of IS (it doesn"t affect people motion) I found that I can max, and I mean max, at 1/15s, and still get a sharp portrait. IS removes the movement from my part which is more of an issue than telling people to stand still. Wait, no.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

gameshoes3003

This was a little disappointing to read since I came in with the expectation that it would be a spectacular performer. Sigma's other ART zooms (which all did well) gave me a little too much hope, I guess.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

Prices in the Netherlands are;

Stabilized;
Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8E VR ED 2235
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art 1399

not stabilized
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM 1949
Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED 1649

Seems to me that the Sigma is a bargain but the quality of the Nikon is better. I also don't like that the Sigma needs to update so now and than and that it's is a question if it will work all the time on new Canon/Nikon camera software.
Canon has nothing stabilized to offer and there non stabilized lens is more expensive than that of Nikon.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

thx1138

So no mention of the even cheaper Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC G2 as it's real competition.

No one that owns the Canon really is fussed about the lack of IS, it's 5 years old and is a stellar lens, easily able to handle the 50MP 5Ds sensor. I'd say if you stick to a 24MP sensor the Sigma would be perfectly fine, but I'd rather pay for the IQ of the Canon or Nikon for the big MP sensors

Jul 29, 2017permalink

sh10453

You can get the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM for under $1600 ... Shop around.
For this zoom range, I think stabilization is not that critical. Of course it would be nice to have, but that would make the lens considerably more expensive.

I would take the Canon L lens over the Sigma or the Tamron any time. The extra cost is well worth it when it comes to image quality, as well as build quality.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Okwy Ugonweze

The battle between this lens and the upcoming Tamron will be very interesting, but I think Tamron will come out tops. I love what Sigma is doing but the focus dilemma is one I can't bring myself to deal with yet.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

ozturert

I am surprised with the findings. Sigma Art series has been excellent so far. Maybe the real reason is the lens is not big and heavy enough :)

Jul 29, 2017permalink

photomedium

Sigma 1300 vs canon 1750 doesn't seem all that much less, all things considered.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Toni Salmonelli

Have you also considered the following points?

1. Image Stabilization (as opposed to the Canon)

2. Option to use the mount conversion service

3. Option to use it via the MC-11 mount adapter on a Sony with full functionality

4. I just have to say, I love those included Sigma lens pouch :-)

Jul 29, 2017permalink

ozturert

A working pro would not look at that price difference. Reliability (AF accuracy, mechanical quality, compatibility etc...) is more important. And optically Canon looks better.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

thx1138

Lens is only tested on the lowly 5D3 and even then it's not that great. The Canon holds up amazingly on the 5DsR and would destroy the SIgma in the corners and edges. The MTF's of the Sigma are very ordinary and the lens should have been labelled a Contemporary, certainly not worthy of the Art moniker. This is to the Art series as the Canon 24-105L II is to the L series, the b@st@rd stepchild. I suspect the Tamron G2 will be a better lens and is even cheaper. And Tamron usually has more accurate AF.

I'll take tack sharp and no OS over decent and OS any day no matter the price difference.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

sh10453

Agree 100%. I'd go with the Canon lens in a heartbeat. Can't really compromise when it comes to image AND build quality.
More than one outlet is now advertising it on sale for less than $1600.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

ryan123

link to the sales? Would like to take a look

Jul 31, 2017permalink

barrym1966

Did they calibrate it with the sigma dock? Every sigma lens I have used had needed a lot of running from the dock

Jul 29, 2017permalink

They don't have to as they don't use the AF in their testing.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

barrym1966

So the softness could be down to the user needing to go to specsavers?

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Jun2

Not very sharp. May be, it need to be tested through MC-11 to Sony mirrorless cameras to eliminate focus misbehaviors.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Henry McA

Every ordinary DSLR has "live view" with exactly the same sharpness accuracy of your beloved Sony crapcam.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Jun2

Were sample pictures shot with live view ? I can trust Canon's live view. Nikon's live view is still not very advanced. Sony crapcam ? lol.

Jul 29, 2017*permalink

@Henry McA: First part of your short rant was fine, true and all. Thee second, just a totally unneccessary piece of BS. "crap" in this level of cameras as the Sony mirrorless system represents, is just not a word to use, At all. Regardless of if you may not like them, or just find them too expensive or so, but "crap"? No way. Says I, an Oly shooter. Is Oly "crap" too?

(If you just wanted to be funny or ironic, I´m fine! ;-) I didn´t read it that way)

Jul 29, 2017*permalink

As I said above they don't use the AF in their testing, so no need to calibrate it.

Ah, found a comment:

Question:
When you test a Sigma lens that can be tweaked using the dock, is that done prior to your tests or do you test right out of the box?

Roger Cicala:
That has nothing to do with optical testing. The "Tweak" is to improve autofocus accuracy - it doesn't change the optics at all. No testing is ever done using autofocus.

Jul 29, 2017*permalink

MarioV

Here's what you do:
Take all 3 lenses, take the exact same photo, process them from raw and remove the exif.
I doubt there would be any real difference despite the usual proclamation for either brand.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

brendon1000

It comes down to a lot of other factors like AF, build quality, service, long term compatibility, resale value etc.

Sigma is good VFM. But when the price is barely $400 away from the Canon 24-70mm then I think a lot of people would pay the difference since you get much higher resale value, better AF, guaranteed compatibility etc with the oem lens.

It becomes a lot tougher decision with the Nikon version since $1100 is a massive difference.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

sts2

Then again Nikon still has the 24-70/2.8G, which arguably is a better comparison because the price is closer and neither of the three has image stabilisation when compared like that.
Performance-wise there's not much between the G and E models.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

cjones63

I agree and would go even further to include the previous Sigma non-stabilized version and the current Tamron. This madness of pixel peeping and amateurish critique is pointless and is only exacerbated by poorly shot samples.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Akpinxit

I struggle to understand what is so good in such blurry F2.8 images ?

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Bambi24

there are 2 types of bokeh whores:
.
-the photographer going through a bokeh phase. They like the l00k and f33l of bokeh, the *seperation*, the *bokeh balls*. They eventually grow out of it, turn against bokeh, and just flick their camera to f/5.6 and never touch aperture again.
.
-the "pro" feeling threatened by the rise of smartphones, feeling they need to stick out from the crowd with the fastest glass their quickly draining bank account can handle. They use bokeh on anything and everything. These people eventually end up giving up on bokeh too. Not out of disgust like the first group, but out of pure desperation, realizing all that money spent on lenses isn't being recouped on the 1 wedding they were allowed to shoot at this year. These people, also eventually end up shooting at f/5.6, since that's all they can eventually afford.

Jul 29, 2017*permalink

brendon1000

Lol I have been a bokeh fan for 7 years now. Don't see myself stopping anytime soon.

I love how some so called photographers feel just because they don't shoot in a particular way or don't like a particular look it automatically becomes something bad and unworthy. :p

Jul 29, 2017permalink

SnapHappy32

When chasing a toddler indoors 2.8 zooms allow for faster SS while framing becomes easier. It's that simple. Yup. First kid - I'm shooting 100's of frames daily and using my 2.8 Nikon @ 2.8 every second of it.

I second that Brendon - some photogs are inherently insecure and have to resort to name-calling .. Lets hope they become less judgemental when they grow up.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Bambi24

I don't care how cheap these Sigma and Tamron lenses are, all of them have focus issues. And if they don't have focus issues when you buy them, they eventually develop them or focus completely breaks after the camera gets a firmware update.

And I'm not blaming this on Sigma or Tamron, Japanese companies are incredibly protective, Japan and China are the most protectionist countries in the world. Canon and Nikon refuse to disclose or share their AF tech. But as a result, I refuse to buy Tamron or Sigma, it just is what it is.

Jul 29, 2017*permalink

Trk

I do not confirm your hypothesis, my Tamron has been focusing just fine and has not developed focusing issues over years. Also Tamron provides very long 5 year warranty, they service lenses in one day here. Very fast and reliable service . So in case of new cameras where lens stops working correctly due to Canon or Nikon, Tamron provides indeed also firmware update. I do not see any issue here, but you do indeed, you are just this kind of person, ok.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Toni Salmonelli

I have resp. had three different Sigma lenses. Two of them non global vision and one of the Global vision line. All three focused perfectly without any adjustment (neither in-camera nor via USB dock). So please stop talking like you tested them all and scare potential customers.

BTW: Sigma know tackles the issue regarding future compatibility with the USB dock. Forgot about that?

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Bambi24:
Sure Tamron and Tokina (and more) don´t pay licences to Ca/Ni for use of the AF tech? It´s been a rather well known fact that Sigma do NOT pay any licenses, since long, and therefore Sigma have had more troble with AF function during the years. Which doesn´t prevent many Sigma lenses to work perfectly well, as fex Toni Salmonelli just witnessed.

Jul 29, 2017*permalink

I thought Tamron have a licence from Canon and just Sigma reverse-engineer the interface.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

gameshoes3003

I seem to only hear about focus issues with Canon cameras. I have yet to hear of focusing issues on Nikons.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

IIRC Nikon like to play games with screwing people over by making small changes to what the camera says to a lens (over models/firmware). I've certainly heard that. Can't comment on its accuracy.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Never had a problem with Tamron focusing, often had focusing problems with Sigma. Perhaps the difference between paying a license fee and working with OEMs versus re-engineering OEMs.

Jul 31, 2017permalink

@Bambi24 If you shoot Canon, I'd agree, because their "all electronic" interface on ES mount allows for much more "mischief" with regard to mucking up the function of non-Canon lenses.

Nikon's "backward compatible" interface allowed for less of this, one of the reasons I chose Nikon over Canon when changing systems - I wanted the additional choices Third Party lens makers offered, and not because of price differences so much as lenses the "Big Cheeses" just didn't make.

8 months agopermalink

Abu Mahendra

Canon doesn't have to blow Sigma out of the water when it comes to sharpness; it only has to offer comparable sharpness. No AF woes, no future compatibility issues, the cachet of the Red Ring, worldwide service centers and better resale value taken together more than make up for the price difference and marginal sharpness differences. In this case, the Sigma is not even comparable to the Canon which effectively means it is a mediocre lens.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Yake

The Canon lens is a masterpiece of design. Sharpness, color, bokeh, durability ... it does so many things so well. Canon still knows some things that other lens makers don't. That said, the image samples from the Sigma look excellent.

Jul 29, 2017*permalink

Toni Salmonelli

I read a lot about the higher resell value of the Canon around here. That's true for know. But no one can say if that's true for the future too. Think about that:

There are over 110 million EF lenses build so far and I guess a significant portion is still around. In case more and more customers turn to other systems, the market for used EF lenses might quickly turn into a buyer market with dropping prices. Sigma Global Vision lenses might hold a better value then, because the are designed with intention to convert it to another system (Sigma mount conversion service) and can be used with full functionality on Sony Milc via the MC-11 adapter. Of course, this is all hypothetical.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

akjos

I tested this abomination on my D4 together with 4 other sigmas in the camera store expo with bunch of teps from different companies. All but 1 had serious focus issues. One would figure that at least the samples to show off to ppl would be cherry picked no??! No... thank you.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

nicolaiecostel

Correct focus is a combination of camera and lens. Your camera might need calibration, or you can have perfect calibration on your camera, you calibrate the lens on it at Nikon and then you may have a perfect combo.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

@akjos:
What perform "cherry picking" if the company would like to be seen as honest and serious??? That would also point to potentially bad QC..
And what use, if it shows, as it often does, that the camera in question needs to be calibrated? Any DSLR, regardless of make or price level, will have this potential problem/issue. If not using its Live View focusing, that is.

Jul 29, 2017*permalink

Mssimo

I would take color correction over a bit of extra sharpness.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

You might also add to that list less color fringing or distortion...

8 months agopermalink

TonyPM

Picture 36:

Someone left their Eos 1100d on the table.
I know it's not the best camera in the world, but a forgotten camera is like candy at the door of a school when the bell rings.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

princecody

Sigma is kicking ass! If Only they would make Olympus quality lenses for micro four thirds I'd never buy another overpriced Olympus lens again 😉👍🏻

Jul 29, 2017*permalink

TonyPM

Lumix lenses are pretty nice, but it's true that Sigma has very few lenses for m4/3.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

Most Olympus lenses I use and used are not overpriced but offer superb quality for there price. I have the 12-40 f2.8 for 550 euro as good as new, and the 60mm f2.8 macro for 250 euro. Bought the 45mm f1.8 new for something like 250 euro.

But more lenses from Sigma for the MFT system would be nice, the more the better.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

@princecody:
Optically Sigma has been good, (with variations among the line, of course) since many years. I had the tiny little 24mm/2,8 super wide, for my then Nikon system. Sharp as a tack, sturdily built and 18 cm(!) closest focusing distance. A FUN lens! Cost some 1000SEK at the time, since then prices have goon up "a bit" ;-)

Now, I too find Oly lenses a bit expensive. Still, which other company give THAT quality at the same or cheaper prices, overall? Tell me..
I have the 12-40/2,8, the 40-150/2,8, the 50/2, the 75/1,8, the 14-54 mk2, the old 40-150/3,5-4,5, and the 12-50/3,5-6,3. Only the two last mentioned can be seen as less than REALLY good lenses. SO sharp, and liftable vs what most other can deliver at the same IQ. WEll built all of them, too. That has to cost "something"...I guess ;-)

Jul 29, 2017*permalink

Robbo338

Have you tried a speedbooster? The Metabones 0.64x and Sigma 18-35mm Art are supposed to work very well on micro four thirds.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

We all await Tamron's new 24-70mm ...to see if they improved. This is a disappointment on the Sigma...Their Prime Art Line is Excellent..but this..reading a few reviews...well back to the drawing board Sigma. lol

Jul 28, 2017permalink

steelhead3

I don't own this lens (not made for A mount) and probably never will but I thought the reviewer by his own admission was not a zoom guy and complained it wasn't as sharp as the primes he was used to shooting with. This seemed to color his whole review with an obvious bias.

Jul 28, 2017permalink

Trepverter

The MTF results for this lens aren't good, regardless of the reviewer's personal preferences

Jul 29, 2017permalink

mandm

$1699.95 Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 ED lens on Sale.
Nikon's high price on their new 24-70mm 2.8 ED VR is likely due to that they still have stock of their last 24-70mm 2.8 ED; Instant $100.00 Savings Now $1699.95.
Once their inventory of the old one is gone they may lower the price of the new VR 24-70.

Jul 28, 2017permalink

Stanchung

Check out prices in Hong Kong. The 24-70 VR is 14200HKD=1820USD.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

Stanchung

google Best Zone D

I bought my 105 macro from them so I can say they are not a scam site.

Jul 29, 2017permalink

nachos

They often have sales; I picked up my 24-70 VR for $2200 last summer.

Jul 31, 2017permalink

trungtran

Price needs to settle down before it becomes competitive. A refurbished 24-70ii can be had for 1370 plus tax direct from Canon. I have purchased a number of items from Canon refurbished and they all seem to be new minus the box.

Jul 28, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

The focussing problems of a Sigma on a Nikon-especially manual focus, are offputting: and put me off the 24-35mm F2- a range I use a lot. But as mentioned below, if you get a good copy of the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 VR, you will rejoice as it is an excellent lens that can always be relied upon to focus properly, and it costs a fraction of what this very much bigger heavier lens does. Its better than the 24-70mm f2.8 Nikkor, so will outclass this Sigma which is around 3 times as expensive as its predecessor.

Jul 28, 2017permalink

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=811&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=1119&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Compare them on "The Digital Picture."

No, the Nikon 24-85 f/3.4-4.5VR won't "outclass" the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Art, not even close. Of course, that doesn't speak to any potential autofocus concerns, an important issue that is hit-or-miss with the "latest" 3rd party lenses and which are not reflected in lens tests. In sharpness terms, that Nikon lens isn't even close - and the Nikon has the horrid purple fringing that the Sigma "standard" zooms conquered long, long ago, plus a great deal more distortion.

If I were a Canon shooter, I'd buy the Canon 24-70L II, no question. But the Nikon lenses in this range are all afflicted with the aforementioned purple fringing, and also generally sport far more distortion than their Sigma counterparts.

8 months ago*permalink