Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro (1 Viewer)

Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro

Does anyone have any experience with this lens? It was introduced in January 2005 and Sigma says: To achieve an F2.8 aperture at all focal lengths, it employs three aspherical Lens to provide optimum aberration compensation. Two Special Low Dispersion (SLD) glass elements are provided for color aberration compensation, to assure high image quality. It can be stopped down to F32.

More details here:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3261&navigator=2

The reviews I've found on it are generally highly favorable, for example here:
http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/Sigma/PRD_332057_3128crx.aspx

I finally decided to go with a Nikon D70 rather than a Canon 350D for my first DSLR. I'm not impressed by the reviews on the kit 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor at the $200 to $300 premium (depending on $100 rebate) over the body-only price.

I want something that can cope with bad light situations plus macro ability in a lens that won't me think "I can't wait until I can afford something better" too soon, if ever. At US$370 this lens is already pricey for my budget and the 82mm filter size means no filter collection for the time being. I'll be processing images in JPG, not NEF.

The others lenses I've considered to replace the Nikon kit lens all apparently have weaknesses that become evident in low light, as follows:

Sigma 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 DC $250
Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC $375
Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-5.6 DG Macro $275

But maybe they're not so bad? With a point & shoot I've always had trouble with noise at 200ISO and up, and don't know what to expect from the D70 at higher ISOs. I was looking at those zooms because the second lens I plan to buy is the Sigma 170-500mm F5.0-6.3 APO and there's quite a gap between 70 and 170mm I wouldn't have covered (not that I really need it.) However, I'm rethinking the bad light situation with the 170-500mm too, and haven't made up my mind on it.

I just want one walk-around lens to get started with. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

I have one for my Rebel XT. Overall its a good lens, especially for the price. I don't find it to be exceptionally sharp wide open at 2.8 but its definitly useable, when possible I stop it down to 6.3 as that seems to be the sweet spot for mine. The "sweet spot" will vary from copy to copy so you could get lucky and have a tack sharp lens wide open. The macro feature isn't really a true macro in the sense that it doesn't go 1:1, its around 1:4 I believe which is good for close ups but purists will say its not really macro. The focus is loud, not unbearable but you'll notice it...its not too slow, and its pretty accurate.

There are two things I don't like about the lens, to go from Auto to Manual focus and vise versa you have to hit the switch and move part of the lens barrel which makes on the fly adjustments a pain. The second is the 82mm threads, filters just cost a lot for this lens.

Overall I would still recommend it, Tamrons 28-75 2.8 lens is also very highly regarded but I'd rather have 4mm on the wide end because of the crop factor.

Thanks, that's good to know because I went ahead and ordered it last night, along with a Sigma 70-300mm F4.0-5.6 APO DG Macro and Sigma4Less's least expensive UV and circular polarizers to get started with, and a Nikon D70s body.

They're all very sound choices. Enjoy!

I've tested the Sigma 24-70 lens ant it is quite sensitive to flare. When fully open it might generate some CA at the corners of the picture, especially when dark objects are shot against bright BG. Care should be taken when used outdoor while the sun shines. It's a fine lens for indoor use when stopped down to F:4 or higher.