Sigma lens

[PA07]

does anybody have the 24-70/2.8EX or 28-70/2.8EX lens I mostly shoot dirt tracks with bad lighting.thanks

[geraldazaz]

I am not sure this will help but here is my 2 cents worth.
I have a Nikon D80 and three Sigma lenses.
17-70, great lens for Macro shots and indoor shots. 2.8 very fast
28-300, this is my all around lens. I took it to Africa last summer and it was great.
50-500, this lens is my wild life lens and is great. Heavy but great.
I love Sigma lenses and for the price I do not think they can be beat.
Hope this helps.
Jerry

[badpickev]

i know a nikon shooter here in jax t hat has one. seems pretty decent, rather large.

[reval8r]

I've got two sigma zoom lens that I've had since the mid 80's and still use them. I'm happy with Sigma and price for the value is hard to beat.

[DigiFilm]

I have a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8-4 DG (Nikon mount). I got it a few months ago and just recently took it out of the box and mounted it on an F75. Took several shots of a girl I work with as my informal 'model', on Kodak Elite Chrome slide film, but haven't had them developed yet (will have that done this week sometime). When I get the PhotoCD and look them over I will post some (if my 'model' says it's okay too) for example if anyone would like.

[brady38]

I have to concur with the rest of the replys. I shoot Pentax and use the Sigma 17-70, 70-300 and 135-400. I have had no problems, they are razor sharp and fast focus. You can not go wrong with Sigma. If you want to see a lot of examples, go to my gallery. Most of these shots were with the Sigma lens.

[Freezframe_2]

I have a 28 - 70 2.8 and a 70 - 200 2.8 .Both used mainly for low light or indoor situation...( sports ,Hockey, Indoor box lacrosse high school basketball.)Outdoor use as well drag racing , football,etc....They work very well for all !!!! Oh the engine is a 30D...

A big thumbs up from me:: Brady

[Sidebyte]

I spent over 30 years racing dirt tracks and for me I would prefer the 70-200 F2.8, good sharp lens low light capable.

[INSOMNIAC269]

I'd agree with others on the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8, it's a nice lens, plus the newer model also has macro capability. If you shoot Nikon, their 70-200mm 2.8 is outstanding.

[Ricky Ricardo]

I bought a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX a few months ago to partner my Sigma 10-20mm, and couldn't be happier.
It is a beautiful lens, with clear sharp optics.
If you can stand having to buy 82mm filters, then I wouldn't hesitate (it didn't stop me).
Hasn't got the quieter motor of the 10-20mm, but it's no big deal.
I'd say, go for it, I don't think you would be dissapointed.
Rick

[ShutterBug]

Oh yes, the 24-70mm/2.8 EX is quite a beauty. I got it just last month along with a 24mm/1.8 prime also by SIGMA.

What I don't quite fancy, is that at the 24mm end, the lens extends itself outwards quite some ways. Sort of looking much like a telephoto lens.

But I love the image clarity, however not quite sharp wide open at 2.8, as sharpness cuts in 5.6 onwards. It's a broad lens, and hefty too.. but I am happy with it. Makes for a pretty good portrait lens at 70mm. Constant 2.8!

[photomad_2007]

Hi,

I bought this lens over 2 months ago. Good clarity and nice to hold.
But you may not be able to use the built in flash from 24-35 mm focal length,as the lens is rather broad at the other end and casts a shadow of itself at the bottom centre of the image. But when used with a external flash on the hot shoe the shadow was not there. I used this lens on Pentax k10D and also the iSTDL* and had the same problem.
Did any one else experience this problem? Please let me know.

Thanks,
Kris

[PhotoshopAbuser]

Originally Posted by photomad_2007

Hi,


But you may not be able to use the built in flash

Friends don't let friends use the built in flash

[Clear View Farm Photog]

New slant on the Sigma line question. I'm looking at a 17-35 2.8 that is the "older" model. Has the 82 mm opening instead of the current 72mm. The guy selling it describes it as heavier also. Anyone have any experience with the older model? Would appreciate any opinions/recommendations.
Thanks in advance!

Dave

[ShutterBug]

Originally Posted by Clear View Farm Photog

New slant on the Sigma line question. I'm looking at a 17-35 2.8 that is the "older" model. Has the 82 mm opening instead of the current 72mm. The guy selling it describes it as heavier also. Anyone have any experience with the older model? Would appreciate any opinions/recommendations.
Thanks in advance!

Dave

I have this lens as well; it's rather soft wide open at f-2.8, and generally not as sharp only f-8 onwards. However, edges are soft at the 17mm focal length regardless of aperture set.
The new 10-20mm I bought last year performs better.

[Clear View Farm Photog]

Thank you very much for the response!