Hopefully. =) Got my hands on one of Sigma's new 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM lens so will be testing it out against the esteemed Canon and Nikon models post-haste.
Physically, Sigma did one heck of an amazing job shrinking this lens. Usually 24-70mm lenses with a wide f/2.8 aperture are big and heavy but this new Sigma is nice and compact. Still heavy though. Plus the hoods tend to be huge (with the Canon & Nikon versions) so I'm not sure how Sigma's getting away with these shallow hoods on their 24-70s.
It still retains the 82mm filter size from its older brethren but at its full extended length, it's just about the length of the old model when retracted. Plus they finally went against the grain and made the lens short at 24mm and long at 70mm. All the 24-70s prior to this one were physically longer at 24mm and shorter at 70mm which I always found kind of strange.
Build-wise it's typical Sigma EX quality so nothing unexpected there. So physically it's beat the Canon/Nikon on size alone. The 24-70 is my main walkaround lens but I've often wished they were smaller and less noticeable than they actually are and this new Sigma delivers big time in that aspect. Hope the image quality will prove to be comparable to the big boys as well.
UPDATE: Well I ran my usual focus/sharpness tests last night and found this Sigma to be front-focusing significantly. Even the 5DII's lens microadjustment feature set to the max (-20) couldn't fix it. But got a new copy this morning so we'll see how this one goes...
UPDATE 2: Well that's 2 for 2. Second copy front-focused as well. Not as bad, but still there. On to lens #3. If this one doesn't work, I give up.
Comments (4)
Cannot wait to see the review!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by patrick | February 17, 2009 9:13 AM
Posted on February 17, 2009 09:13
How's your Canon 24-70? It was not sharp when you did 24-70 vs. 24-105 vs. 17-55.
Posted by patrick | February 20, 2009 11:43 AM
Posted on February 20, 2009 11:43
The one I'm using now is a different copy than the one I had for that review. Picked it up locally from a guy who went through 4 copies before he found one that was sharp throughout. He wasn't lying.
Posted by Ben | February 20, 2009 11:56 AM
Posted on February 20, 2009 11:56
That's good news. We could see some reliable sources. You could just do C vs. N, then when you get a good copy of S, add it to the review. I believe a lot of people want to see it.
Posted by patrick | February 20, 2009 1:42 PM
Posted on February 20, 2009 13:42