LensTip Review: Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art

[ahsanford]

More Sigma 24-70 Art review for your Friday:

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

Shorter FLs were sharper, 70mm it fell off a bit

Center of frame: better than the various 24-70 2.8 IS lenses (Nikon and Tamron), but worse than the 24-70 f/2.8L II

Outskirts of frame: Not stellar wide open, not terrible. Stopping down helps, of course.

AF is a good but not great result:

"The accuracy performance we assess positively, both in the studio and outdoor. For the most difficult combination of the 70 mm focal length and f/2.8 aperture, with the lens positioned before a testing chart, you might count on 88% of hits accurate within just 5% of difference from the best result. A bit worse hits but still completely acceptable (from 5 to 10% of difference from the best result) constituted 7% of all shots.There were 5% of shots considered by us to be totally missfocused (different by more than 20% from the sharpest photo). The results at the shorter end of the focal spectrum were even better due to the increase of the depth of field."

Before people freak out at a "totally misfocused 5%", see the caveats above. In the last year or so they have raised the bar on what they consider a miss. Also, their test camera is not the latest and greatest but is no slouch whatsoever -- it's a 5D3.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

In general, this is consistent with the OLAF testing and LR's recent usage review (just posted on this forum today as well). This is not the atom splitting katana of sharpness that we know Sigma can make. It would appear that their best work remains with primes.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I was speaking in broad strokes about this new lens not stacking up to the best in the segment, but yes, their FL conclusions were different. I believe OLAF pegged 50mm as the best for the Sigma, though, not 70mm.

- A

 

[SecureGSM]

I stand corrected.

I was speaking in broad strokes about this new lens not stacking up to the best in the segment, but yes, their FL conclusions were different. I believe OLAF pegged 50mm as the best for the Sigma, though, not 70mm.

- A

 

[SecureGSM]

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 OS ART | Image Quality Examination by Dustin Abbott:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfO33TKy1Bc

Surprisingly, CA levels are not as extreme as in the DPReview provided SOOC images.

 

[jd7]

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 OS ART | Image Quality Examination by Dustin Abbott:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfO33TKy1Bc

Surprisingly, CA levels are not as extreme as in the DPReview provided SOOC images.

Interesting! I'd pretty much written off this lens based on the early reports, but I may have to rethink that. Wish it was a bit lighter though. Anyway, looking forward to Dustin's full review and comparison with the other 24-70 options.

 

[SecureGSM]

I really do not see point purchasing a third party lens that is inferior to the Canon genuine glass unless you can save a lot.
one can get refurbished Canon 24-70 F2.8 II L lens for$1367 from Canon directly on sale.

or brand new one:
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM w/PIXMA PRO-100 $1449 (Reg $1999)
Coupon Code: AMTMF53217

with price on Sigma 24-70 Art being $1299, are you really worried about $100 savings?

I would not as Canon lens is better at every count except IS.
And do you really need IS in that focal range? Personally, I do not see this being an issue.

Interesting! I'd pretty much written off this lens based on the early reports, but I may have to rethink that. Wish it was a bit lighter though. Anyway, looking forward to Dustin's full review and comparison with the other 24-70 options.

 

[jd7]

I really do not see point purchasing a third party lens that is inferior to the Canon genuine glass unless you can save a lot.
one can get refurbished Canon 24-70 F2.8 II L lens for$1367 from Canon directly on sale.

or brand new one:
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM w/PIXMA PRO-100 $1449 (Reg $1999)
Coupon Code: AMTMF53217

with price on Sigma 24-70 Art being $1299, are you really worried about $100 savings?

I would not as Canon lens is better at every count except IS.
And do you really need IS in that focal range? Personally, I do not see this being an issue.

Interesting! I'd pretty much written off this lens based on the early reports, but I may have to rethink that. Wish it was a bit lighter though. Anyway, looking forward to Dustin's full review and comparison with the other 24-70 options.

Hi SecureGSM

The price difference here in Australia is more like 25% of the cost of the Canon, so quite a bit more than $100, even based on the launch price of the Sigma.

As for the lenses themselves, after watching Dustin's review of the IQ, I'll await more information before deciding which of the two lenses I'd prefer (and there is the Tamron G2 to consider too). The Sigma is 25% heavier than the Canon and a little less sharp, but has IS and it seems probably better bokeh, which makes for an interesting decision ... but of course there are other factors (eg AF, extent of weather sealing, weight, resale value, etc) to consider too. As for the value of IS in that focal length range, if you use a 24-70 for events or people photos then I doubt IS is very significant, but if you use it as a travel and general purpose lens then IS becomes a bigger deal I think. I have used my 24-70 f/4L IS as a travel and hiking lens quite often and been very glad of the IS. There are times I would like the wider aperture though, especially for people pictures, so I think about about a 2.8 from time to time ... just unsure if one extra stop is worth the extra size/weight (and cost) over the 24-70 f/4L IS at those focal lengths (for my use).

 

[SecureGSM]

All fair commments,

I am based in Melbourne, btw

There are plenty of _mint_ Canon 24-70 F2.8 II L lenses on Gumtree.com.au and people are generally willing to let them go for around A$1,500.
You can buy Sigma 24-70 Art lens for A$1750.00 brand new from an Authorised Distributor or right now with eBay promo coupon "PRESENT" you can have one with 20% discount for A$1,400.00. I can send you the link if interested.

so yes, A$100.00 difference in Australia at the moment.

stabilisation question: you don't want to shoot people with slower than 1/60s shutter speed generally. you cannot stabilise people slight natural body movements. otherwise I would use very light travel tripod and / or fill flash to add light to the scene.

as to extra stop benefit: it depends on your personal circumstances and style of shooting, etc. for me it is an absolute must have feature as I frequently find myself shooting in very dark venues where flash photography is not permitted.

bokeh: I do not see Sigma lens bokeh being better than the same of Canon one. not feasible.

please note: Canon colours and contrast are much much better than Tamron. I used Tamron 24-70 for a while and extensively. trust me, Canon colour magic is unmatched.

if you have a specific use question or would like to send me a pix where you believe that you have nearly lost the shot due to absence of IS of F4 aperture, please do let me know. send me a message and we will discuss further.

p.s.

Sigma 14 F1.8 Art lens is on special offer from an authorised dealer at the moment at $A1,550.

I am very very very tempted.. literary drooling over this offer, but cannot see using the lens much as I do not generally shoot architecture or astro. I was thinking about low light crowd shots, but that is only a few shots and once in a while with me. Don't know what to do. What do you recon?

I really do not see point purchasing a third party lens that is inferior to the Canon genuine glass unless you can save a lot.
one can get refurbished Canon 24-70 F2.8 II L lens for$1367 from Canon directly on sale.

or brand new one:
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM w/PIXMA PRO-100 $1449 (Reg $1999)
Coupon Code: AMTMF53217

with price on Sigma 24-70 Art being $1299, are you really worried about $100 savings?

I would not as Canon lens is better at every count except IS.
And do you really need IS in that focal range? Personally, I do not see this being an issue.

Interesting! I'd pretty much written off this lens based on the early reports, but I may have to rethink that. Wish it was a bit lighter though. Anyway, looking forward to Dustin's full review and comparison with the other 24-70 options.

Hi SecureGSM

The price difference here in Australia is more like 25% of the cost of the Canon, so quite a bit more than $100, even based on the launch price of the Sigma.

As for the lenses themselves, after watching Dustin's review of the IQ, I'll await more information before deciding which of the two lenses I'd prefer (and there is the Tamron G2 to consider too). The Sigma is 25% heavier than the Canon and a little less sharp, but has IS and it seems probably better bokeh, which makes for an interesting decision ... but of course there are other factors (eg AF, extent of weather sealing, weight, resale value, etc) to consider too. As for the value of IS in that focal length range, if you use a 24-70 for events or people photos then I doubt IS is very significant, but if you use it as a travel and general purpose lens then IS becomes a bigger deal I think. I have used my 24-70 f/4L IS as a travel and hiking lens quite often and been very glad of the IS. There are times I would like the wider aperture though, especially for people pictures, so I think about about a 2.8 from time to time ... just unsure if one extra stop is worth the extra size/weight (and cost) over the 24-70 f/4L IS at those focal lengths (for my use).

 

[jd7]

All fair commments,

I am based in Melbourne, btw

There are plenty of _mint_ Canon 24-70 F2.8 II L lenses on Gumtree.com.au and people are generally willing to let them go for around A$1,500.
You can buy Sigma 24-70 Art lens for A$1750.00 brand new from an Authorised Distributor or right now with eBay promo coupon "PRESENT" you can have one with 20% discount for A$1,400.00. I can send you the link if interested.

so yes, A$100.00 difference in Australia at the moment.

stabilisation question: you don't want to shoot people with slower than 1/60s shutter speed generally. you cannot stabilise people slight natural body movements. otherwise I would use very light travel tripod and / or fill flash to add light to the scene.

as to extra stop benefit: it depends on your personal circumstances and style of shooting, etc. for me it is an absolute must have feature as I frequently find myself shooting in very dark venues where flash photography is not permitted.

bokeh: I do not see Sigma lens bokeh being better than the same of Canon one. not feasible.

please note: Canon colours and contrast are much much better than Tamron. I used Tamron 24-70 for a while and extensively. trust me, Canon colour magic is unmatched.

if you have a specific use question or would like to send me a pix where you believe that you have nearly lost the shot due to absence of IS of F4 aperture, please do let me know. send me a message and we will discuss further.

p.s.

Sigma 14 F1.8 Art lens is on special offer from an authorised dealer at the moment at $A1,550.

I am very very very tempted.. literary drooling over this offer, but cannot see using the lens much as I do not generally shoot architecture or astro. I was thinking about low light crowd shots, but that is only a few shots and once in a while with me. Don't know what to do. What do you recon?

I really do not see point purchasing a third party lens that is inferior to the Canon genuine glass unless you can save a lot.
one can get refurbished Canon 24-70 F2.8 II L lens for$1367 from Canon directly on sale.

or brand new one:
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM w/PIXMA PRO-100 $1449 (Reg $1999)
Coupon Code: AMTMF53217

with price on Sigma 24-70 Art being $1299, are you really worried about $100 savings?

I would not as Canon lens is better at every count except IS.
And do you really need IS in that focal range? Personally, I do not see this being an issue.

Interesting! I'd pretty much written off this lens based on the early reports, but I may have to rethink that. Wish it was a bit lighter though. Anyway, looking forward to Dustin's full review and comparison with the other 24-70 options.

Hi SecureGSM

The price difference here in Australia is more like 25% of the cost of the Canon, so quite a bit more than $100, even based on the launch price of the Sigma.

As for the lenses themselves, after watching Dustin's review of the IQ, I'll await more information before deciding which of the two lenses I'd prefer (and there is the Tamron G2 to consider too). The Sigma is 25% heavier than the Canon and a little less sharp, but has IS and it seems probably better bokeh, which makes for an interesting decision ... but of course there are other factors (eg AF, extent of weather sealing, weight, resale value, etc) to consider too. As for the value of IS in that focal length range, if you use a 24-70 for events or people photos then I doubt IS is very significant, but if you use it as a travel and general purpose lens then IS becomes a bigger deal I think. I have used my 24-70 f/4L IS as a travel and hiking lens quite often and been very glad of the IS. There are times I would like the wider aperture though, especially for people pictures, so I think about about a 2.8 from time to time ... just unsure if one extra stop is worth the extra size/weight (and cost) over the 24-70 f/4L IS at those focal lengths (for my use).

Ah didn't realise you are just down the road! I'm in Sydney.

To the most important part of your post - the answer to "should I buy a lens" is always yes!! Seriously, I cannot imagine I'd use 14 mm too often myself. I shoot people (action/candid as much as posed shots), events, travel and landscapes. I don't really do any astro, and I don't know about 14 mm for crowd shots - perhaps too much distortion of people near the edge of the frame?? I've thought about the 20/1.4 Art a few times - I reckon the combination of 20 mm focal length and f/1.4 would be interesting to play with - but 14 mm has never been on my list. Anyway, what other lenses have you got already? What is tempting you about the deal? Just that it's a good price? As long as you get it a good price, there is always the option of selling it on before too long and you probably won't take that much of a hit. Sorry, don't think I've been very helpful there!!

Thanks for the tips re prices on the Canon 24-70L II and the 24-70 Art, and the discount offer regarding Sigma. I have seen one place with the Art at about $1750 but the Canon 24-70L IIs I've seen on Gumtree near me have been about that price too. I figured I might get one for around $1600 if I was patient, but hadn't realised you could get them for as low as $1500. Obviously it's used versus new, but it is something more to think about (I've bought a number of lenses second hand, so that doesn't bother me). Anyway, first thing I need to decide is whether I stick with 24-70/4L IS for its weight/size/IS or if want the extra stop of a 2.8 zoom (even though I already have the 35 Art and 50 Art if I want wide aperture). So easy to get carried away with gear ... and all the comments I see online raving about the 2.8 don't help!

Regarding IS, I do agree IS isn't often going to be much use in the 24-70 range when it comes to shooting people. However, I was in Europe last year and I found the IS really useful for shooting in some of the cathedrals and other large buildings. Flash was often not permitted, and a single flash wouldn't have been much use anyway, so a flash wasn't the answer there. A tripod would do the trick, but I think they were generally not allowed (I wasn't carrying one so I didn't pay close attention), and even if they were allowed I don't think it would have been practical given the number of people around. I was able to shoot hand-held at 1/20 or slower at f/4 or f/5.6 (I was looking for deeper DOF rather than shallower) and keep the ISO significantly lower than if I'd had a non-stabilised f/2.8 lens. I also find IS very useful when shooting hand-held on hikes, such as the multi-day hikes I've done here in Australia and in NZ. Will try to dig up a couple of examples when I get a chance, but probably won't be before the weekend at the earliest unfortunately. Too much work to do at the moment.

Looking forward to hearing if you cracked on the 14 f/1.8

 

[SecureGSM]

jd7,

ah. gotcha! for low light and no flash / tripod allowed wide angle situation I have got my Canon 16-35 F4 IS.

hint: I use my monopod for crowded locations as it has zero footprint . walking stick
my kit is very basic:
Canon 16-35 F4 IS L, 24-70 F2.8 II L, 70-200 F2.8L
Sigma Art lenses: 35, 50 , 85, 135
Sigma 120 300 F2.8 Sports (the beast ) Canon 5D III and Canon 6D - for now, but looking for a mint, low shutter count 5D IV to replace 6D

p.s. 14 mm perspective distortion - people in corners - can be corrected and very nicely you loose about 10% of the frame as you do this. but that's still very wide and you shoot virtually pushing your subject with the lens. hard to achieve otherwise. 16-35 gets the job done but only in good light.

ah, temptation! I. must. resist.

 

[jd7]

jd7,

ah. gotcha! for low light and no flash / tripod allowed wide angle situation I have got my Canon 16-35 F4 IS.

hint: I use my monopod for crowded locations as it has zero footprint . walking stick
my kit is very basic:
Canon 16-35 F4 IS L, 24-70 F2.8 II L, 70-200 F2.8L
Sigma Art lenses: 35, 50 , 85, 135
Sigma 120 300 F2.8 Sports (the beast ) Canon 5D III and Canon 6D - for now, but looking for a mint, low shutter count 5D IV to replace 6D

p.s. 14 mm perspective distortion - people in corners - can be corrected and very nicely you loose about 10% of the frame as you do this. but that's still very wide and you shoot virtually pushing your subject with the lens. hard to achieve otherwise. 16-35 gets the job done but only in good light.

ah, temptation! I. must. resist.

Personally I'd call that more than a basic kit! Reckon you've got most things covered very well there.

So how did you go with your resistance?

Yep, hand-held, low light, no flash and no tripod allowed/practical/available, shots are when IS makes all the difference. I had a quick look at some photos over the weekend and found some taken with the 24-70 4L IS which I think I wouldn't have worked anywhere near as well with the 24-70 2.8L II. For example, I have a hand-held shot in a cathedral at f/4, 70mm, 1/10s, ISO 1600 which is quite sharp. There was an iron gate I couldn't go passed so I couldn't get any closer, and no tripods allowed. Without IS, I would have needed another 4 stops of ISO, or 3 stops of ISO plus going to f/2.8 (although to the extent possible I was looking for deeper DOF in this case, not shallower).

Anyway, it's all about what set of compromises you prefer to make. I haven't quite made up my mind but I'm seriously thinking about a switch to a 24-70 2.8 of some kind, even if it means giving up IS. I don't do as much long distance/multi-day hiking as I used to, I do almost no video, and I take a lot of people photos, so at this point I think a 2.8 might be more useful, although I do struggle a bit with the price of the Canon L II. I reckon you are doing very well if you can find a used 24-70 2.8L II in good condition at $1500 ... prices I've seen near me seem more like $1700 and higher. At $1500 I'd be getting very tempted! I would sell the 24-70 4L IS, and perhaps one of my primes (probably the 50 I think, even though I think the 50 Art is a fantastic lens), to help fund it.

 

[SecureGSM]

Hi jd7,

Yeah, I was able to resist the GAS calls. Decided not to purchase the Sigma 14 Art lens brand new for now.
I want the lens, but cannot justify the price so will be on look out for a good used copy on local classifieds sites.
Speaking of which: next time you see Canon 24-70 II L lenses advertised on Gumtree at A$1,700, do not hesitate to send A$1,500 offer to the lens owner and see what happens. You may receive A$1,550 counter offer and with good quality UV filter included it may well be what you were looking for.

p.s. cathedral and tripod use: I keep portable lightweight but sturdy monopod in the boot of my car.
Monopods are generally allowed to bring in as they do look a lot like a walking stick and have zero footprint.
With good technique monopod may provide up to 2 additional stops of stabilisation and that comes really handy at times.

 

[JumboShrimp]

This thing is just too heavy for me, but I love the IS. I guess my perfect solution is still to come. Or, perhaps I'll just stick with my trusty 24-70/4 L IS. If only Canon would just add IS to theirs with minimal weight increase ...

 

[jd7]

Hi jd7,

Yeah, I was able to resist the GAS calls. Decided not to purchase the Sigma 14 Art lens brand new for now.
I want the lens, but cannot justify the price so will be on look out for a good used copy on local classifieds sites.
Speaking of which: next time you see Canon 24-70 II L lenses advertised on Gumtree at A$1,700, do not hesitate to send A$1,500 offer to the lens owner and see what happens. You may receive A$1,550 counter offer and with good quality UV filter included it may well be what you were looking for.

p.s. cathedral and tripod use: I keep portable lightweight but sturdy monopod in the boot of my car.
Monopods are generally allowed to bring in as they do look a lot like a walking stick and have zero footprint.
With good technique monopod may provide up to 2 additional stops of stabilisation and that comes really handy at times.

Yep, monopod can be good. In my case I was travelling around Europe for five weeks and trying to travel fairly light as I was covering quite a bit of ground, and it wasn't a photography trip, so I didn't have with me. I guess it really wouldn't have been that hard to carry one though.

 

[jd7]

This thing is just too heavy for me, but I love the IS. I guess my perfect solution is still to come. Or, perhaps I'll just stick with my trusty 24-70/4 L IS. If only Canon would just add IS to theirs with minimal weight increase ...

Tamron G2 could be interesting. I believe it weighs in about halfway between the Canon 24-70 2.8L II and the Sigma Art. Heavier than I'd ideally like for a general purpose lens, but I guess that's the price you have to pay for f/2.8. I'm quite torn at the moment between sticking with the 24-70 4L IS and switching to one of the 2.8 models.