Sigma 24-70 Lens Test

cyKey · 11 May 2006 at 23:16

Seeing some samples of the lens I decided to buy it and take it for a spin. I wanted a new lens with a better depth of field than my 28-105 f/3.5-4.x.

The following pictures are what made me buy the lens. They might have been sharpened so they're not 100% accurate. This is more of a "What can be achieved with the lens" sorta thing.

The following shots are straight out of the camera using my 10D and the 24-70 @ f/2.8.

cyKey · 11 May 2006 at 23:16

I notice that the lens might not be soft but the depth of field is so shallow that the model is getting blurred. I'm going to attempt to fix this. I'll also post some shots with the 50mm for comparison.

Update: It seems to be quite sharp as I'm having trouble remembering which shot is the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 when I do the tests. So I've set the Sigma to 48mm, by accident. That's helping me keep tabs on the lenses.

cyKey · 11 May 2006 at 23:17

Some more tests.

Its so tricky trying to get the perfect focus so you can get the perfect sharp shot. It does seem like the Sigma is softer than the 50mm however that could just be me breathing :shrug: Either way, applying a smart sharpen after seems to level things out.

Sharpness aside the lens is a lot quicker than I had previously thought. Its at least as fast as the 50mm. I'm not sure how well it will perform at gigs. HSM/USM is such a helping hand there. Its got a weight to it and its not a small lens. I'll have to nip out and do some street photography with it tomorrow.

cyKey · 11 May 2006 at 23:17

cyKey · 11 May 2006 at 23:26

I went for the Sigma 24-70 because of the extra 4mm on the wide angle.

cyKey · 12 May 2006 at 22:33

How do you do the front/back focus test?

cyKey · 12 May 2006 at 22:55

Cool ta. I'll do that tomorrow.

Some random flower shots to test the "Macro" facility. These have been sharpened and auto levelled in Photoshop.

cyKey · 12 May 2006 at 22:57

Is it me or are they a little soft?

cyKey · 12 May 2006 at 23:50

Yeah thats what I was thinking. I've gotten kinda slack with the whole depth of field thing as I've been using my 10-20 for the past few months and I just don't worry about it

My 50mm just works perfectly and is sharp so I don't worry about that either. Testing a new lens is tricky as I just don't really know where to begin

cyKey · 13 May 2006 at 00:38

Fstop11 said:
No they dont look soft to me. Just looks like a F2.8 shot. The dandilion is very sharp in the centre. Nice pic btw!

Hmmm. Maybe its just me. I'm very picky

I do love the colours this lens produces. Straight from the camera with auto levelling, really lovely saturation. I need to do some people shots to be happier with this lens.

cyKey · 13 May 2006 at 00:59

Fstop11 said:
I think the colour re pro in the last two shots of yours is superb! Are you converting Tiff into Photoshop at 16bit ?

I think some people shots will produce a much more certified test results.

Just a jpg.

cyKey · 13 May 2006 at 01:04

Canon 80-200 f/4.5 - 5.6
Canon 28-105 f/3.5 - 4.5

cyKey · 13 May 2006 at 01:19

Yeah. Though it is a hell of a lot lighter

cyKey · 13 May 2006 at 13:47

Focusing Test. Seems to be a little off but judging from the article its acceptable. I think

Some of my other tests show the front 1 + 2 to be far more in focus than the rear.

cyKey · 14 May 2006 at 10:09

mrk said:
You got it ?! you were the one that told me several times the 24-70 was too slow/noisy in focusing

cyKey said:
Sharpness aside the lens is a lot quicker than I had previously thought. Its at least as fast as the 50mm. I'm not sure how well it will perform at gigs. HSM/USM is such a helping hand there. Its got a weight to it and its not a small lens. I'll have to nip out and do some street photography with it tomorrow.

I needed a low light f/2.8 zoom. Its the only option. This one is quicker than the one I previously tested.