Sigma 24-70 Lens Test

cyKey · 12 May 2006 at 22:57

Is it me or are they a little soft?

Sleepyd · 12 May 2006 at 23:35

70mm with a close subject @ F2.8 you're going to get a very small DOF so it's hard to tell. You'd be better off shooting a flat, detailed subject from a longer distance to test edge and centre sharpness. imo of course.

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

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 13 May 2006 at 00:35

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!

Looking at the rest I can see why your asking.. Maybe some more controlled shots inside will prove better ?

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.

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 13 May 2006 at 00:44

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.

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.

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 13 May 2006 at 01:02

cyKey said:
Just a jpg.

Okay no worries. Your right then. Great colour

What lens's do you own ? I know you have the following

Sigma 10 - 20
Sigma 24 - 70
Canon 50 1.8
Canon 100 - 400 L IS

Anymore I dont know about?

cyKey · 13 May 2006 at 01:04

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

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 13 May 2006 at 01:08

oh yes 28 - 105. Forgot that one.

Dont think I have seen any images from your 80 - 200. Is that a lens no longer used since the 100 - 400 ?

cyKey · 13 May 2006 at 01:19

Yeah. Though it is a hell of a lot lighter

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 13 May 2006 at 01:20

cyKey said:
Yeah. Though it is a hell of a lot lighter

Tell me about it! Im gonna be lugging the 100 - 400 all day tomorrow! gaww I need spinich

Samiad · 13 May 2006 at 08:57

Those pics look fine to me. Happy shooting!

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.

Samiad · 13 May 2006 at 14:57

cyKey said:
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.

For the sake of comparison mine front focusses by almost exactly the same amount, and it's good enough to me that I am happy with it (haven't had any real world focus problems).

mrk · 14 May 2006 at 04:14

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

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.

mrk · 14 May 2006 at 10:13

Told you it was quick!

It's not as sharp at 2.8 as some zooms in the same-ish range (but those cost a lot more) but this particular lens is well known for being in the "Sigma QC" group - if you get one that's sharp then keep it because there are just as many people with a softer version (centre sharpness at 2.8)

There are loads of people who had the 24-70 L and then bought one of the sigma versions only to see sharpness was almost like for like saving them hundreds whilst other folks got softer samples.

Luck of the draw I guess.

Samiad · 14 May 2006 at 12:25

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

I don't know if this is directed at me, but I said it was quick to focus, but very noisy. It also has a laborious process to engage manual focus.

It's not a perfect lens by any means, but it doesn't compromise in optical quality.