Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX

[Matt_Hunt]

Hello.

I am thinking about buying one of these, does anybody have one and would you recommend it?

My 2 concerns are sharpness (obviously) and colour rendition.

Thanks

Matt

[nimbus]

I did have one of these some time ago, I used it with film. It was certainly sharp, but I did not really like the colour rendition, it has to be said though that this is a personal preference, what I like somebody else may not. It also suffered serious barrel distotion at the wider setting, although with a crop frame sensor on a digital camera this is less of an issue. I now have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8, the colour rendition is, to me preferable and there appears to be less distortion, but I don't find it is as sharp as the Sigma. I only use it when I have to, preferring to use prime lenses wherever possible, although I do have a Canon 70-200 f4l, which is the best zoom lens I have used, by a huge margin, worth every penny of it's price.

[Matt_Golowczynski]

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=37&page=2

[Garfield]

I've had one of these for about a year now and was bought to replace an 18-55mm kit lens.

Whilst it was fantastic to use after the kit lens, I've since used other lenses and found it to be quite disappointing. It's quite soft wide open and the colour can be a bit flat (though that may be my Nikon D50).

However, used at f/8 or f/11 in good light and it can be great. Not quite worth the £221 I paid for it, though.

[Tacitus]

After seeing many (club) images over the years shot with the Sigma and comparing those to images from my Tokina ATX 28-70 Pro-II, I would not want one. It doesn't even compare to my older 'orange band' Tokina ATX 28-70 f2.8. (It's probably evenly matched with the original ATX-Pro and the SV, but that's a guess).

Technically the Sigma is a bit better than the Pro-II at f8-up - especially at 70mm, but that's dead picky. The Tokina generally has better sharpness across the whole image, particularly at f2.8-4/5.6. Overall the Sigma is very good at the centre though, even at f2.8. But in low light/low contrast conditions the Sigma seems not to be able to maintain crisp detail at times.

However, obvious visual differences in images may be partly down to how the Sigma is/was used, and on the subject matter (eg close-up vs scenics). Ultimately it's not the sharpness (etc) of the lens in front of the camera that matters - it's the sharpness of the 'guy' behind it ... .T.

[mike_j]

I used to have one and was rather disappointed. It is better than the kit lens but quite heavy and results are nothing special.

[Matt_Hunt]

OK, shall bin that idea and stick with the 24-135 at the moment.

Thanks.