Sigma's 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art lens for Sony's E mount and the Leica L mount is quite the exciting piece of glass for mirrorless shooters, because it is offered at an impressively affordable price, particularly compared to similar lenses. Can its performance hold up to its more expensive counterparts? This great video review answers that question for you.
Coming to you from Christopher Frost Photography, this excellent video takes a look at the new Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art lens. The 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is a favored workhorse for tons of photographers and videographers in lots of genres, and as such, Sigma has a lot of people quite excited — so many, in fact, that the company had to delay the lens just to keep up with the demand. What makes the lens particularly intriguing is that it offers the promise of Sigma's Art series lenses — namely, great sharpness — at an impressive price (exactly half that of its Sony counterpart). I have been shooting the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art on my Sony a7R III for a while now, and the combination of Sigma's great glass and Sony's Eye AF is a real joy to use, and if the 24-70mm f/2.8 can match that optical performance with good autofocus, it should be another winner for the company. Check out the video above for Frost's full thoughts.
Well, they did good with this ml versions. The dslr version is absolutely horrible
This is one of the lenses on my bucket list after switching to full frame. I ended up picking up the 16-35 2.8 GM first. For the 24-70 I was waiting for something cheaper. $2200 is a lot for the GM. On the other end, the Tamron isn't bad but I really want the function button and weather sealing.
I was honestly expecting the Sigma to be bigger and heavier than the Sony GM. I thought I'd be debating on getting it. It's actually a tad lighter and about the same size. That's a win in my book. I don't think I'm missing much from the GM. Also for half the price I can deal with the vignetting.
I had enough points on Adorma for $50 off so I just pre ordered it. Hopefully I get a good copy.
You can see Geralds review also. He compares it to the Tamron and the G Master. Seems to be a pretty good lens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cufAsVxmNsw
Hilarious, right under this article in my browser. I'm seeing a spamsponsorad for the Tamron version.
I just can't get excited about a zoom that tops out at 70mm or 75mm, as it's too short for portraiture. That's why I got Sony's 24-105/4 instead. For shallow DoF or low light, I'll switch to a prime. F2.8 just doesn't do enough for me compared to f4 in low light, and I shoot my corporate portraits at f5.6 anyway. Yeah, if you've only got one body, I suppose f2.8 helps, but I switched to shooting with two or three bodies with primes a long time ago.
Now, a 35-135/2.8 is something I could get interested in, as that would make a nearly ideal portrait zoom.
Why is 70 or 75mm too short?
Damnit, I just shot a load of corporate headshot last week with the 24-70 F4 on the Z7. I better go redo them.
For tight shots, I prefer the perspective of a longer focal length, about 85mm-135mm.
It's certainly a personal preference. I think everyone's kit is different. I normally don't look to buy a constant f/4 lens when something better is available. Even if it's split between two lenses. Personally I want to shoot at the lowest ISO so I can and do less work on processing. Although there are so many variables that just because I can shoot at f/2.8 or better doesn't mean I should. This is where I understand how those lenses would work just as good.
Jacques, what you seem to be saying is that you don't have a need for a lens like this. That's fine, of course, we all have our different requirements. But there are hundreds of thousands of press, PR and events photographers who would always have a high quality 24-70 f2.8 in their bag (along with a 70-200 f2.8 and an ultrawide f2.8 zoom). For photographers that need to respond very quickly to events around them and get consistently good results, f2.8 zooms are fantastic workhorses that produce the majority of the images you'll see in newspapers and on news and current affairs websites. There's a reason that they are so popular, even though they are not for everyone. Btw, I've taken hundreds of portraits with 24-70 f2.8 lenses over the years, as well as with 50mm, 45mm and 35mm lenses.
I have been shooting this lens for about two weeks and am loving it. Its super sharp and the tracking is incredibly fast. I have mostly been shooting backcountry skiing and it consistently nails focus in challenging situations. I am currently using it on the a7III but will have it on the a9II very soon. I love the the zoom ring is now closer to the body and focus ring further out. It is also smaller and lighter than the DSLR version....
Looks good on paper, and a good review from Gerard Undone who I respect, but I am always concerned whenever T-Stops are not mentioned or buried with overwhelming hype. Sigma has a long history of doing this. My last Sigma was advertised as a 2.8, but the T was actually 3.3. I said at the time to myself that I would never buy another Sigma, but I have an open mind. I like the 11 blades, but I have concerns with low light conditions, mostly for indoors where I can’t use a flash and focus is challenging. I am also concerned with Sigma having many more elements and groups than other lenses, and there are diminishing returns in certain light conditions. My Tamron barely does well in low light, and it is a true T2.9, but I would consider the Sigma depending on the real T-Stop value. I am going to wait for the lens to saturate the market some more, see more real world reviews, and absolutely wait for the DXO report. Call me a fool twice, shame on me...
I used Tamron 28-75 and i don't see any reason for Sigma or Sony to pay the more. According to lens tips Tamron is brutally sharpest.