Pre-purchase reasons for buying this lens:

· It sat well priced with my healthy but balanced hobby budget.

· It had, on paper at least, the ability to capture more images in low light, hand held.

· It cast a full frame image circle (making it more future proof and able to be shared with my film based camera).

· Its 24mm-135mm focal length would be good for 80% of the subjects I shoot, minimising lens changes and therefore dust on the sensor.

· It shared a 77mm filter with other lenses in its relative price and quality range, such as the SIGMA 135mm–400mm APO DG and SIGMA 10mm-20mm DC, suitably complementing a kit covering common focal lengths with no overlap.

· It has a manually selectable aperture ring (backwards compatible with my old SLR).

· It has internal focusing, making it more filter friendly.


Whilst researching this lens, I figured that the poor reports on sharpness and build quality etc. were a result of stepping up in the world of expectations, those above that of kit lenses. I reasoned that a lens of this price and specifications should not logically be compared (as some have) to the likes of “L” series lenses; and with this in mind, would likely see a big improvement on what I had experienced in my photographic infancy.

This position proved to be true of build quality, easily beating my kit lens when it came to the smoothness of zoom travel and general “feel”. Unfortunately I must agree with those that say this lens is not sharp; people will likely consider purchasing this lens for flash-less-indoor-“party” type use, thanks to its bright f2.8 aperture, but wide-open images are too soft to be anything but “ok” snapshots. If you are on a tight budget and you are specifically looking to shoot in low light, you may consider buying a fast pre-loved prime. That said, if you are able to stop down to around F8 results are more than acceptable.

After 5 months of use, my advice:

· If you can, don’t pay retail price for this lens; this should alleviate some expectations.

· If you have the money and image quality is your primary concern, this is probably not the lens for you.

· Compared with “kit” digital only lenses, this is a big and heavy lens.

· Build quality is generally good, zoom is smooth, manual focus ring is OK; but my copy creeps when shooting up, down or carried around.

· Best not to consider this lens for its wide-open abilities, at these apertures it is VERY SOFT.

· If you intend to shoot a lot of portraiture shots, you may be pleased with the soft-feathered affect to edges produced in images, especial from RAW conversions at wider apertures.

· Sharp images can be obtained at all focal lengths if you are able to stop down to around F8.

· Being bright or “fast”, does make for easier manual focus, which is handy because auto focus is poor in anything but the brightest of light on my Pentax *istD.

· It has fairly good “macro” (not strictly correct I know) abilities.

Conclusion

Value for money is not exclusively about absolute quality, nor does it have to be the cheapest price; it is the consideration of these things in balance. Do I like this lens? YES! Would I recommend it? Not specifically, make up your own mind based on your needs.

Reasonable quality, a lens which fits in well with my intended focal line-up, cheap enough to use without fear, wherever I intend to take photos……..

reach and f/2.8

soft unless stopped down a lot... slight secondary spectrum in some situations... 4.5 at the tele end of things and the MF/AF switch is a pain (its a preference thing... I like the EX's push pull switch...easier to use in the field).

very disappointing lens. I used a sigma 24-70 f/2.8 dg macro on my F5 and was very happy with the results, so naturally when I switch to a digital Canon I once again turned to Sigma. This time I tried to get a little extra reach...the result.... soft images and chromatic aberation sneaking up in some pictures... Ive neven seen this in previous sigma... after take test shots under numerous conditions I decided that this lens wasnt for me. I would imagine shooting B&W portrait this lens might be fairly good but for nature work where sharpness is key this lens just will not do. I have since returned the lens and gotten myself the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG macro (what a nice lens =).

Customer Service

Havent had to work with Sigma... 47st photo was helpful but unfortunately charged me 15% restocking on a lens that I shot less that 40 pics with (i only had the lens for 5 days!)....guess I should just stick with what I know is good

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 24-70mm f2.8

Apartures 2.8 - 4.5 Weight Price

Zooming is not smooth at all

The big advantage over most other mid-class lenses is it's larger max aparture of 4.5 at 135 mm, where for example an 28-300's max aparture is at about F6. In poor lighting conditions it results in a brighter viewfinder and allows for an extra stop in exposure time. For the purpose of checking I used a USAF bar resolving test chart and compared it with my other lenses. Used on my D70 it's sharp, although a bit soft from corner to corner at all apartures except for the very small ones, i.e. above F22. Towards 135 mm it performs a bit less than on the low end. However, I cannot see any differences in 20*30 mm prints of photo's at either focal length using max apartures. On average I would say that sharpness is better than the Sigma 28-300 I own and a little bit less than the Tokina 80-200. It appears to be a bit soft, but for portraits that's just fine. Handling is OK but could be better. Zooming is a bit tough. If you're used to prime lenses, you'll probably hate it for that. I hope it's going to improve in time.... The weight is fine to make it a carry-around-lens. To my opinion this Sigma is a nice lens for my type of purpose: portrait & model photography. And remember, it's not the lens that makes the nice pictures, it's the photographer!

Customer Service

Not needed

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 28-300 DL Hyperzoom (72 mm version) Tokina ATX-PRO 80-200 2.8

Price Weight (when compared to many 28-70's, it's weighs half as much) Sharpness (at all but the widest fstops) Lack of flare (at most wider apertures) Size Construction (considering the price) F2.8 (again, considering the price)

Flare at 24mm Lens hood coverage (due to zoom range) IS would be very nice Edges soft wide open HSM AF speed needed

This is bargain lens. While it has areas of weakness, it is certainly a lens that delivers a very high image quality for the price paid. I have been impressed by the sharpness of the lens, the light weight, the size and handling. The AF is not particularly fast, but with a shorter focal zoom I don't find this as much of an issue as a longer zoom. Any zoom that covers as wide a range has a lens hood that really isn't that good. The 'feel' of the lens is much better than what I'd expected. The focus and zooming movements are relatively smooth, but the zoom is tighter in one direction that the other. Flare straight into the sun is generally surprisingly good, but at 24mm is borders on the bizarre... Good for 'special effects'? Would I buy it again, definitely.

Customer Service

None needed

Similar Products Used:

Canon 28-135 IS Canon 28-70 f2.8L Tamron 24-70

The aperture range was the most appealing feature of this lens. You won't find such a range in this focal length range anywhere else. The extra stop at anywhere on the focal range is very advantageous. The AF is reasonably fast. I've used this lens to shoot basketball games at a local college. The zoom ring has a tighter feel. I have had no problem with zoom creep so far. The focal length range can meet most needs.

The AF is noisier than previous Sigma zooms. This is not noticable in situations like a basketball game, but might turn heads at a wedding. This lens is noticably heavier than today's newer 28-200s. It's not a real problem in light of the aperture range. Smaller hands may find it large or heavy. But I don't think most will find it a real problem. Sigma did not included a zoom lock with this lens. So far, zoom creep has not been a problem. It uses

When I was shopping for a main/primary lens, I was seriously considering the Canon 28-135 IS and the Tokina 24-200. Then Sigma introduced the 24-135 f/2.8-4.5. With such an f/stop range, I just had to try it. The others run f/3.5-5.6. The focal range will meet most needs. The extra 4mm at the wide end has been quite useful. It's very convenient to be able to open up that wide without having to change lenses. 135mm at the long end is enough to meet most needs. Some may not be thrilled with the results at maximum apertures. Just don't use them in brightly lit conditions and you won't have problems with light fall-off, vignetting or loss of sharpness. You'll have that problem with any lens when you do that. Wind the lens down to somewhere between f/8 and f/13 and you'll be pleased with the sharpness. This is not to say the sharpness is terrible at maximum apertures. One of the more appealling features to me was the aperture range. I have several good basketball shots taken with this lens at maximum apertures. The size of this lens may be of concern to some. It takes 77mm filters. That's not a problem if you use only a few. I just use a polarizer and a UV. It'll get expensive in a hurry if you use several. It's rather chunky compared to the smaller, lighter consumer zooms (ie the newer 28-200s by Sigma or Tamron). But then again, where do you get a lens of this focal length range with this aperture range? Some may consider it heavy. I don't think of it as being that heavy though. It's no heavier than any previous 28-200. Very few will have a problem with size or weight, methinks. There is some distortion at either end, but it seems to be well controlled. I have had little problem with it in my photos. This lens will be a good choice for use as a main/primary lens or for travel. If you already have a 28-200 lens you're happy with, you may cosider passing on this lens. Though it's a fine lens, you may not find it cosiderably better than the one you already have. If the one you already have is two or three versions old, then you may want to consider upgrading anyway. If you don't already have a wide to tele range zoom, then you should really give this one a serious look.

Customer Service

Never needed. Great service from B&H though.

COMPARATIVA RESOLUCION OBJETIVOS FOCAL VARIABLE 24-135 / 24-200 Las pruebas de resolución de los distintos medios tienen una fiabilidad limitada. Síntoma de ello es la disparidad de resultados entre los distintos test para un mismo objetivo – que puede variar hasta un 20%, nada menos – Esta circunstancia podría tener cierta justificación teniendo en cuenta que se están testando unidades distintas, probablemente fabricadas en diferentes momentos (¿cuántas veces hemos oído que las primeras unidades de tal o cual aparato puesto en el mercado tenían un problema, corregido en ediciones posteriores?). Y todavía más: ¿por qué hemos de suponer que los aparatos que salen de fábrica son idénticos? Sería tanto como creer que los controles de calidad de los fabricantes son no solamente estrictos sino infalibles. Si ocurre como en las películas – donde las de consumo son a veces las mismas que las profesionales pero con un control de calidad en estas últimas que garantiza su estabilidad -, se puede presumir que en las ópticas de series profesionales existe un control más estricto y los resultados de test efectuados a distintas unidades deberían ser parecidos. Por el contrario, en gamas de consumo la calidad de fábrica sería muy variable entre distintas unidades y los resultados de los test serían correctos en su disparidad. Si esto es así, los test ayudan poco a la hora de tomar una decisión de compra, ya que la calidad de la unidad adquirida puede ser distinta – mejor o peor - a la testada. Ello explica suficientemente porqué podemos encontrar test, revisiones y opiniones tan distintas y distantes para un mismo objetivo, unas muy negativas y otras con signo contrario y todas ellas ciertas. Como en todo caso y sin perjuicio de sus limitaciones acudimos a los test de resolución para formar opinión y apoyar una decisión de compra, me pareció interesante agrupar los referidos a la gama 24-135 y 24-200 – que obtuve aislados en Internet - en un cuadro comparativo, en principio para mi propio uso. Las conclusiones extraídas se resumen al pie de los cuadros para cada distancia focal y desarrollan en esta nota. Insisto en que se trata de una valoración estrictamente personal y otro usuario podría abordar otras conclusiones igualmente válidas partiendo de los mismos datos. Conviene asimismo puntualizar que se trata de apreciaciones teóricas sin haber probado ninguno de los objetivos, precisamente por realizarse con carácter previo a la compra y condicionadas por mis necesidades personales: usuario de Nikon AF y manuales – lo que excluye el nuevo Nikkor 24-120 VR G, incompatible por carecer de aro de diafragmas -. En cuanto al Nikkor 24-120 3,5/5,6 normal, no se incluye por no haber encontrado test del mismo y porque limitando la prueba a objetivos de fabricantes independientes puede ser de utilidad para usuarios de distintas marcas. Comentario: Tamron se revela como el más homogéneo en todo el recorrido focal, presentando Sigma ventajas hasta 70 mm (el diafragma abre y cierra más). A 135 mm se impone Tamron largamente. Tokina presenta un rendimiento comparable pero inferior en todas las focales, que decae notablemente en grandes ampliaciones, orientando el producto a un usuario menos profesional (de hecho es un ATX, no ATX PRO) Entre Tamron y Sigma la decisión es absolutamente personal, y la resolución no es más que uno de los muchos factores a considerar. La calidad de construcción y consecuente durabilidad ante un uso intenso y resistencia a un trato más o menos descuidado es importante. A este respecto el Tamron es de la serie PRO y le precede su prestigio (y mas tiempo en el mercado que ratifica su calidad), mientras que el Sigma no es de partida de la gama EX dirigida al profesional y está construido en plástico, con montura y estructura interior metálica. Como es nuevo en el mercado no existe experiencia práctica sobre su calidad a medio plazo o trabajando en condiciones extremas. Aquellos que disponen de varios objetivos - a los que, en principio, pretenden sustituir con uno de estos - deberán valorar asimismo la compatibilidad de filtros (el precio de un polarizador slim puede hacer mas caro lo que en principio es mas barato) y la practicidad que implica unificar diámetros. La distancia mínima de enfoque y ratio de magnificación macro es otro aspecto relevante a tener en cuenta, al igual que la distorsión, con mayor o menor peso en función del tipo de sujetos habituales, así como el peso (las diferencias son notables) Finalmente, y no por ello lo menos importante, el precio - al que habrá que añadir en su caso el/los filtros (UV, PL, acaso R25...) - varía para el mismo objetivo entre un 20 y un 45% según el proveedor que se escoja, lo que se traduce en mas del doble del mas barato al mas caro si consideramos los tres objetivos de la muestra. Ya fuera del contexto de valoración de los test, señalar que en Internet se pueden consultar diversidad de comentarios, opiniones y revisiones sobre estos objetivos, con la excepción del Sigma que lleva poco tiempo en el mercado y del que aparecen muy pocas. Para el Tamron y el Tokina las opiniones de los usuarios son casi unánimes acerca de su calidad constructiva. En cambio, cuando se valoran los resultados fotográficos, mientras que para el Tamron se mantiene la convergencia en el sentido positivo, en el caso del Tokina se encuentran opiniones muy dispares. En resumen, tres buenos objetivos "universales" que ponen la decisión de compra muy, muy difícil. ¿Mi decisión personal? SIGMA 24-135 F:2,8-4,5 ---Roughly Translated English--- COMPARATIVE RESOLUTION OBJECTIVE FOCAL VARIABLE 24-135/24-200 The tests of resolution of different means have a limited reliability. Symptom of it is the disparity of results between different the test for a same objective - that can vary until a 20%, nothing less - This circumstance could have certain justification considering that is making a will different units, probably made in different moments (how many times we have heard that the first units of such-and-such apparatus put in the market had a problem, corrected in later editions). And still more: why we have to suppose that the apparatuses that leave factory are identical? It would be as much as to think that the controls of quality of the manufacturers are not only strict but infallible. If it happens like in the films - where those of consumption the professionals but with a control of quality in these last ones are sometimes same that which she guarantees its stability -, it is possible to be conceited that in the optical of professional series a stricter control exists and the carried out results of test to different units would have to be similar. On the contrary, in consumption ranges the quality of factory would be very variable between different units and the results of the test would be correct in their disparity. If this is thus, the test helps little at the time of making a decision from purchase, since the quality of the acquired unit can be different - better or worse - from the made a will one. It explains porqué sufficiently we can find so different and distant test, revisions and opinions for a same objective, very negative and others with opposite sign and all of them certain ones. As in any case and without damage of its limitations we went to the resolution test to form opinion and to support a purchase decision, it seemed to me interesting to group the referred ones to range 24-135 and 24-200 - that I obtained isolated in Internet - in a comparative picture, in principle for my own use. The drawn conclusions summary on the foot of the pictures for each focal length and are developed in this note. I insist on which one is a strictly personal valuation and another user could approach other equally valid conclusions starting off of data such. It also agrees to emphasize that one is theoretical appreciations without to have proven no of the objectives, indeed to be made with previous character to the conditional purchase and by my personal necessities: user of Nikon high frequency and manual - what 24-120 VR G excludes the new Nikkor, incompatible to lack hoop of diaphragms -. As far as 3.5/5.6 Nikkor 24-120 normal, it is not included by not to have found test of the same one and because limiting the test objectives of independent manufacturers it can be of utility for users of different marks. Commentary: Tamron is revealed like most homogenous in all the focal route, presenting/displaying Sigma advantages up to 70 mm (the diaphragm opens and closes more). 135 mm long Tamron is dominated. Tokina presents/displays a comparable but inferior yield in all focal, that decays remarkably in the great extensions, orienting product to a less professional user (in fact it is a ATX, noncAtx PRO) Between Tamron and Sigma the decision is absolutely personal, and the resolution is not more than one of the many factors to consider. The quality of construction and consequent durability before an intense use and resistance to a treatment more or less neglected is important. In this respect the Tamron is of the series PRO and it precedes his prestige to him (and but time in the market that ratifies its quality), whereas the Sigma is not departure of the EX- range directed to the professional and is constructed in plastic, with mount and metallic inner structure. As he is new in the market in the mid term does not exist practical experience on his quality or working in extreme conditions. Those that they have several objectives - which, in principle, they try to replace with one of - will have to also value the compatibility of filters (the price of a polarizador slim can make but expensive what in principle he is but cheap) and the practicidad that implies to unify diameters. The minimum range of approach and ratio of magnificación macro is another excellent aspect to consider, like the distortion, with greater or smaller weight based on the type of habitual subjects, as well as the weight (the differences are remarkable) Finally, and not for that reason less most important, the price - to which there will be to add in his case el/los filters (UV, PL, perhaps R25...) - varies for the same objective between 20 and a 45% according to the supplier that are chosen, which is translated in but of the double of but the cheap one to but the expensive one if we considered the three objectives of the sample. Already outside the context of valuation of the test, to indicate that in Internet they are possible to be consulted diversity of commentaries, opinions and revisions on these objectives, with the exception of the Sigma that takes just a short time in the market and of that appear very few. For the Tamron and the Tokina the opinions of the users are almost unanimous about their constructive quality. However, when the photographic results, whereas for the Tamron the convergence in the positive sense stays, in the case of the Tokina are valued are very different opinions. In summary, three good "universal" objectives that they put the purchase decision very, very difficult. My personal decision? SIGMA 24-135 F:2,8-4,5

Similar Products Used:

Tamron 28-200 XR IF

Extremely usefull zoom range. Relatively fast at 2.8-4.5. Produces surprisingly sharp pictures, particularly compared to other, similar lenses I tried. Light to carry. The price seems too cheap to be true!

Slightly cheap finish. Minor vignetting in some conditions. Very slight pincushion distortion at mid range. Position of focus ring annoying. A little unsteady for macro work.

I usually only use prime lenses as I am fussy about the quality of my photographs but a recent overseas trip saw me frustrated with the weight and inconvenience of my old system. A 24-135 zoom seemed the perfect allrounder, especially with a max aperture of 2.8. I have used general purpose zooms before but have rarely been happy with the quality (Tamron 28-200, Olympus IS-300 with 28-110 were particularly disappointing). I tried just about everything on the market before I bought the Sigma. All lenses have their compromises but as soon as I put the Sigma on the camera I could see this lens compromises very little to achieve its zoom range and relatively high speed. I have now taken hundreds of photos and am well pleased. I have been particularly surprised by the sharpness and contrast of the images produced - I really have lost very little over the prime lenses I am used to and it is the rare photo that I can spot the difference. There is very little distortion either but some experimenting has shown a tiny amount of pincushion distortion at about 70mm. At the critical 24mm end distortion is very well controlled. Only one photo has shown any vignetting and even then this was very minor. I do not use filters as a rule. There is some flash shadow from the built in flash on my Canon EOS30 at the wider ends but this disappears by about 35mm. There are some drawbacks with this lens. The first is the plastic/rubber finish feels cheap, though the inner barrels are metal and the glass is real glass. For the price this is no major problem. More serious is the position of the large focussing ring. Perfect for manual focus, It keeps moving my hand on auto-focus, if I leave my hand in the natural position. This lens is also hard to use as a macro lens. Partly this is because 135mm is quite long for close-up work and camera shake becomes a problem (something I don't usually suffer from) but the auto-focus also gets way too fussy close up and often won't settle. However, for a general purpose lens it is amazing to be able to focus so closely anyway. Time will tell how durable this lens will be but for travel it seems to be the perfect answer, with few drawbacks and perfectly acceptable results.

Customer Service

None needed

Similar Products Used:

Tamron 28-200, Minota 28-85 and 35-105, Tokina MF 35-105 and MF 35-200 , Olympus 28-110, Sigma 28-105/3.8-5.6