[Biscuit761]

This one has just come in to my radar, read some good and some bad reviews, have any forum members tried it ?

£699 as against £1200 for the Nikon version - £500 would buy a lot of extra's (£50mm 1.4 for instance)

Bill

[RobDickinson]

All I've heard is good. Not seen a copy of it myself tho

[kluen]

Ive not got any useful information to add but:

I too am keeping my eye on this lens, theres a gap in my lenses that it will fill perfectly and overall it seems to get positive reviews.

[Pirate!!]

Originally Posted by Biscuit761

This one has just come in to my radar, read some good and some bad reviews, have any forum members tried it ?

£699 as against £1200 for the Nikon version - £500 would buy a lot of extra's (£50mm 1.4 for instance)

Bill

Ahoy!

I don't know the lens per-se, but why pay all that when you can get a Sigma 17-70mm DC for less which is (IMO) a cracking lens? OK, not constant f/2.8, but nonetheless, a darned decent optic.

[CyBeRkId2002]

or even better the Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 non-HSM macro version which are going at absolutely crazy prices on the bay at the minute (sub £200!)

[sdb123]

Originally Posted by Pirate!!

Ahoy!

I don't know the lens per-se, but why pay all that when you can get a Sigma 17-70mm DC for less which is (IMO) a cracking lens? OK, not constant f/2.8, but nonetheless, a darned decent optic.

Not sure if this affects the OP however the lens you suggest is not designed for Full-Frame.

[springtide]

Originally Posted by CyBeRkId2002

or even better the Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 non-HSM macro version which are going at absolutely crazy prices on the bay at the minute (sub £200!)

I don't think the old Sig 24-70 is supposed to be that good. Think it's good for the money, but not upto the standards of the 24-70/2.8 zoom from Canon, Nikon and Sony (which I think the OP mentioned).

I have read reviews of the new Sig, and it looks very good compared to C, N & S. But one person over at TalkP has a copy and sent it back due to IQ issues (although probably a faulty lens). Not that this is that much of an issue if you buy locally (and try it in the shop, BEFORE you leave!)

One other thing to note, is it takes 82mm filters. Not a big issue, but is does mean having to have more than one set of filters (for the people who have managed to standardise on 77mm's)

[CyBeRkId2002]

I have one and although it could be called a little soft @ 2.8, from f3.5/4 upwards I honestly don't think it could be bettered by the new Sigma (or even Nikkor) in any respect. I suppose it all depends on how important wide-open sharpness is to you and whether it justifies the extra cost. I know for some people it is worthwhile but the old sigma is fine for me.

[45689ajax]

Just got a copy of the discontinued 24-60 f2.8, and can highly recommended it.

[kluen]

Not the HSM I know but I rang Jessops (Monks Cross, York) today about the Sigma 24-70mm EX DG (canon) and after they quoted a price of £4xx I was informed that as of tomorrow the price will drop to £329.

Thats almost what the HongKongers are going at.

[Biscuit761]

Cheers for the replies, Pirate, have the 17 - 70 at the moment and yes, it is good but am going full frame in the near future, also was let down by its lack of sharpness at the edges at recent concert I did - people in the left and right ends of the orchestra were out of focus, was at f2.8 but place was so bloomin dark !

Bill