# Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS | ART Review | Dustin



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 1, 2017)

Good afternoon, my friends. I’ve just launched my review of the new Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 ART lens, and wanted to share linkage with you:

Written Review: http://bit.ly/2470ART
Video Review: http://bit.ly/2470ARTyt
Image Gallery: http://bit.ly/2470ARTig 

Quick summary - as most of you now know, it isn't a razor sharp lens. It does have nice mechanical construction, however, and I actually really like the "look" of images out it. Don't write it off just because it isn't class leading in resolution.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 1, 2017)

Sony + Sigma &#x3D; Not So Prickly by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr



Lot 35 at Fairmont by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr



An Evening Stroll by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## jd7 (Sep 3, 2017)

After reading that review, it does sound like the Sigma really is a very good lens. To me, corner sharpness is less important than bokeh at 2.8, although you would like to think the corners would have sharpened up by 5.6 or at least 8. Anyway, the weight (and waiting for more info about the Tamron G2) is probably the main thing putting me off at the moment, as one of the roles I want a 24-70 to perform is as a travel lens so I'd generally prefer lighter to heavier.

I've just about make up my mind to switch to a 24-70 2.8 of some kind from my current 24-70 4L IS, and I've got a chance to pick up a Canon 24-70 2.8L II in as new condition at about the same price as either the Sigma or the Tamron. Not sure which way to go though - they all seems to have their pros and cons.

Thanks for the review Dustin!


----------



## candc (Sep 3, 2017)

good review as always and really nice images to go along with it. i do like the "look". i am interested to see how the tamron g2 stacks up.


----------



## Click (Sep 3, 2017)

Excellent review, Dustin. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## mjg79 (Sep 4, 2017)

Thank you for an interesting review Dustin.

I think I can see instantly that you liked the lens, that it obviously gels well with you, from the sample photos; somehow it looks like you had fun taking those photos. Sometimes we find a lens that just clicks with us and it becomes great fun to photograph anything and everything. And I get it - this Sigma seems to have a nice rendering. It's hard to put one's finger on it but it's there. It reminds me of your review of the 70-300L; I bought a second hand copy of that lens based on your review and have loved using it. According to the testing websites it falls far short of the 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/4 but I saw in your review that it rendered fine details nicely with a gentle transition to out of focus areas and nice bokeh which made it excellent for both portraits and landscapes.

I am frankly bored by the endless chase for more sharpness. It really means so little these days as almost all lenses are sharp enough so we are at the point of diminishing returns. Differences in the way the in focus area starts and finishes, bokeh shape, colours - these things really have far more impact. In particular I notice that lenses aiming 100% for sharpness often seem to look "harsh". A good example was Sigma's 50mm lenses. I owned the classic "Sigmalux" 50/1.4 and of course bought the Art as soon as it came out. I know everyone raves about how sharp the art is wide open and it is sharper than the old one, but it lost the soft bokeh and the gentle rendering and gentle fall off of focus. The old one is the one I kept, it gives a photo very similar to the Nikon Noct combining enough sharpness to capture detail without sacrificing other areas.

So thanks again for the review, I really enjoyed all you reviews and appreciate that you don't get trapped by the technical specs but instead look at real world use and in particular discuss how the photos themselves bear the stamp of a particular lens. I already own the 24-70 L II so probably won't bother looking for another lens of that type even though I must admit the OS is tempting as this focal length is very much used when I want to travel light without various primes and a tripod etc.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Sep 4, 2017)

Thanks for the great review Dustin!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 5, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> Thank you for an interesting review Dustin.
> 
> I think I can see instantly that you liked the lens, that it obviously gels well with you, from the sample photos; somehow it looks like you had fun taking those photos. Sometimes we find a lens that just clicks with us and it becomes great fun to photograph anything and everything. And I get it - this Sigma seems to have a nice rendering. It's hard to put one's finger on it but it's there. It reminds me of your review of the 70-300L; I bought a second hand copy of that lens based on your review and have loved using it. According to the testing websites it falls far short of the 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/4 but I saw in your review that it rendered fine details nicely with a gentle transition to out of focus areas and nice bokeh which made it excellent for both portraits and landscapes.
> 
> ...



Sounds like you the right kind of audience for this lens.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 5, 2017)

Thanks to everyone for the feedback. I've now started my review of the 24-70 G2 lens, and I hope to get the Sigma back in later in the month for a head to head comparison.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 5, 2017)

I really appreciate that you "dare" to share your opinion of how the images "look". Most reviews are too obsessed with sharpness as the main criteria. I find that in real world use, the "look" that a lens adds to its pictures is an undefinable quality that is as important as absolute sharpness. 

These days just about all newer quality lenses are sharp enough for most purposes, and therefore other qualities in a lens becomes more important. Describing this in words is difficult, but should be focused on.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Sep 5, 2017)

@jd7 - I am in the same boat as you. I own the 24-70 f4L IS which has the very handy macro switch. I may end up keeping it for that feature, though of course it's a great lens overall. Since I primarily use my 24-70 at 24mm, the Sigma is discouraging. (Another review thread I read also said it was soft at 24mm).

Based on initial user reviews of the already released Nikon version of Tamron G2, that sounds like the better option. I will look forward to Dustin's comparison of the two.


----------



## Jopa (Sep 5, 2017)

Thank you for the review Dustin. Exceptional photos. Your case is very simple - a great photographer doesn't need best lenses  If you take *any* 24-70, your processed images won't be any different.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 6, 2017)

Hi Dustin! 
Hi Lars! 



Larsskv said:


> I really appreciate that you "dare" to share your opinion of how the images "look". Most reviews are too obsessed with sharpness as the main criteria. I find that in real world use, the "look" that a lens adds to its pictures is an undefinable quality that is as important as absolute sharpness.


I think that really gets it to the point. Thank you, Lars.

And that's the reason why I appreciate your reviews so much, Dustin. 
You have a very good eye on both: technical aspects, like built, sharpness and AF performance as well as artistic and real life aspects, so what the lens really gives to the photographer.

Thank you very much. It was a joy to read.


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 6, 2017)

Thank you for your good and hard work.

Scott



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Good afternoon, my friends. I’ve just launched my review of the new Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 ART lens, and wanted to share linkage with you:
> 
> Written Review: http://bit.ly/2470ART
> Video Review: http://bit.ly/2470ARTyt
> ...


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 8, 2017)

very nice pics. Image colors and rendering are like previous Sigma lens (17-50mm, 30mm 1.4 and 105mm) before art series.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 11, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> @jd7 - I am in the same boat as you. I own the 24-70 f4L IS which has the very handy macro switch. I may end up keeping it for that feature, though of course it's a great lens overall. Since I primarily use my 24-70 at 24mm, the Sigma is discouraging. (Another review thread I read also said it was soft at 24mm).
> 
> Based on initial user reviews of the already released Nikon version of Tamron G2, that sounds like the better option. I will look forward to Dustin's comparison of the two.



@MrFotoFool, I spent the weekend shooting with a Tamron G1 and it didn't really do anything I wrong, but I just wasn't wowed by it. Many of the images just seem to lack a touch of crispness (for want of a better description) somehow. And I was not a fan of the placement of the zoom ring v focus ring or the fact the zoom spins the opposite way from a Canon zoom. I'm actually surprised at how much those things put me off! Guess you'd probably get used to if you used it all the time. Anyway, at this point I think I'm picking between staying with my f/4 IS or switching to the f/2.8L II. While I'd like to have 2.8 available, I still feel unsure if I want to trade IS, macro mode, weight and size for only 1 extra stop, especially when even then it's still 2 or even 2.5 stops behind fast primes in the same focal length range. I see so many people singing the praises of the f/2.8L II though - perhaps one of those lenses you have to experience to appreciate??

Dustin, I had a look at your video on the build quality of the Tamron G2, and I'm really looking forward to hearing your thoughts on its IQ. Like others, I very much appreciate that you give your opinions on how the lens performs for real photography and show examples rather only looking at measurements of things like sharpness.


----------

