Back Deck Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Art Test Shots
Aug 1, 2017 08:36:52 #
Not a scientific group of test shots, I took them to get an idea of how the lens did and thought I'd share. These were taken with a D750 and the new sigma 24-70 Art. I used a nutcracker figurine I was given some years ago as my test target. Feel free to download them and zoom in. They were edited in Lightroom. All were shot at iso 640.
24mm f/2.8 1/1250
(Download)
24mm f/4 1/640
(Download)
24mm f/5.6 1/320
(Download)
48mm f/2.8 1/1250
(Download)
48mm f/4 1/640
(Download)
48mm f/5.6 1/320
(Download)
70mm f/2.8 1/1000
(Download)
70mm f/4 1/640
(Download)
70mm f/5.6 1/250
(Download)
Aug 1, 2017 09:26:42 #
Aug 1, 2017 09:36:15 #
Thank You suntouched, I do believe it's a keeper. Many of the reviewers were not as impressed as they thought they would be, but it will stay in my camera bag,
suntouched wrote:
Looks like a winner!
Aug 1, 2017 19:53:56 #
This makes up my mind. I will be buying the Sigma.
Thanks for the pictures.
Thanks for the pictures.
Aug 1, 2017 20:03:31 #
You're very welcome NealB, glad to help.
NealB wrote:
This makes up my mind. I will be buying the Sigma.
Thanks for the pictures.
Thanks for the pictures.
Aug 2, 2017 06:30:46 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
UncleBuck wrote:
Not a scientific group of test shots, I took them to get an idea of how the lens did and thought I'd share. These were taken with a D750 and the new sigma 24-70 Art. I used a nutcracker figurine I was given some years ago as my test target. Feel free to download them and zoom in. They were edited in Lightroom. All were shot at iso 640.
All that matters is that you are happy. Not that the Nikon version is a lot sharper and truer in color reproduction. But you saved money and your happy, that is all that counts.
Aug 2, 2017 08:20:03 #
UncleBuck wrote:
Thank You suntouched, I do believe it's a keeper. Many of the reviewers were not as impressed as they thought they would be, but it will stay in my camera bag,
$1300 for an Art lens that does not generally represent the quality usually associated with that line (according to several reviews) does not sound like a winner to me. Very disappointing especially considering the almost universal acclaim of the 35, 50 and 85 among others.
Aug 2, 2017 08:23:12 #
billnikon wrote:
All that matters is that you are happy. Not that the Nikon version is a lot sharper and truer in color reproduction. But you saved money and your happy, that is all that counts.
Yep. Some people are perfectly happy with lesser quality. I say good for them.
Aug 2, 2017 08:44:31 #
Your target is in perfect focus in all the images. The different apertures show what they are supposed to show, that is the depth of field.
Details are excellent. A good choice for those that do not want or cannot afford the Nikon counterpart.
I believe Tamron also came up with a new version of the same lens.
Talking about reviews, my Olympus Zuiko 17mm f2.8 has horrific reviews. I bought mine second hand at a ridiculous price practically brand new and it has performed very well for me.
Details are excellent. A good choice for those that do not want or cannot afford the Nikon counterpart.
I believe Tamron also came up with a new version of the same lens.
Talking about reviews, my Olympus Zuiko 17mm f2.8 has horrific reviews. I bought mine second hand at a ridiculous price practically brand new and it has performed very well for me.
Aug 2, 2017 08:58:52 #
Thank You camerapapi I appreciate your comments. The new Tamron per B&H should be available August 3 and should also provide an excellent alternative and is $100 less than the Sigma
camerapapi wrote:
Your target is in perfect focus in all the images.... (show quote)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.