Dynax Digital Forums

I don't understand 'stuck with full frame lens' - full frame lenses are perfectly good on APS bodies. APS lenses on full frame less so.

I use a Zeiss 24-70, it's my most used lens. On the a700 it's fantastic, as o the a900.

Personally I'd save long and hard for the Zeiss rather than get the sigma, but everyone's circumstances are different.

I have yet to have a good experience with a Sigma. I've heard a few good things about the "Bigma", but it seems that people simply have problems with Sigma in general. So much so that LensRentals.com stopped buying them for a while and actually released a scathing review of both their lenses and their customer service. I have the Zeiss 24-70, and I LOVE it. I do have to admit, though, that on my a700 it seems my Zeiss 16-80 is sharper. That bokeh on the 24-70, though, is simply phenomenal, and it's faster lens than the 16-80. If you are even considering the Zeiss 24-70, consider no more. Save for it and be happy. But that's just my opinion...

I currenly own 3 Sigma lenses as you can see.  I have read a lot of people thinking the same as you about Sigma, but I've been happy with them and would buy another.

But I have no experience with the more expensive Sony or Zeiss lenses.  I have only had one Sony lens - the 18-70 kit lens and there was no comparision with it against the Sigma 17-70.

When I bought my Sigma 17-70, I was going to buy the cz 16-80, but I couldn't find a good review of it, so I went for the Sigma.

It is interesting what you say about the sharpness of the 24-70 v 16-80.

In that case to upgrade now, should I go for:

    1 - Sony 16-105 £490.00
    2 - Zeiss 16-80 £520.00
    3 - Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG HSM £640.00
    4 - Zeiss 24-70 £1,250.00

How would the 16-80 & 16-105 compare to my Sigma?  And how would it compare to the 24-70 Sigma considering the prices are fairly close?

Thanks again.

I have numerous Sigma lenses and never had a problem. I would not hesitate to buy another one in an instant. BUT...money no objection...(hehe...where is that the case?) then I would opt for the CZ 24-70mm. I have that lens and as Fother says- it's the lens that I use most of the time. It's unfortunatley also the most expensive lens...
Stef.

The specs and reviews look pretty nice on that 28-75. If you haven't already, you can look at some stats and sample images here: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=551. Dyxum also has links to other reviews and tests, so that is one I would do some serious research on.

Hi Paul,

Yes, just need to decide in what direction I am going.  At that price for a 16-105, I wouldn't lose out if I upgrades again in the future.  I suppose the question is if I go for this lens is - is it much better than the Sigma I have?

If you read my lens story in the blog section, then you know that i have gone through a lot of lenses for the Minolta / Sony Alpha AF mount.  In my opinion, the Sony ZA 24-70/2.8 SSM is the most useful lens in this mount.  The Sony Zeiss 135/1.8 produces better pictures, but for most uses, the ZA 24-70 is unbeatable.

As far as being a full frame lens...so?  All lenses produce distortions at their edges.  Using a full frame lens on an aps-c sensor utilizes only the "sweet spot" of the lens, producing pictures that are very sharp from edge to edge and corner to corner.  This is a GOOD thing!

I had to work my way up from mediocre third party lenses to cheap primes to good primes and finally to top quality zooms.  in my opinion, top primes may produce slightly better quality photos, but in most cases, my zooms will match good primes unless you really pixel peek.  My zooms also offer me any focal length I want from 24-200mm (or the equivelent of a full frame 36-300mm).

Again, just my opinion, but I do feel strongly about my two lenses...I have not upgraded (or felt the need to upgrade) in SEVERAL years!