sigma af 24-70 f/2.8 ex dg macro lens what the difference between the two sigma 24-70 f/2.8 ex dg macro lens
160523
I wasn't aware Sigma made this same lens in a "macro" version? Becarefull believing the discriptions as some "used" products are misrepresented. Any how, macro will allow for a shorter minimum focus distance. Good luck
160524
The af designates an auto focus lens, which has a motor that receives a signal from the camera and will focus automatically.
2162151
NO, but for me this is a great lens and less than half the price of the 70-200 2.8, use on D-800. I like shooting concerts and use this lens a lot when I want to get close up shots of musicians from a distance or my Nikon 24-85 2.8-4D also an older lens but gives me great results. Just Me.
827136
Both lenses share the same drawback: There's no constant aperture throughout the zoom range. This is a bummer if you want to zoom in during lowlight situations, because the aperture gets smaller the more you zoom. That said, the Sigma lens is certainly a step up. It's aperture is wider than the kit lens, so it performs better in dim light. And I'm surprised by how much I've enjoyed the macro feature. When I shoot videos of my kids, they run right up to the camera and I can keep them in focus no matter how close they get. I've had the Sigma for about a year and it's on my camera all the time. If you can get one for a good price, I'd say go for it.
1351158
I used the 55-200mm/4-5.6 lens on my DX format D200 and thought that it was an excellent lens. There are two things that would make me prefer it to the excellent 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 in your case. First, you would probably be using the lens at longer focal lengths, in which case both lenses would be operating at f/4.5 to f/5.6, so there is no advantage to having the 24-85mm in terms of low light capability. Second, the 24-85mm is designed for the FX format, so you'd be paying for a wider field lens than you need on a DX camera.If you ever go to FX format, the 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 is a real jewel to own. I used the 55-200mm/4-5.6 lens on my DX format D200 and thought that it was an excellent lens. There are two things that would make me prefer it to the excellent 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 in your case. First, you would probably be using the lens at longer focal lengths, in which case both lenses would be operating at f/4.5 to f/5.6, so there is no advantage to having the 24-85mm in terms of low light capability. Second, the 24-85mm is designed for the FX format, so you'd be paying for a wider field lens than you need on a DX camera.If you ever go to FX format, the 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 is a... » Read More I used the 55-200mm/4-5.6 lens on my DX format D200 and thought that it was an excellent lens. There are two things that would make me prefer it to the excellent 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 in your case. First, you would probably be using the lens at longer focal lengths, in which case both lenses would be operating at f/4.5 to f/5.6, so there is no advantage to having the 24-85mm in terms of low light capability. Second, the 24-85mm is designed for the FX format, so you'd be paying for a wider field lens than you need on a DX camera.If you ever go to FX format, the 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 is a real jewel to own. « Show Less
1264649
That's a long answer that is best described here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/sigma-30mm-f1-4-dc-hsm-vs-sigma-30mm-f1-4-ex-dc In short, the DC HSM is the newer model with improvements in build quality and manual focusing.
1787340
The 24-70 2.8 is a magnificent lense. I would not even think of buying the 24-105.
1915106
Correct; you unscrew the smaller lens to access the macro lens. These lenses are garbage, but to get the desired effect you have to be right on top of the subject you want the picture of.
747876
Sorry but I don't know much about the difference in lens. I have only owned these ones. The lens are a pretty decent size. Just by looking at the picture of the GR004's it seems like these ones may just be larger.
994203
The physical size of the two lenses differs greatly. The faster lens, having an f stop of 2.8, is larger and weighs 980 grams. The smaller, having an f stop of 4.0, is smaller and weighs 430 grams, or less than half the weight of the larger lens.
1375969
The lens is the same. I would recommend purchasing from Amazon, as there are no significant discounts and Amazon standing behind their products and purchasers, to include no-charge 2 day shipping if a Prime member worth it. By the way, a great lens. If you are a pro then go for it, but the new 24-240 lens at $995 is a great bargain and a great lens covering a 10X magnification, relatively light, and works great on e-mount Sony's. I just got mine and am ecstatic with it.
516202
Anders, simple explanation: The 35mm f/1.8G DX is the same field of view as my 35mm f/2D on my D7000. The 35 f/2D is designed for FX/35mm film cameras. The Nikon DX sensor crops both DX and FX lenses by 1.5x, so in FX/35mm film terms, both these 35mm lenses equate to about 52mm on DX. I actually prefer my 35mm f/2D on DX...old school and works with film bodies and less distortion and CA. BTW, I personally recommend using FX lenses on DX bodies. Every Nikon FX lens I've used resolves images better than my DX lenses. An example is the 70-300VR, 50mm 1.8D/G, 35mm F/2D 24mm F2.8D, etc, etc. The only Nikon DX zoom I'd recommend is the 16-85VR. ;) Anders, simple explanation: The 35mm f/1.8G DX is the same field of view as my 35mm f/2D on my D7000. The 35 f/2D is designed for FX/35mm film cameras. The Nikon DX sensor crops both DX and FX lenses by 1.5x, so in FX/35mm film terms, both these 35mm lenses equate to about 52mm on DX. I actually prefer my 35mm f/2D on DX...old school and works with film bodies and less distortion and CA. BTW, I personally recommend using FX lenses on DX bodies. Every Nikon FX lens I've used resolves images better than my DX lenses. An example is the 70-300VR, 50mm 1.8D/G, 35mm F/2D 24mm F2.8D,... » Read More Anders, simple explanation: The 35mm f/1.8G DX is the same field of view as my 35mm f/2D on my D7000. The 35 f/2D is designed for FX/35mm film cameras. The Nikon DX sensor crops both DX and FX lenses by 1.5x, so in FX/35mm film terms, both these 35mm lenses equate to about 52mm on DX. I actually prefer my 35mm f/2D on DX...old school and works with film bodies and less distortion and CA. BTW, I personally recommend using FX lenses on DX bodies. Every Nikon FX lens I've used resolves images better than my DX lenses. An example is the 70-300VR, 50mm 1.8D/G, 35mm F/2D 24mm F2.8D, etc, etc. The only Nikon DX zoom I'd recommend is the 16-85VR. ;) « Show Less
298991
This particular one is for the older lens that takes 72mm filters, not the current one that takes 62mm filters. They are not interchangeable, so you really do need to check to be sure. The newer one has "Macro" in the naming.
1114827
The Macro is better optically and sharper at f2.8. The bokeh might be softer at 2.4 but at a cost of sharpness especially at the corners. The macro 2.8 has quickshift and is metal but larger and heavier and of course much more expensive with the huge added versatility of macro. If you want a macro at this short length and a sharp lens this is the ideal all in one solution. Otherwise, there are longer lengths for macro that are to many more useful and faster as sharp and w/ better bokeh 35mm lenses such as the Sigma 35 DG HSM 1.4. I don't get it only because I have a Tamron 90mm macro AND the sigma 35 for the best of both worlds at twice the cost though =/ The Macro is better optically and sharper at f2.8. The bokeh might be softer at 2.4 but at a cost of sharpness especially at the corners. The macro 2.8 has quickshift and is metal but larger and heavier and of course much more expensive with the huge added versatility of macro. If you want a macro at this short length and a sharp lens this is the ideal all in one solution. Otherwise, there are longer lengths for macro that are to many more useful and faster as sharp and w/ better bokeh 35mm lenses such as the Sigma 35 DG HSM 1.4. I don't get it only because I have a Tamron 90mm macro AND... » Read More The Macro is better optically and sharper at f2.8. The bokeh might be softer at 2.4 but at a cost of sharpness especially at the corners. The macro 2.8 has quickshift and is metal but larger and heavier and of course much more expensive with the huge added versatility of macro. If you want a macro at this short length and a sharp lens this is the ideal all in one solution. Otherwise, there are longer lengths for macro that are to many more useful and faster as sharp and w/ better bokeh 35mm lenses such as the Sigma 35 DG HSM 1.4. I don't get it only because I have a Tamron 90mm macro AND the sigma 35 for the best of both worlds at twice the cost though =/ « Show Less
2004639
I've tried both and I like the 24-70 far better. It is a sharper, faster lens.
1640068
From what I can tell, the cheaper version is smaller and lighter. But, I don't know if that necessarily makes it a better lens. Here is the link to sigmas page for the more expensive lens: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-200mm-f35-63-ii-dc-os-hsm And here is the link to the less expensive one: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-200mm-f35-63-dc-macro-os-hsm-c I have the more expensive lens, and I have used it exclusively since I bought it. I've never shot with the other one though, so I can't accurately compare one to the other.
321767
The 24-70 f2.8L filter is 77mm. The 24-70 f2.8L ii filter is 82 mm.As an FYI: The latter lens is the newer/sharper lens.Both are listed on the Amazon site....with not much difference in price.Look into the glass front of the lens...engraved on the metal edge, it will tell you if it is a 77mm or 82mm. As well, I believe the 'ii' designation is also on the front of the newer (82mm) lens.
81976
I bought the sigma right after I got my 6D, Sigma makes the lens with a canon mount. It works fine, and I like the ability to shoot at f 2.8 it makes light come from everywhere. Excellent lens. The Sigma "DG" series is made for full frame and the 3/4 cameras. It is super quiet and fast as well.