which 2.8 to get?

[motor]

I currently am shooting both the A300 and A700. I have the 70-200G 2.8 lens that I use all the time in the gyms. (great lens) The lighting is terrible as is in all high school gyms (green and dual). I need a good 2.8 lens that will go from 24-70 or so. I have found that the G is sometimes to big and less than 70mm is sometimes needed depending on the types of shots like sitting directly behind the hoops. I also do individual and group photos so again lighting can be an issue but I would like a good portrait lens also. I currently use the HVL-58 flash with portraits but I may try to use wireless with 2 flash packs to get better lighting. I currently use primes as my portraits in the gyms and it is acceptable. I purchased the new sigma 24-75 2.8 with HSM and love it. The speed on autofocus is great and it is as sharp as a tack from 6.3-11. Outside this lens is beautiful, solid and crisp. @2.8 though it is very soft. I have done research and everyone seems to agree. Living in the US the closest Sony dealer that has the CZ 24-70 2.8 is New York some 9 hours away. I have read that David uses the KM28-75mm D, I know that is similar build to the tamron and the new sony 2.8 is also tamron like but will any of these lenses be fast enough for sporting? What is your feeling on the sharpest 2.8 lens @ 2.8 (mainly used inside gyms, poor green like lighting, ISO @ 800 with shutter speed of 1/400) I get educator discount so I can pick up a CZ for around $1100, KM for $395 and unsure about tamron. I have never used or touched any of them though. I don't really want to spend that much money on the CZ but if it is the only one that will work or is the sharpest then I am willing. Are there any other options? What is your feelings or Ideas

[Lonnie Utah]

Maybe I'm confused or maybe I missed it, but if you love the sigma what's the problem? Is it just too soft? I couldn't tell from your post. I have the same lens and haven't really noticed that issue. Maybe it's just me, but my understand is that at 2.8 it really isn't that the lens is soft, it's just the DOF at that appature is small, which in my mind, work for what I want to use it for.

[motor]

My sigma 24-70 EX DG HSM is very soft @ 2.8 even outside compared to my 70-200 G. I am looking for a sharp 24-70...(sports lens) that is very sharp @ 2.8. I have tried both lenses sigma and G lens manual and auto on a tripod with 2 700's sitting side by side both @2.8-70mm. The sigma is very very soft @2.8-70mm compared to the 70-200G @ 2.8-70mm. Is there a lens that can produce the same quality @ 2.8 as the G with lower mm? What lens is the sharpest @2.8 I guess that should be the discussion between 24-70mm?

CZ, KM, Tamron ?

I am not nocking the sigma it is extremely sharp @ 6.3 and above it is just very soft in my eyes at 2.8 compared to the 70-200G which I understand is not a fare comparison.

[pakodominguez]

I have read that David uses the KM28-75mm D, I know that is similar build to the tamron and the new sony 2.8 is also tamron like but will any of these lenses be fast enough for sporting? What is your feeling on the sharpest 2.8 lens @ 2.8 (mainly used inside gyms, poor green like lighting, ISO @ 800 with shutter speed of 1/400)

The Konica Minolta version of this lens is better built than the Tamron (without been a tank) and the lens' coating supposed to be better. AF is fast, but I can not tell about shooting indoors sports because I don't do that kind of events. This lens is sharp at f2.8 and "perfect" from f4 to f11. The Sony version is SAM (I tried both kit SAM lenses and they are not faster or specially silent compared to non SAM lenses, but I had the impression they focus more accurated...)

I get educator discount so I can pick up a CZ for around $1100, KM for $395 and unsure about tamron. I have never used or touched any of them though. I don't really want to spend that much money on the CZ but if it is the only one that will work or is the sharpest then I am willing. Are there any other options? What is your feelings or Ideas

If you are not going FF any soon, I understand lots of people LOVES the tamron 17-50 f2.8
There is a little Sigma 28-70 f2.8-4 UC that some people repported is as good as the 28-70 G -you can find that lens on eBay for about 50 US$ -I got it and compared against the 28-75 f2.8 on the A700. I did find that the Sigma is a very nice little plastic lens, but I prefered to keep the 28-75 and sold the Sigma.

Regards

[David Kilpatrick]

Yes, the older Sigma 28-70mm is fine. Confidential info, we tested two of the new Sigmas and decided they were not good enough, referred our results back to Sigma. Since the rest of the photo press raved about the new 24-70mm maybe they got different lenses, but I know exactly what we were looking to see, and did not see, in that lens.

I use the KM 28-75mm and it's a great lens especially considering how little was paid for it.

David

[sparaxis]

SLR Gear has the following to say about the Sigma:

"On the full-frame 5D, the true character of the lens is revealed. If you are looking for a lens that is corner-to-corner sharp when used wide open at ƒ/2.8, this is not the lens. True to what we noted in our tests with the 20D, central sharpness is still remarkable at 24mm and ƒ/2.8, but outside of this sweet spot sharpness falls off rapidly, reaching (and I think this is a record for us) 17 blur units in the top corners and 13 blur units in the bottom corners. Things improve a bit as the focal length is increased, at the expense of central sharpness."

I was thinking of getting this lens, but after reading this I'll stick with the Tamron/Minolta.

Alan

[motor]

Thanks guys. I figured the KM would be a good solution. I checked and I can not get a new KM-D lens. The website says they have 2 but when I called the site is wrong. $392 would have been a good price to. I checked E-bay and none there. Any Idea where to look? I am still open to the CZ lens but no one has commented on that one yet. I know its expensive and it would be great to use but without seeing it first I am alittle scared. Is it as sharp as the KM-D lens? If speed is an issue than I'll use manual mode. It just a shame that sony hasn't produced a good 2.8 24-70 lens themselves. I like the 72-77 dia size. I am not really sold on the tamron yet but maybe someone can convince me otherwise. I would love the 28-75G to come back. I can't find them either. I found one for $1200 so the CZ is actually cheaper. Maybe I am looking in the wrong places.

[pakodominguez]

Thanks guys. I figured the KM would be a good solution. I checked and I can not get a new KM-D lens. The website says they have 2 but when I called the site is wrong. $392 would have been a good price to. I checked E-bay and none there. Any Idea where to look?

Adorama used Department has one KM for 400 us$ -you can probably negociate a little price or a free shipping, call Isaac (2190) http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20350102.html and the Tamron version for 289 US$ http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20329313.html the Sony version will probably be available by the Photo Plus Expo in 10 days.

I would love the 28-75G to come back. I can't find them either. I found one for $1200 so the CZ is actually cheaper. Maybe I am looking in the wrong places.

the 28-70 G you mean? Adorama Used Department (...) has one for 850 US$, but I understand that AF is way slower than the 28-75 f2.8

Regards

[Philip]

I use a CZ 24-70 mainly on an A900, (but have used it on my A700), and can comfirm that it gives corner to corner sharp images wide open on full frame, and therefore has no problems on the smaller sized sensor of the A700. I think the main reason no one else has comented on it is because the other options availible give almost as good a result on the smaller sensor, but are considerably cheaper options that would serve your sitution well.

Philip

[pakodominguez]

this is my concern about the 24-70 f2.8
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... =27&t=1764

[Old Hydro]

If you can afford the CZ 24-70, you would probably be happy to have it. You have the 70-300 G lens, and I don't know about your experience, but when I use mine, it has a different feel and view then all my old Minolta lenses. The different "feel" baffles me every time I use it, and I have some fairly good Minolta's; like the 28-135, a 20mm, and a couple of macro's.

[motor]

I would like to thank everyone for your views on the 2.8? This post will have three major parts to it. The performance of the KM 28-75, Testing the KM vs New Sigma HSM 24-70 and another question?

First of all I have never bought a used lens before. Thankyou Pako for the heads up with adorama. I have dealt with them before and I did buy that lens. I made them an offer and they took it. I have never owned a minolta lens and I must say the KM 28-75 is very impressive for the money I spent. Thanks David. Last Friday I had an opportunity to try out the KM and below are 2 shots taken with it on a A700. I am not a professional sport shooter by any means but I am pleased with the KM results. When comparing the New Sigma HSM vs the KM I will admit the KM is no way as fast a the Sigma HSM. I do have to use manual focus but I can deal with that. The sigma has a haze like film over the entire picture when used at 2.8 with no sharp edges. The KM is pretty crisp not as good as the 200G but again that is not a fair comparison. These shots are taken at 1/400-800 ISO, WB @ 2400 warm and +2 light. I can't use -2 tungsten because the light is still to green to remove it so I use the warm/0 as low as it can go. I know that these are grainy and dark. Photoshop and Viveza make them look better but I wanted to show the raw image. The KM does do the job!

I then spent the weekend doing a fun little activity comparing the Sigma and the KM. Here are my findings that may interest alot of people debating the sigma HSM. The KM is like night and day compared to the sigma from 2.8-4.5. The KM hands down is very sharp and outstanding compared to the sigma in these ranges. I used 2 A700 stacked ontop of each other. The bottom 700 was on a tripod using the KM, the top camera was directly behind the first camera on another tripod using the sigma. The results are .............. KM is a touch sharper @ 7.1, 8 ,9 and 11 than the sigma. I found that the sigma needed to -1 light to = the KM color. I think this is due to the large diameter of the sigma 82 vs 67. The larger the diameter the more light let in creating that haze. But............ @ 13, 14 , 16 and 18 the sigma actually a touch sharper with the light now adjusted to 0. Both provided very good results in this range. The KM is sharper naturally and the sigma is just as sharp if you play with the light in color. I would agree with the statement given that if you want a 2.8 then sigma HSM is not the one to get. I would also add that if you plan on doing alot of shooting up to F11 then the KM is the better lens especially inside. But if you plan on using your lens strictly outside....... use the Sigma with a polarizing filter the same results or a touch better. The filter will naturally drop the light creating just as colorful images. I hope this little test will help others decide on the sigma HSM. I am not in any means bad mouthing sigma or Minolta please don't take it that way. This is based on my tests. They are not in any means technical or proven.

Now David and everyone else you have me thinking. I do alot of shooting outside and I don't have a good low mm lens that I like. I am considering the A900 in the future. I am very happy with the A700 right now and the A300 with my 400G. Which lens is better? The 2.8- 17-35 KM or the 2.8-17-35 Tamron. This is my next discussion? Which is better inside, outside, portrait or is there a better alternative?

Enjoy

Motor

[David Kilpatrick]

Interesting views. I think the Sigma may be a calibration of aperture issue, nothing to do with the 82mm front end, it's probably just overexposing a touch and also lower in contrast.

The Tamron and KM 17-35mm are effectively identical and I would say it depends on the price and new/used status of available lenses. It's nice to have the KM name and I felt that the focus feels smoother and more 'free' with less resistance to the motor than the Tamron. I use the KM.

David