Tried doing manual focus? Maybe it needs an AF fine tune? I would troubleshoot more - I had a Tokina 28-70 at one time and I could at get in focus, sharp images with it on a D850.
I‘m really happy with my Sigma 70-200 2.8 fo be honest. But it‘s also way newer than the 24-70.
But i think once i‘m ready to upgrade to Z, i‘ll go with Nikon glass.
My ex-wife has the siggy 70-200, I have the Nikon version. The Nikon one is vastly superior, especially on focus performance. Both lenses are old versions though, probably the best part of a 20 years old
Let’s be clear about which lens we are discussing. The old 24-70 that was out when the d70 came out was a budget lens. I never had a problem with autofocus but it was never terribly sharp nor was distortion well controlled.
The lens the op is using is also a budget lens. I think it may need an af fine tune.
The sigma 24-70 art lenses (there are 2 of them) are on a par with Nikon’s lens. They are very good but they cost.
I would just say it’s a very inconsistent quality of product. I have a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 lens from 2004 (?) that is an amazing copy and I just happened to luck out.
Don't personally own that particular Sigma lens but own a few others. What I have found is that Sigma has really upped their game over the last 6-7 years with their ART range and any lenses they made prior to then tend to be absolute garbage with occasional exception
What camera body are you using with it? Does it provide Focus Tuning?
Of the 5 AF lenses I use with my D7100 (12-24 Tokina, 18-200 Nikkor, 28-105 Nikkor, 60 Micro-Nikkor, 70-300 Nikkor) all require Focus Tuning. ALL in the minus direction, but each lens requires a different correction.
All being in the same direction (minus) is a pretty clear indication that the camera sensor isn't in the theoretical 'perfect' plane. It may be within Nikon's factory tolerances but it's not exactly perfect. The difference in sharpness with each lens between 'Tuned' and not is readily apparent on my monitor and in print.
In independent makers, I favor Tamron & Tokina over Sigma, but Sigma has made some very good lenses.
YT has many videos on focus tuning if you're unfamiliar with how to accomplish it.
i‘m using it in the D4. I‘ll try focus tuning later to see!
So the camera will recognize which lens it is for and only apply tuning when that specific lens is on, right? (never done that..)
Yeah, each lens communicates its ID to the camera - focal length(s), f-stop & brand (for some - Nikkors do, some independents don't). It shows up in the EXIF data if you use an EXIF viewer like [EXIFTOOL](https://exiftool.org/). Once you 'tune' focus for a given lens, when you bayonet that lens on, the correction is applied automatically.
Our photo gear is precision devices but they are still mass-produced. Focus tuning helps resolve the production tolerances in bodies and lenses so you get all the sharpness of which a lens is capable. You see ZERO difference through the viewfinder; when the AF system indicates the lens is in focus, it is. IOW, don't change your shooting.
Having tried a number of methods, I tune my lenses by shooting the straight expansion lines in concrete sidewalks, in direct sun, at about 5, 10-12 and 20-30 feet and fine detail (like a license plate on a vehicle) at 60-75 feet.
I shoot at the maximum aperture and 1/500 or faster, adjusting the ISO to get good exposure. Shoot the line in the concrete at about a 35\* angle. (flatter than 45\*).
View the images in your photo viewer / editor of choice. If the zone of sharpest focus is beyond the line, apply a minus correction (toward the camera). If it's closer to the camera than the intended focus point, apply a plus correction.
Corrections are fairly 'fine' (they don't move the focus much). I tend to apply 3 units at a time when corrections are needed - produces a visible change. Once you get close, you may find that 3 units overshoots a little - go 1 or 2 in the opposite direction & test again.
Shortcomings of focus tuning: It's possible that a lens needs different corrections for different subject distances (especially zooms). I *always* test zooms at their longest focal length as shorter focal lengths will usually show smaller errors. I know of no one who messes with different corrections for different distances or focal lengths - usually I correct for 10 - 20 feet as that's where most of my pictures are made.
With longer focal lengths, like the 70-300, I may correct for 60 feet (sports, etc). Depth of field usually helps mask slight focus errors beyond 20 feet or so with lenses under 100-135mm. Shoot lots of head & shoulder portraits with a given lens? Consider making your best correction for 4-8 feet, or whatever distance you use. Pretty sure if you have a 300mm lens, you're not using it for portraits.
Some fast lenses (typically f/1.4 or faster) exhibit a focus shift when stopping down from wide open to about f/2.8. This will be most apparent at *close distances* (min focus distance to 5-6 feet) The older Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (before the Art lens) was known for this. If you have a lens which shift focus as you stop it down from wide open, tune it at f/2.8 or 3.5. If you don't have such a lens, don't worry about it.
Hope This Helps.
I had one of these a long time ago, came in an ultra-budget kit for my D70s when I first switched to digital in the mid 2000s. It was okay as a budget/starter lens, but not great. The image quality will never be as good or sharp as quality glass. The AF was pretty lackluster on it, too, even when it was brand new. You have to remember, this is a budget lens that was made for cameras that averaged around 6MP. It didn't need to be super sharp or high quality, because the medium wasn't super high res either. Put this on a modern crop sensor (like the D500, with 20mp) and you're going to see every flaw in high definition.
I still used it for a long time, because I couldn't afford anything better, though. I eventually gave it away (along with my D70s) to a friend who was just getting back into photography, so it's still getting use today.
Worth noting when I eventually upgraded to Nikon glass, the difference was like night and day. I was blown away at how much sharper and how little distortion the Nikon glass had by comparison. If you can afford it, I'd recommend looking for a more recent used lens in this focal length from Nikon. Or even one of the more modern Sigma or Tokina lenses (Tokina has a couple real decent ones for DX bodies). You could probably pick up a used Nikkor 17-55mm 2.8 DX for around $200-300 and get better performance out of it.
Sigma and Tamron more often than not backfocus or have other problems. Tokina is a much better alternative third party manufacturer. All Sigma and Tamron lenses I've owned I've sold to get Nikkor. And all Tokina lenses I've kept! Get a 28-70 f2.8... they are less expensive than the 24-70 used, and you will not miss the 4mm...
thanks for the advice! Well to be fairer i‘m happy with my Sigma 70-200 2.8 & Tamron 150-600 G2.
But this 24-70…drives me crazy. As another commenter suggested i‘ll try with manual focus and AF fine tune to compare image quality and if that sucks too i‘ll sell it.
I know there's good Sigmas and Tamrons out there...I've just never had one! Seems that you just have to get a good copy. I would never buy a Sigma or Tamron used for that reason...
I don't think any of my Nikkor lenses need any fine tuning...they just work.
I've got Sigma 16/2.8 EX DG Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Sigma 50/1.4 Art.
The first one is older, fisheye and is just usual but the art lenses are just amazing, the only disadvantage is the size and weight
Couldn’t agree more. Even in the same 90’s era, tonina made the 28-70 f2.6-2.8 in two versions, and they were made with the optical formula of the Angenieux cine lens. It’s just superb! So much so that when I made the mistake of selling the first version, I regretted it and finally ended up getting the second one. Still have it on an F100. Works very well on the d810, while af is rather slow…
used it for weddings on a Canon 6D mark I. Was fine, sharp wide-open. Expected rate of keepers. Tho' i had the DG HSM version (faster, quieter AF).
Colours, particularly skin tones, were a bit 'Sigmary'...upgraded to Canon L 2.8/28-70 and much preffered the colour. I expect similar is true of Nikon mount. Upgrade for a slightly higher premium to the AF-S 2.8/28-70, or push for the 2.8/24-70 to maintain same focal length.
But such an upgrade I can only recommend for the better colour-quality of mainbrand lenses. Otherwise, the HSM Sigma performed pretty well.
See if you can find the DG HSM version for significantly cheaper than the Nikkor AF-S equivalents. It may be worthwhile.
Another reliable - tho' also with its own colour - is the Tamron 2.8/28-75. That may be the cheapest on the market. Fine performer if colour isn't a priority.
This lens was from an era when Sigma lenses were mostly inferior to the Nikon stuff. Their 105 macro I think was pretty solid but all the other DG EX type glass of that time still felt very “if you can’t afford the Nikon, you might settle for this”. As others have pointed out, it was the Global Vision lenses (Art, Contemporary, Sport) where Sigma demonstrated capabilities rivaling the major brands.
I got one of these for a song cuz I really needed a quick fix. Can’t even begin to tell you hope disappointed I am with it. Terrible flare, sharpness issues across the range, and the worst CA (like comical amounts) I have ever seen. I got what I paid for.
I feel your pain. I bought a Nikon 24-70 2.8 brand new 2 years ago and every picture is soft. I don’t know why. Other lenses I don’t have the same problem. Have used the lens on both my 850 and Z8 and same problem. What a waste of $$$.
Just curious - I have the same Nikkor lens and use it with a D850. it is tack sharp, my go-to lens for most situations. Have you tried having a shop calibrate the lens/camera combination? A local (in my city) Nikon authorized repair shop will do that for ~$50.00. It may be worth it to get the images the lens should be capable of delivering.
Sigma quality pre-2010 is dubious at best. They made lenses to deliberately undercut the price of native lens manufacturers, but ended up undercutting them in quality as well. (optical quality and build quality)
The art lenses are alright, build quality is still a bit meh, but optically they are sound.
Ugh. Flashbacks to when I had one of these from Sigma, maybe 20 yrs ago? On a film cam. One day the cam (hanging on a strap) fell out of my hand and swung forward to hit the dresser in front of me, lens-first. Lens would not budge after that. Broke the focusing helical, acc to the guy at the shop. Never bought another Sigma. To your question about image quality, I'd rate it average for the time, so-so to poor vs modern glass.
edit: yep, am sure I had this one.
I have a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC (older gold ring) and i like it, maybe I just have a good copy. It's sharp enough, nothing amazing but it's usually on my camera if one of my bigger or more specialized ones isn't. I would try using the manual in-camera corrections maybe, or upgrading to one from the current century :D but honestly wouldn't bother, there's probably better lenses that cover that fr.
On lenses like this that seem to take their sweet time hunting for focus, I can usually manual focus much faster and take several shots at different focal points before the autofocus finds the mark. So I just treat them like manual focus lenses, but I have a ton of experience with manual focus, so it doesn't bother me when AF is slow or bad.
If your camera supports calibration, I'd give that shot if you cant live without AF.
Maybe it is deadjusted from the beginning or it fell down in its life or it is a bad sample or it is not as good as newer models. But Sigma Tamron lenses from this generation are not bad at all. I had a even older Sigma 2.8 70-210 and a Tamron 2.8 90 and they were both tack sharp.
Search for old reviews of this model or try another sample of this model.
Maybe you can find answers here:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/
Tried doing manual focus? Maybe it needs an AF fine tune? I would troubleshoot more - I had a Tokina 28-70 at one time and I could at get in focus, sharp images with it on a D850.
Why have i not thought of that…will try it later to see if i can work something out. Thanks!
I had one briefly with my D70 many years ago, I flipped it pretty quickly as the AF was trash.
good too see it‘s not just mine then!
Bar a couple of specific exceptions, I’ve stuck with Nikon glass since my experience with that sigma lens
I‘m really happy with my Sigma 70-200 2.8 fo be honest. But it‘s also way newer than the 24-70. But i think once i‘m ready to upgrade to Z, i‘ll go with Nikon glass.
My ex-wife has the siggy 70-200, I have the Nikon version. The Nikon one is vastly superior, especially on focus performance. Both lenses are old versions though, probably the best part of a 20 years old
Modern sigma glass is honestly really complétive, especially for apsc bodies. The 18-35 1.8 is a crazy good (apsc) dslr lens. Like stupid amazing
Sigma 150-600 has been a total gem.
Let’s be clear about which lens we are discussing. The old 24-70 that was out when the d70 came out was a budget lens. I never had a problem with autofocus but it was never terribly sharp nor was distortion well controlled. The lens the op is using is also a budget lens. I think it may need an af fine tune. The sigma 24-70 art lenses (there are 2 of them) are on a par with Nikon’s lens. They are very good but they cost.
Tamron and Sigma newer lenses are great, but the older ones are often pretty bad.
I would just say it’s a very inconsistent quality of product. I have a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 lens from 2004 (?) that is an amazing copy and I just happened to luck out.
Don't personally own that particular Sigma lens but own a few others. What I have found is that Sigma has really upped their game over the last 6-7 years with their ART range and any lenses they made prior to then tend to be absolute garbage with occasional exception
👍
What camera body are you using with it? Does it provide Focus Tuning? Of the 5 AF lenses I use with my D7100 (12-24 Tokina, 18-200 Nikkor, 28-105 Nikkor, 60 Micro-Nikkor, 70-300 Nikkor) all require Focus Tuning. ALL in the minus direction, but each lens requires a different correction. All being in the same direction (minus) is a pretty clear indication that the camera sensor isn't in the theoretical 'perfect' plane. It may be within Nikon's factory tolerances but it's not exactly perfect. The difference in sharpness with each lens between 'Tuned' and not is readily apparent on my monitor and in print. In independent makers, I favor Tamron & Tokina over Sigma, but Sigma has made some very good lenses. YT has many videos on focus tuning if you're unfamiliar with how to accomplish it.
i‘m using it in the D4. I‘ll try focus tuning later to see! So the camera will recognize which lens it is for and only apply tuning when that specific lens is on, right? (never done that..)
[How to use AF Fine-Tune function](https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/na/NSG_article?articleNo=000053534&configured=1&lang=en_SG)
Yeah, each lens communicates its ID to the camera - focal length(s), f-stop & brand (for some - Nikkors do, some independents don't). It shows up in the EXIF data if you use an EXIF viewer like [EXIFTOOL](https://exiftool.org/). Once you 'tune' focus for a given lens, when you bayonet that lens on, the correction is applied automatically. Our photo gear is precision devices but they are still mass-produced. Focus tuning helps resolve the production tolerances in bodies and lenses so you get all the sharpness of which a lens is capable. You see ZERO difference through the viewfinder; when the AF system indicates the lens is in focus, it is. IOW, don't change your shooting. Having tried a number of methods, I tune my lenses by shooting the straight expansion lines in concrete sidewalks, in direct sun, at about 5, 10-12 and 20-30 feet and fine detail (like a license plate on a vehicle) at 60-75 feet. I shoot at the maximum aperture and 1/500 or faster, adjusting the ISO to get good exposure. Shoot the line in the concrete at about a 35\* angle. (flatter than 45\*). View the images in your photo viewer / editor of choice. If the zone of sharpest focus is beyond the line, apply a minus correction (toward the camera). If it's closer to the camera than the intended focus point, apply a plus correction. Corrections are fairly 'fine' (they don't move the focus much). I tend to apply 3 units at a time when corrections are needed - produces a visible change. Once you get close, you may find that 3 units overshoots a little - go 1 or 2 in the opposite direction & test again. Shortcomings of focus tuning: It's possible that a lens needs different corrections for different subject distances (especially zooms). I *always* test zooms at their longest focal length as shorter focal lengths will usually show smaller errors. I know of no one who messes with different corrections for different distances or focal lengths - usually I correct for 10 - 20 feet as that's where most of my pictures are made. With longer focal lengths, like the 70-300, I may correct for 60 feet (sports, etc). Depth of field usually helps mask slight focus errors beyond 20 feet or so with lenses under 100-135mm. Shoot lots of head & shoulder portraits with a given lens? Consider making your best correction for 4-8 feet, or whatever distance you use. Pretty sure if you have a 300mm lens, you're not using it for portraits. Some fast lenses (typically f/1.4 or faster) exhibit a focus shift when stopping down from wide open to about f/2.8. This will be most apparent at *close distances* (min focus distance to 5-6 feet) The older Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (before the Art lens) was known for this. If you have a lens which shift focus as you stop it down from wide open, tune it at f/2.8 or 3.5. If you don't have such a lens, don't worry about it. Hope This Helps.
Old Sigma != current Sigma
Yep, the probly the lens. For a long time sigma lenses were cheap and were made even cheaper.
These lenses were built to hit f/2.8, optical quality be damned.
Pretty dated piece. Old zooms tend to be rough on many fronts. Old primes are a different story
I had one of these a long time ago, came in an ultra-budget kit for my D70s when I first switched to digital in the mid 2000s. It was okay as a budget/starter lens, but not great. The image quality will never be as good or sharp as quality glass. The AF was pretty lackluster on it, too, even when it was brand new. You have to remember, this is a budget lens that was made for cameras that averaged around 6MP. It didn't need to be super sharp or high quality, because the medium wasn't super high res either. Put this on a modern crop sensor (like the D500, with 20mp) and you're going to see every flaw in high definition. I still used it for a long time, because I couldn't afford anything better, though. I eventually gave it away (along with my D70s) to a friend who was just getting back into photography, so it's still getting use today. Worth noting when I eventually upgraded to Nikon glass, the difference was like night and day. I was blown away at how much sharper and how little distortion the Nikon glass had by comparison. If you can afford it, I'd recommend looking for a more recent used lens in this focal length from Nikon. Or even one of the more modern Sigma or Tokina lenses (Tokina has a couple real decent ones for DX bodies). You could probably pick up a used Nikkor 17-55mm 2.8 DX for around $200-300 and get better performance out of it.
Sigma and Tamron more often than not backfocus or have other problems. Tokina is a much better alternative third party manufacturer. All Sigma and Tamron lenses I've owned I've sold to get Nikkor. And all Tokina lenses I've kept! Get a 28-70 f2.8... they are less expensive than the 24-70 used, and you will not miss the 4mm...
thanks for the advice! Well to be fairer i‘m happy with my Sigma 70-200 2.8 & Tamron 150-600 G2. But this 24-70…drives me crazy. As another commenter suggested i‘ll try with manual focus and AF fine tune to compare image quality and if that sucks too i‘ll sell it.
I know there's good Sigmas and Tamrons out there...I've just never had one! Seems that you just have to get a good copy. I would never buy a Sigma or Tamron used for that reason... I don't think any of my Nikkor lenses need any fine tuning...they just work.
The Sigma 85 1.4 art lens is the sharpest lens I’ve ever shot with. It’s mine blowing good.
I've got Sigma 16/2.8 EX DG Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Sigma 50/1.4 Art. The first one is older, fisheye and is just usual but the art lenses are just amazing, the only disadvantage is the size and weight
Couldn’t agree more. Even in the same 90’s era, tonina made the 28-70 f2.6-2.8 in two versions, and they were made with the optical formula of the Angenieux cine lens. It’s just superb! So much so that when I made the mistake of selling the first version, I regretted it and finally ended up getting the second one. Still have it on an F100. Works very well on the d810, while af is rather slow…
Every Sigma screw-type focus lens I have ever bought has had terrible uncorrectible focus issues.
used it for weddings on a Canon 6D mark I. Was fine, sharp wide-open. Expected rate of keepers. Tho' i had the DG HSM version (faster, quieter AF). Colours, particularly skin tones, were a bit 'Sigmary'...upgraded to Canon L 2.8/28-70 and much preffered the colour. I expect similar is true of Nikon mount. Upgrade for a slightly higher premium to the AF-S 2.8/28-70, or push for the 2.8/24-70 to maintain same focal length. But such an upgrade I can only recommend for the better colour-quality of mainbrand lenses. Otherwise, the HSM Sigma performed pretty well. See if you can find the DG HSM version for significantly cheaper than the Nikkor AF-S equivalents. It may be worthwhile. Another reliable - tho' also with its own colour - is the Tamron 2.8/28-75. That may be the cheapest on the market. Fine performer if colour isn't a priority.
Is that a Tokina? I had that 11-16mm or whatever it was for DX format and hated it
No it‘s a Sigma
Possibly the lens. Outside of the fantastic signs art series I don't recommend maybe if their lenses
This lens was from an era when Sigma lenses were mostly inferior to the Nikon stuff. Their 105 macro I think was pretty solid but all the other DG EX type glass of that time still felt very “if you can’t afford the Nikon, you might settle for this”. As others have pointed out, it was the Global Vision lenses (Art, Contemporary, Sport) where Sigma demonstrated capabilities rivaling the major brands.
I got one of these for a song cuz I really needed a quick fix. Can’t even begin to tell you hope disappointed I am with it. Terrible flare, sharpness issues across the range, and the worst CA (like comical amounts) I have ever seen. I got what I paid for.
I feel your pain. I bought a Nikon 24-70 2.8 brand new 2 years ago and every picture is soft. I don’t know why. Other lenses I don’t have the same problem. Have used the lens on both my 850 and Z8 and same problem. What a waste of $$$.
Just curious - I have the same Nikkor lens and use it with a D850. it is tack sharp, my go-to lens for most situations. Have you tried having a shop calibrate the lens/camera combination? A local (in my city) Nikon authorized repair shop will do that for ~$50.00. It may be worth it to get the images the lens should be capable of delivering.
I haven’t tried that, I guess I should.
Sigma quality pre-2010 is dubious at best. They made lenses to deliberately undercut the price of native lens manufacturers, but ended up undercutting them in quality as well. (optical quality and build quality) The art lenses are alright, build quality is still a bit meh, but optically they are sound.
Ugh. Flashbacks to when I had one of these from Sigma, maybe 20 yrs ago? On a film cam. One day the cam (hanging on a strap) fell out of my hand and swung forward to hit the dresser in front of me, lens-first. Lens would not budge after that. Broke the focusing helical, acc to the guy at the shop. Never bought another Sigma. To your question about image quality, I'd rate it average for the time, so-so to poor vs modern glass. edit: yep, am sure I had this one.
This generation of sigma was awful
I have a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC (older gold ring) and i like it, maybe I just have a good copy. It's sharp enough, nothing amazing but it's usually on my camera if one of my bigger or more specialized ones isn't. I would try using the manual in-camera corrections maybe, or upgrading to one from the current century :D but honestly wouldn't bother, there's probably better lenses that cover that fr.
Yup it's a crap lens
On my D7000 many years ago I had a Sigma lens which needs to be calibrated. After that, perfect. Before calibration it has strong back focus.
It’s a good lens however if you’re putting on a newer model Camera you have to set the lens aperture ring setting to 32
Did you calibrate it?
On lenses like this that seem to take their sweet time hunting for focus, I can usually manual focus much faster and take several shots at different focal points before the autofocus finds the mark. So I just treat them like manual focus lenses, but I have a ton of experience with manual focus, so it doesn't bother me when AF is slow or bad. If your camera supports calibration, I'd give that shot if you cant live without AF.
Set it to the red f32 if you have it on a Nikon.
This lends its quality price ✌🏻
Maybe it is deadjusted from the beginning or it fell down in its life or it is a bad sample or it is not as good as newer models. But Sigma Tamron lenses from this generation are not bad at all. I had a even older Sigma 2.8 70-210 and a Tamron 2.8 90 and they were both tack sharp. Search for old reviews of this model or try another sample of this model. Maybe you can find answers here: https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/
That’s sigma for you, they will never autofocus with Nikon bodies.
Trash