Sigma VS Canon

[Littlebike]

The Canon Lens I bought had some issues so I sent it back and am now having doubts as to what lens I want.

I have been on the fence between a Canon 24-85 3.5-4.5 Ef and a Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 ex DF http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/zoom_intro.htm

The wider Aperature is desireable so I can have a very narrow depth of field as well as high speed.

I guess what I am asking is, has anybody used both these lenses? Is Sigma's quality comparable to Canon?

[Digital Canon]

I have the Sigma 24 - 70 2.8 EX DF lens.

I have taken some really good pictures with it, how ever I more then likely will upgrade to the Canon 24 - 70 L 2.8 at some point within the next year.

I am not unhappy with the Sigma.

It is a little loud when you focus compared to the USM Canons.

[rji2goleez]

As an alternative, you might consider the Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF). It was the first lense I bought for my new 10D and I love it. Price difference aside, I find this lense gives me sharp pictures and with a constant f/2.8 throughout, the lense is pretty fast.

Check it out!

[jjguest]

heryou can see samples of d60 with sigma lens
24-70/2.8 50mm macro2.8 17-35/2.8-4 and 70-300 apo macro
http://www.pbase.com/jjguest

[boyhowdy]

Littlebike,

I have both the canon 24-85 USM 3.5 and the Sigma 17-35mm HSM 2.8 lenses. I have many shots with both and they are quite comparable. I do believe the 2.8 is a better lens because of the fact it IS a 2.8. However, after seeing shots taken with the "L" series lenses, I think my next set of lenses will ALL be "L's!" I know they are expensive, but after all, we are all striving for the "perfect" shot and a cheap lens just won't do it. I have taken many shots of our mockingbirds for instance, and there is a post of one in almost the exact same circumstances as I have taken...down to the exact EXIF info. The only difference is that that particular shot was done with an "L" lens and there is just NO comparison. The big problem with this is that 1 or 2 "L" lenses will set you back as much as the camera body itself!!! It just depends on the quality you really want and I've seen a lot of posts stating that you WILL eventually migrate to the "L" series so why waste extra money in the meantime? I've always thought this was easy to say if you HAVE the money to plop down for an "L" but now I see why they say that. I went from a Minolta Dimage7hi which I thought took spectacular shots and realized it was a toy compared to the EOS digitals. Now I can see why the "L" series is so much better than my mediocre standard lenses. I am a perfectionist and if someone's shots are always "better" than mine, it gets my blood boiling to figure out why. In almost EVERY case, it is because the "L" lens was used, BOTOM LINE!

With that said, I would go for a 2.8 lens simply because you have more capability in lower light and telephoto situations. If you get a Sigma, make sure you get one with the HSM motor. That is equivalent to the Canon USM motor and is extremely quiet.

Good luck with your decision...

Patrick