Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX VERSUS Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM EF Lens

[verty]

ok...

im looking at getting a lens around this focal range 24-70mm..

i know this might be a stupid question and i know you usually get what you pay for... but is there major differences in image quality with these two lenses?? i know the canon is a L series and is the cream of the crop and has the USM.. but besides that could you tell image quality side by side??

The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX is basically quater of the price of the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM EF Lens in Australian dollars (im not sure what the price is like in other countries)

If anyone knows of a comparision thread or has any comments on this could you please let me know because i am quite interested in knowing... also if there are any other lenses to compare to these two.. sorry but im only starting out in photography!! thanks :p

[RikWriter]

Never owned the Canon, but I've owned the Sigma 24-70 for around a year now. I originally thought I'd eventually get the Canon, but every time I start to, I think "what has my Sigma not done for me that the Canon would?" And I can never come up with an answer. It's very sharp and doesn't vignette even wide open on my full frame 5D, and it's produced some excellent photos for me. No, it doesn't focus as fast as the Canon, but at that focal length I am not sure I NEED it to focus super-fast.
And my camera isn't weather sealed, so that doesn't make a difference to me either.

[Juan Zas]

I think it was a review of fstopjojo at

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/2470
http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/sigma_2470

but are missing or broken actually with these links.

Anyway, following his review I did buy the Siggy mainly for the price. The only drawback is not to be USM, but it was $350 against $1200.
From the point of view of the IQ I am very pleased with my copy.

[LightRules]

I think it was a review of fstopjojo at

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/2470
http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/sigma_2470

but are missing or broken actually with these links.

Anyway, following his review I did buy the Siggy mainly for the price. The only drawback is not to be USM, but it was $350 against $1200.
From the point of view of the IQ I am very pleased with my copy.

Juan, my site is "lightrules" as of April 2006, but here is the link with the EX v L: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2470exl

That copy of the Sigma was the sharpest standard zoom I've ever used; I still slap my head that I let it go. Lesson learned.

I now have the Tamron 2875 but as good as it is, IMO it's slightly less sharp than the EX in that test. But the Di is "good enough" still. Colors out of the EX and Di are close; I think the L is still the best in that regard.

In every other facet (apart from optics per se), the L is of course the best; there is no free lunch.

[steved110]

It really comes down to, do you need to spend three times as much in order to get a marginal increase in performance - one so small it takes dedicated pixel peeping to detect? the sigma lens is however very different in handling to a Canon lens - the rough anodised EX finish is not to everyone's taste, the push-pull mechanism of switching from AF to MF takes a bit of getting used to, and this lens focuses much slower and more noisily than the L
all in all, I feel these are small differences that are outweighed by having the other £550 that the L would cost - at least here in the UK

Another thing, the sigma isa big heavy lens, and if you can live without the 24mm , the Tamron 28-75 is a lot lighter and optically excellent.....

[Juan Zas]

Juan, my site is "lightrules" as of April 2006, but here is the link with the EX v L: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2470exl


Updated !! Tks

[Juan Zas]

It really comes down to, do you need to spend three times as much in order to get a marginal increase in performance - one so small it takes dedicated pixel peeping to detect? the sigma lens is however very different in handling to a Canon lens - the rough anodised EX finish is not to everyone's taste, the push-pull mechanism of switching from AF to MF takes a bit of getting used to, and this lens focuses much slower and more noisily than the L
all in all, I feel these are small differences that are outweighed by having the other £550 that the L would cost - at least here in the UK

Another thing, the sigma isa big heavy lens, and if you can live without the 24mm , the Tamron 28-75 is a lot lighter and optically excellent.....

The Siggy is not too much noiser, has the lack of USM, for that reason it´s slower with AF in relation with the Canon, and yes, it´s heavy, a chunk of crystal around 750 gr, But boy, the color rendering is wonderful and it´s sharp enough even wide open. And all for $350. I think you can live with it. Let´s say you never regret from it, so is a good option and good value for the money. Of course, there are more options and also many people speaks well from the Tamron. It´s up to you.

[pfogle]

Since I don't have either, I should shut up, but I do have the Tammy. I find I really miss the extra 4mm, but I do like the fact it's lighter. So I'd go for the Sigma and save 150g. And a lot of money!

My only reservation: all the Sigs I've used had flare problems. Worth looking out for.

[pfogle]

Juan, my site is "lightrules" as of April 2006, but here is the link with the EX v L: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2470exl

That copy of the Sigma was the sharpest standard zoom I've ever used; I still slap my head that I let it go. Lesson learned.

I now have the Tamron 2875 but as good as it is, IMO it's slightly less sharp than the EX in that test. But the Di is "good enough" still. Colors out of the EX and Di are close; I think the L is still the best in that regard.

In every other facet (apart from optics per se), the L is of course the best; there is no free lunch.fstopJojo, your tests are a fantastic resource, so thank you for that.

Did you compare the two 24-70s for flare, like you did with the Sigma v the Tamron? And does anyone know if there's a better shade that would fit the Sigma for the crop bodies?

[farrukh]

L is definately better but not by much. I have Sigma and it always did the job 100%. Quarter price vs Canon is enough reason to go for it. You can get Sigma and lots of other equipment in price of L.

[4x4rock]

I borrowed a friend's 24-70L for a week and eventhough I think the color is nicer than the Sigma, I'm not really impress with it. Maybe his copy is not really stellar but he's a wedding Photog and he uses it very often.

He got 2 on his 2 MKII and if I wanted, he will sell me one but I've decided to keep my Sigma for now.

[condyk]

All good lenses if you get a good copy. I think the Sigma offers best bang per buck. I think the Canon is poor value. Tamron is good but a bit light and 28mm I don't like. If you can afford the Canon then get the 24-105mm IS L instead. Better than all of them. I've owned three out of the four and used the fourth for prolonged period on two occassions. Just my opinions.

[malla1962]

I have the canon and tried the sig and its quite simple,If you want weather sealing and super fast Af go for the canon if not just get the sigma.:D

[davidfig]

It really comes down to, do you need to spend three times as much in order to get a marginal increase in performance - one so small it takes dedicated pixel peeping to detect?

Well I mostly agree. But I can tell you that if I did Wedding photography full time I would not use the Sigma, to noisy.

[Benandbobbi]

If you can afford the best, get the Canon. If not, then get another brand. Does the Canon give you $800 more lens? That's subjective, I say probably not, but many thousands of people think so every year. I would say it also holds its value a little better. JMHO

[John7]

Yea, it's like comparing a BMW with a Ford - both will get you there but you gotta love the quality engineering of the BMW

[byso]

I've got the Sigma. Its very good for landscapes etc were you have time to get correst focus. But i'm not happy with the speed of focus for photos of moving objects like people.

Great value for money though, Prsonally i'd strongly consider looking at the 17-40 4.0L Canon lens. As an option.