Canon/Sigma 24-70 2.8 question

[bidimagic]

Well, it's time for me to make a decision about purchasing one of the two lenses:
- Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L
- Sigma 24-70 EX DG f/2.8
I've already read many threads in this forum, I've looked to tests, reviews and MTFs too.

I'm planning to use this lense as walk-around lense, but also to shoot some musical concerts and so my question is: does Sigma lense AF perform well in low-light conditions ? I know Canon does ...

Have you guys some advice about it ?

[EOSAddict]

Depends what you can afford and what your conscience will let you spend ;) The AF is probably the Sigma's worst aspect so maybe the L is th eone for you?

[COKE CAN]

The AF on my old copy (sigma) was fine for walking around. It would not have held up well at a concert.

[MegaTron]

The Sigma is a great lens, quality is probably close to the 24-70L if you get a good copy. Great walk around lens, although a bit heavy (the 24-70L is heavier, I think?), BUT, it does tend to hunt a bit in low light situations. At least my copy does. When it does lock focus, the quality is great. For any of those wondering, the Tamron seems to hunt even more in lowlight conditions.

That is the ONLY reason why im looking to upgrade to either the 24-70L or the 24-105L.

[Olegis]

I can vote for Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 - excellent lens. The AF seems to hunt in very low-light-low-contrast condition - but I have an older camera (10D). I guess that with newer, more advanced bodies (20D, 30D, 400D and of course the 1 series) will focuss better with this lens.

[bidimagic]

Thank you all for suggestions.
I've also looked to the 24-105L but it is 1 stop slower (the IS gain 2/3
stops, but doesn't freeze the subject movement, though)
the Tamron is also a good alternative, but it is not wide enough
so for now it seems that the 24-70L is the best choice (also the
most expensive ...)

[::John::]

When the AF worked on my Sigma 24-70, I also found it hunted a bit in low light. Since the AF died it has basically sat in the bottom of the bag while I consider purchasing the Canon version.

I liked it as a walk-around of the 350D but never really became comfortable with it on the 5D (hence my delay in replacing it - it died back in April).

[Stan43]

If you can afford the Canon 24-70 I would get it. It's weather sealed, great IQ and will hold it's value.

[bidimagic]

... but never really became comfortable with it on the 5D

Why it didn't ?

[Nezmo]

As I'm sure you have read, the Sigma AF on 20Ds can be iffy. I wasted a whole lot of shots and time on the Sigma.

[jr_senator]

I have the 24-70L, to me it's worth every penny. I don't think there is a professional PJ that doesn't have that lens.

[bidimagic]

I have the 24-70L, to me it's worth every penny. I don't think there is a professional PJ that doesn't have that lens.

Yes, I know the 24-70L is way better than the Sigma.
But I'm not a professional, so I have to carefully think before buying such an expensive lens.
Here in Italy the Sigma costs about 380 EUR while the 24-70L costs 1300 EUR !!!
And yes I can afford the 24-70L so ... that's the problem!!! If I couldn't afford it, there would be no doubt, I would go for the Sigma!

[EOSAddict]

How critical to your photography are those low light concert shots? If very , then I think (although I hate to say it!) you need the L. Otherwise, what else can you spend 1000EUR on?

[cdifoto]

And yes I can afford the 24-70L so ... that's the problem!!! If I couldn't afford it, there would be no doubt, I would go for the Sigma!

Well then there's your answer. People don't generally go for the 3rd parties just for the fun of it. It's budgetary contraints. Get the L.

[davidfig]

I've had my sigma for some time now. I have used it for weddings and walk around, etc. I believe the IQ is right there with the Canon, although the Canon has slightly better bokeh that's just a little creamier. Under low light conditions it will hunt. But then many lenses will. Also the Canon has slightly better edge to edge sharpness.

There are three reasons I would get the Canon.
1) silent fast AF (weddings).
2) effortless manual focus while lens is in AF mode.
3) smooth bokeh from that UD glass.

I ended up with the sigma, because of cost. Eventually I will replace it with the Canon.

BTW, I still love the Sigma, beautiful pictures.

[KevC]

I had the 24-70EX. Not a bad piece of glass. Big and bulky (though the Canon is heavier, I think it has more... finesse... no idea why though). I hated the EX finish.

It was plenty sharp though. Especially at the wider end, but as it got to around 70mm it got quite soft. Actually that might just be my not-so-reliable AF system.

Main reason I got rid of it? I fell in love with USM. The non-HSM motor of the Sigma was enough for me to let her go.

[sonnyc]

If you consistently use it to shoot low light concerts then get the Canon. With USM, the focus is more accurate in low light than the Sigma.

My Sigma hunts a little in low light and for some people it could be very annoying to hear the "ziiiiiip, ziiiiiip, ziiiiip" AF motor LOL...

[bidimagic]

Well thank you all for your contribution.
You've told me what I expected was the AF of the Sigma: it hunts in low light/contrast. It sounds me exactly the same of my Sigma 105mm f/2.8.
No one told me "It works ok in low light" so it seems that't it! :D

I think I'm going for the Canon ... wow it is surely a wonderful lens and it will became my best lens!!!

[camman]

I've had the Sigma lens for 3 years and I have to say that has been for me a performer in all types of photography. I do agree it is softer on the longer end of the zoom. I even had the lens fall from about four feet onto a wood floor and have had no problems with it.

[Juan Zas]

Here happy too with it, specially for the price /performance/IQ. For $350 ... I can not ask for more (well, yes, not to be so heavy, but it´s a good chunk of good glass). For me, the lack of HSM is not a big deal. I think the Canon 24-70 it´s overpriced. But always it´s your choice, If you have the money and you want USM, go for it (it´s almost x3 times more in $$$)

[sonnyc]

No one told me "It works ok in low light" so it seems that't it! :D



It'll work in low light alright. In fact it'll work pretty good in low light. Just that it'll hunt a little more than the Canon.

The Sigma 24-70 is a very good lens.

[bidimagic]

uhm ... latest Sigma's fans make me thinking a bit more ... thank you all guys for your suggestions & feedbacks !!!

[Mr. Clean]

I love my 24-70EX. It's been calibrated by Sigma but they said everything worked to spec on their test camera but they "adjusted focus" anyways. It's sharp on both ends, has great "pop", does well in low light. The weight difference is 1.6 for the Siggy and 2.1 I think for the Canon. I love the USM/FTM on the canon though, it's nice to have quick focusing and full time manual focusing. The Sigma's hood does well, I've never had flare...Really, I think it's really close. If you sample pics side by side the better IQ is going to fluctuate. A good Sigma is better than an off Canon and vice versa. Ask yourself if you want to pay 600 bucks more for weathersealing, FTM and USM because essentially those are the only pluses to the Canon in my mind. My Sigma's finish is also perfect. No peeling.

I was this close >< to buying the 24-70L today just for the USM and FTM, all my other lenses have those qualities and it's really nice. With the PSAUG code and the rebate the 24-70L is about 1050.00.

I just couldn't justify it in my mind though...My Siggie's a keeper until I can't stand not having USM on my main walkaround.

[ed rader]

I love my 24-70EX. It's been calibrated by Sigma but they said everything worked to spec on their test camera but they "adjusted focus" anyways. It's sharp on both ends, has great "pop", does well in low light. The weight difference is 1.6 for the Siggy and 2.1 I think for the Canon. I love the USM/FTM on the canon though, it's nice to have quick focusing and full time manual focusing. The Sigma's hood does well, I've never had flare...Really, I think it's really close. If you sample pics side by side the better IQ is going to fluctuate. A good Sigma is better than an off Canon and vice versa. Ask yourself if you want to pay 600 bucks more for weathersealing, FTM and USM because essentially those are the only pluses to the Canon in my mind. My Sigma's finish is also perfect. No peeling.

I was this close >< to buying the 24-70L today just for the USM and FTM, all my other lenses have those qualities and it's really nice. With the PSAUG code and the rebate the 24-70L is about 1050.00.

I just couldn't justify it in my mind though...My Siggie's a keeper until I can't stand not having USM on my main walkaround.

i predict you'll have the 24-70L within a year...maybe even six months.

mark it down :D .

ed rader

[Mr. Clean]

heh - I've never, and will never, say never Ed! :lol:

[bidimagic]

i predict you'll have the 24-70L within a year...maybe even six months.

mark it down :D .

ed rader

That's what I mean. I have a little fear that after getting the Sigma, I would trade it for a Canon ....
I know Canon holds its value after years and years, while Sigma don't.
But nice to hear that many people love their Sigma!

[Mr. Clean]

That's what I mean. I have a little fear that after getting the Sigma, I would trade it for a Canon ....
I know Canon holds its value after years and years, while Sigma don't.
But nice to hear that many people love their Sigma!
Ehh, I dunno about that. The 24-70 sells for 429 and you can find them used for 350 or so. That's about 80%. Not nearly the 110% used price for a Canon, but pretty darn respectable.

[bidimagic]

..., but pretty darn respectable.

For sure it is! ;)
Tomorrow I'm going to test one friend's 24-70L.
After that, I will go to a shop asking to test a Sigma ...
then I'll make a decision ... and I hope to hear other opinions from you guys !!! Thank you all for your posts !!!

[bidimagic]

Hello again! I've not yet decided ...
I've tried one friend's 24-70L and ... I've to say that this lens is amazing!
Quiet and fast AF, images are VERY sharp from f/2.8 and the colors are
beautiful!!!
While I haven't the possibility to try a Sigma ... does anyone have images
from that lens to share ? I would like to see them at f/2.8, straight from
the camera (no PP).

[JaGWiRE]

The Sigma seems like a great lens and its on my list. I think you really need to think of your focal length priorities more so though, if you for example will be shooting at concerts and stuff more in the 70-200 focal length range, save the money, buy the Sigma and get a 70-200 f2.8. For me I want to save the money so I can buy fast primes.

[bidimagic]

The Sigma seems like a great lens and its on my list. I think you really need to think of your focal length priorities more so though, if you for example will be shooting at concerts and stuff more in the 70-200 focal length range, save the money, buy the Sigma and get a 70-200 f2.8. For me I want to save the money so I can buy fast primes.

JagWiRE, I already have a Sigma 70-200 2.8 (look at my gear list ;))
I miss the 24-70 range because I only have the 18-55 kit lens :(
For the concert, I'm very close so this should be good.

[JaGWiRE]

JagWiRE, I already have a Sigma 70-200 2.8 (look at my gear list ;))
I miss the 24-70 range because I only have the 18-55 kit lens :(
For the concert, I'm very close so this should be good.
If your constantly shooting concerts in the same place or at the same distance, you may want to consider adding a few primes to your already existing prime collection, like the 85 1.8 and 28 1.8 or sigma 30 1.4 Any of the Canon primes with USM should do pretty good in low light situations. I personally would get the primes and Sigma 24-70 over the Canon as I'm a little prime crazy and if your constantly shooting from the same range the narrow depth of field primes offer might give you some new techniques to play around with. I see you already have the 50 and 100 macro which are both great anyway.

[bidimagic]

Thank you jagwire, and thank you all guys I've finally made my decision, went to the shop and bought this:
- Canon 24-70L f/2.8
- Canon 85 f/1.8
Does it seems crazy ? Well I thought I need another fast prime
for the concerts and then I decided for the Canon in the 24-70 range.
Well now I think I should find out a duck and get it, shouldn't I ?
:D

[Mr. Clean]

Nah - nothing's crazy when it comes to GAS! Congrats, you'll be happy and have no what ifs

[JaGWiRE]

Thank you jagwire, and thank you all guys I've finally made my decision, went to the shop and bought this:
- Canon 24-70L f/2.8
- Canon 85 f/1.8
Does it seems crazy ? Well I thought I need another fast prime
for the concerts and then I decided for the Canon in the 24-70 range.
Well now I think I should find out a duck and get it, shouldn't I ?
:D
Sounds good. Can't comment on the 24-70L, but I'm sure you'll love the 85 1.8, I sure as hell love mine!

[bidimagic]

Nah - nothing's crazy when it comes to GAS! Congrats, you'll be happy and have no what ifs

May I ask you what does "GAS" mean ?
I apologize for this stupid question ...

[bidimagic]

Sounds good. Can't comment on the 24-70L, but I'm sure you'll love the 85 1.8, I sure as hell love mine!

Thank you, I'm so excited and I can't wait to try them !!!

[JaGWiRE]

Thank you, I'm so excited and I can't wait to try them !!!
I'd do a direct comparison (sharpness test) of the 24-70L and Sigma 24-70 f2.8, just for kicks. It would at least show off the sharpness of each lens and more or less if you got a good copy (I remember reading one review where some guy got an excellent copy of the Sigma an chose it over the Canon because he thought for the money it was a killer lens, although I think the general consensus around here is that if you can afford the 24-70L get it as it whoops both the Sigma 24-70 and Tamron 28-75.)

[NordieBoy]

As I'm sure you have read, the Sigma AF on 20Ds can be iffy. I wasted a whole lot of shots and time on the Sigma.

Where can I read this?

[bidimagic]

I'd do a direct comparison (sharpness test) of the 24-70L and Sigma 24-70 f2.8, just for kicks. It would at least show off the sharpness of each lens and more or less if you got a good copy (I remember reading one review where some guy got an excellent copy of the Sigma an chose it over the Canon because he thought for the money it was a killer lens, although I think the general consensus around here is that if you can afford the 24-70L get it as it whoops both the Sigma 24-70 and Tamron 28-75.)

I don't have the Sigma, and the shops where I go haven't it too, so I can't do a direct comparison.
For sure I will test the 24-70L for sharpness very soon.

[JaGWiRE]

I don't have the Sigma, and the shops where I go haven't it too, so I can't do a direct comparison.
For sure I will test the 24-70L for sharpness very soon.
Oops, I thought you already had it. Looks like you already have the 70-200 2.8 Sigma, my mistake.

[bidimagic]

Oops, I thought you already had it. Looks like you already have the 70-200 2.8 Sigma, my mistake.

Never mind. I could make a comparison between the 24-70L and the Sigma 70-200 2.8, almost at 70mm, though ... :)