How doel the L glass compares to...

[DocFrankenstein]

50mm f/1.8

Cause I want all my glass have that kind of quality. :shock: With a better build of couse. :roll:

[timmyquest]

I have the 50mm and the 70-200 f/2.8 and i'd say they are very close from an optics point of view. My L lens gives me a little more contrast and slightly better colors, but they are both tack sharp.

Build quality on the other hand is totally different. USM is so fast it's just...nuts. Zoom (when compared to my sigma zooms and even the 18-55) is so much smoother and the metal mount just makes it feel like the camera and lens were actually built together. It's as smooth as silk.

[DocFrankenstein]

I am starting to regret not getting the 70-200 f/2.8 L

With sigma, I lose about 30 to 50 percent of effective resolution.

[Ballen Photo]

I am starting to regret not getting the 70-200 f/2.8 L

With sigma, I lose about 30 to 50 percent of effective resolution.

You loose up to 50% resolution with Sigma? Please explain? :shock:
I can understand loosing sharpness with a Sigma vs. L glass.
.........Bruce

[DocFrankenstein]

I am starting to regret not getting the 70-200 f/2.8 L

With sigma, I lose about 30 to 50 percent of effective resolution.

You loose up to 50% resolution with Sigma? Please explain? :shock:
I can understand loosing sharpness with a Sigma vs. L glass.
.........Bruce
I mean effective resolution. Less sharpness = less information. You still get a 6 mp image, but you could fit just as much detail in a 3 mp image. So you're not using your 6 mp sensor to it's full potential.

[Tom W]

I did some testing between my 50 mm f/1.4 and my 24-70L lens a few months ago. At f/2.8, the 50 mm prime is a bit sharper than the zoom, but that difference isn't huge and wouldn't be noticeable on an 8X10 print. Stopped down, I didn't see any real difference in full-sized 100% crops.

But again, that was a comparison of a prime and a zoom - a zoom lens is full of compromises where the physical characteristics cannot be optimized at any focal length without sacrificing capabilities at another focal length. This is especially true of a lens that goes from very wide to telephoto. If we were comparing prime to L-prime or zoom to L-zoom, you'd likely see a larger difference, at least at wider apertures.

BTW, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is a very sharp lens, if you have a good copy. Mine is pretty nice wide open, and excellent stopped down a bit.

[Ballen Photo]

I am starting to regret not getting the 70-200 f/2.8 L

With sigma, I lose about 30 to 50 percent of effective resolution.

You loose up to 50% resolution with Sigma? Please explain? :shock:
I can understand loosing sharpness with a Sigma vs. L glass.
.........Bruce
I mean effective resolution. Less sharpness = less information. You still get a 6 mp image, but you could fit just as much detail in a 3 mp image. So you're not using your 6 mp sensor to it's full potential.

OK, Thanks. That makes sense now. :D
.........Bruce

[Mike H]

I did some testing between my 50 mm f/1.4 and my 24-70L lens a few months ago. At f/2.8, the 50 mm prime is a bit sharper than the zoom, but that difference isn't huge and wouldn't be noticeable on an 8X10 print. Stopped down, I didn't see any real difference in full-sized 100% crops.

Tom,

What is your impression of the 24-70/2.8L overall? I'm still pondering getting one of those or the 24-85/3.5-4.5 to shoot daytime events. Do you find the weight onerous for carrying around all day (if you've tried that)? Thanks.

Mike H

[Flyball Rebel]

Tom,

What is your impression of the 24-70/2.8L overall? I'm still pondering getting one of those or the 24-85/3.5-4.5 to shoot daytime events. Do you find the weight onerous for carrying around all day (if you've tried that)? Thanks.
Mike H

Hi Mike, Just muscling in here. I pondered over getting my 24-70L for weeks and weeks, asking all sorts of questions, as I expect you have done. Anyway, I took the bull by the horns and bought it. It seemed a lot of money at the time but I couldn't be more satisfied, it's on the camera all the time. Yes, it is on the heavy side but I don't find that any problem at all. I love it. Good luck in whatever you decide. [F.R.] :)

[Tom W]

I did some testing between my 50 mm f/1.4 and my 24-70L lens a few months ago. At f/2.8, the 50 mm prime is a bit sharper than the zoom, but that difference isn't huge and wouldn't be noticeable on an 8X10 print. Stopped down, I didn't see any real difference in full-sized 100% crops.

Tom,

What is your impression of the 24-70/2.8L overall? I'm still pondering getting one of those or the 24-85/3.5-4.5 to shoot daytime events. Do you find the weight onerous for carrying around all day (if you've tried that)? Thanks.

Mike H

I haven't carried it all day, but the 24-70 is the lens that is on my camera more than any other. Images are excellent - colorful, sharp, and free of distortion. I like the zoom range on the 10D, though I occasionally wish it were a little wider than 24 mm (on the 1.6X sensor).

I tend to go shooting for a couple of hours at a time. Probably the longest I wore it around my neck was several hours at a July 4th party. I switched to the 17-40 at dusk for the fireworks display, but the 24-70 brought out some great candid and posed shots of the 75-or-so people at the outdoor event.

Incidentally, I had a rather bad copy of the 24-85 (I bought it used), but that lens has a generally good reputation. It is light and has a good zoom range, but I don't think it would be very desirable when shallow DOF or low-light shooting is required. The 24-70 is fine enough at f/2.8 to be very useful in that respect. If you're only going to be shooting bright outdoor scenes, the 24-85 may be worth consideration. I occasionally put my old 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 on the 10D when I am hiking some distance on rougher terrain. Stopped down to f/5.6 or so, its a good lens also.

[BearSummer]

Hi Doc,

The easy way to save money is as follows.

If in doubt buy L.

just keep repeating it as a mantra and it will save you money in the long term

Best regards

BearSummer

[Mike H]

Thanks for the responses. I'll post here when I finally make up my mind.

What I might do is buy the lens just before a big event that I will be shooting at the beginning of October. That way if I don't like it after using it at my event I can still send it back. Of course, I'll have to test it before the event to make sure it's working properly.

Mike H

[DocFrankenstein]

BTW, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is a very sharp lens, if you have a good copy. Mine is pretty nice wide open, and excellent stopped down a bit.
I think I have a good copy. I dunno.

These are 3 samples I have uploaded on my site right now:

http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=y3qae1&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images1.fotopic.net/?iid=y3qaef&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=y3qae5&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

All of them are at the weakest wide open 200 mm. The shutter time is 1/60 sec handheld, so it could've added some blur. Does it look alright compared to your 70-200 shots?

[Tom W]

Those look pretty good. 1/60 second at 200 mm handheld is asking for blur. You did pretty well considering that slow of a shutter with a long lens like that. BTW, that shallow DOF at f/2.8 really shows up in the first image.

You're not going to get f/4 or f/5.6 results at f/2.8 with any zoom. But those are very usable, particularly considering that you're probably not going to make 20X30 inch prints from them.

[Haifidelity]

1/60 @ 200mm is much too slow (handheld), without IS. If anything, my minimum is approx. 1/150.

From all the images i've seen of the Sigma, I wouldn't say that it's 50% reduction in resolution (i'm sorry, this sounds ubsurd to me) compared to the L equivalent (which I own).

I noticed that you had some viewable noise in those three shots you posted--what ISO were you shooting at?

and to the original poster about the L's compared to the 50mm F1.8--so close in quality that I couldn't tell the difference. Where the L's shine is color rendition and contrast.

[DocFrankenstein]

Thanks for the reply

Those look pretty good. 1/60 second at 200 mm handheld is asking for blur. You did pretty well considering that slow of a shutter with a long lens like that. BTW, that shallow DOF at f/2.8 really shows up in the first image.
I know. It's because the subject was standing pretty close to the minimal focal distance of the lens.

You're not going to get f/4 or f/5.6 results at f/2.8 with any zoom. But those are very usable, particularly considering that you're probably not going to make 20X30 inch prints from them.
You see, the thing that bugs me is that the L version has much better contrast and is way sharper than the sigma. I screwed up the comparison table, if you look at the bottom of the image... the sharper one is the f/2.8 L

http://images1.fotopic.net/?iid=y3p6ev&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Kinda shows what we're missing out on, eh?
:cry: :(

[DocFrankenstein]

From all the images i've seen of the Sigma, I wouldn't say that it's 50% reduction in resolution (i'm sorry, this sounds ubsurd to me) compared to the L equivalent (which I own).
Maybe 30%, but it's there. See the above tripod comparison ^^^

I noticed that you had some viewable noise in those three shots you posted--what ISO were you shooting at?
1) 400
2 and 3 = ISO 100. I was getting exposures close to the 1/4000 max the rebel allows.

and to the original poster
I am pretty sure they are the same guy. ;)
about the L's compared to the 50mm F1.8--so close in quality that I couldn't tell the difference. Where the L's shine is color rendition and contrast.
That's actually strange, at least I find it strange. :?

[nosquare2003]

I don't think that you can judge the lens sharpness by your 3 samples. Mount the lens on a tripod and shoot some static things to see if you like it.