Sigma vs Canon

[the7ferret]

How does the sigma 24-70 2.8 DX lens compare to the Canon 24-70 2.8L?
Are they similar?
Ovibisously the price points are much different.

What about the sigma 70-200 2.8

Im thinking about those lens causei dont have the $$ for canon l glass. Unless someone wants to donate them to a poor student...:p

gotta try right?:lol:

[Mike Panic]

to answer your question bluntly - no, the sigma does not compare to the canon on either part

sure - for the price savings they perform well, but they are not L glass and do not have IS as an option in the 70-200 f/2.8L

[Headcase650]

If your just a hobbiest and dont want to drop thousands of dollard on all "L" glass then some of the 3rd party lenses are for you.

I dont have any experiance with the sigma 24-70 f2.8 so I cant mention anything about it.

I have used the sigma 70-200 f2.8 and it is a great lens, sure its not a tank or painted white but it is pretty damn close and for nearly half the price of the canon Id say you couldnt go wrong. Abes of Main has them for less than $700

I also have a tamron 28-75 f2.8 and I realy like this one also and with current rebates its bearly above $300.

[pcasciola]

It depends how you define compare. To say they do not compare at all is a bit extreme, unless you define compare and being the exact same quality. A large majority of people cannot tell which is which in comparison photos in many cases, like on this thread:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22421&postdays=0&postorder=asc&st art=0

If you have to look that hard, that means they do compare. Maybe not equal, but close enough to justify the cost savings for most hobbyists and semi-pros. In general I think you get what you pay for, but early on in the price curve the quality goes way up for not much more money ($200-300), and then you get to the point where you have to pay $500-1000 more get marginal improvements, mainly noticeable at the wide open apertures and the limits of the zoom range, which may not be important to everyone.

I also feel the Tamron 28-75 Xr Di compares favorably to the Canon 24-70L. I'm very satisfied with the picture quality, smaller size, lighter weight, and never find myself wishing I had something better. I'm also extremely happy about having saved $800 to put toward other lenses I need.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Actually considering price,. some lenses do compare quite well in my opinion ;)

I'd take phil's Advice and look to the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 over the Sigma in this case,. but pair that up with Sigma's excellent 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM and you will have a great pair of lenses at less than the cost of either one of the Canon equivelents.

[22littlereasons]

I have the sigma 70-200 f2.8 and the tamron 28-75 f2.8. Both lenses I purchased following the many debates about these lenses in this forum between Canon glass and the rest. I went ahead and purchased them as a measure to save $$$.

The tamron pretty good, but it has a slow AF - especially in lower lighting conditions. It's kinda light and feels kinda cheap... plastic like. But it works pretty well - and I'm happy with it for now.

The sigma by far is my favourite. Speedy AF and it feels well built, no plastic.

Both lenses have done well by me. They've given me an opportunity to learn photography again and take some pretty good shots. If you're just starting out... I think they're a good combo for the money.

I eventually will get Canon glass... but meanwhile, I'm making some dough selling prints with the non Canon glass and having lots of fun.

[pcasciola]

The sigma by far is my favourite. Speedy AF and it feels well built, no plastic.I am looking at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 now too. I was thinking about getting the 70-200 f/4L to hold me over until I can spring for the 2.8L IS, but when I realized I could get the Sigma for about $150 more than the f/4L I thought that would be a better way to go.

Any one else have any idea how the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 compares to the Canon 70-200 f/4L? If I can get the same or better f/4 performance out of the Sigma, the extra stop will just be a bonus even if it does soften up a little at f/2.8.

[ron chappel]

If y'all want an optical comparison,here's a VERY well done test of the telezooms-
http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56.html

[Harry Settle]

I recently purchased the Sigma 24-70 2.8 DX and I love it. My next purchase will be for the Sigma 70-200 2.8

[shopout]

I have sold Sigma lenses. By no means accept this as a critique. Sigma has a larger profit margin for the retailer and the salesman [if on commission], than Canon and NIkon etc. Canon and Nikon reps badmouthed Sigma, but I think that Sigma products are a good value.

However, if you buy from a salesman who bases his opinion on "Spiff magazine reviews" [inside jargon for profitable item], as all of the other salesman that I shared the floor with did, you might not get a honest sales pitch. They will pitch you on Sigma or Quantaray etc.

I routinely got in trouble for being "too honest".

[cactusclay]

Looking at those tests, I'd say the Canon's were even better than they gave them credit for. After looking at the difference, I would have a hard time buying the sigma. Just my opiniion.

[tim]

Looking at those tests I have to wonder if they got a sub-standard Sigma lens. I'm in the market for one of these some time in the next 6 months, so this is interesting.

70mm: At F2.8 it's horrible, though it looks a little like camera shake. At F4 the 70-200F4 looks better than either of the F2.8 lenses stopped down. It's only at F8 that I like the look of the sigma.

200mm: The sigma is almost as good as the Canon at F2.8 and F4, and the 70-200F4 lens doesn't look as good to me, though there's not much in it. The 75-300 lens looks suprisingly good too.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The test is extensive and well done,. But I'm thinking like Tim,. though I shot mostly at 200mm with my 70-200mm f/2.8 EX Sigma,. (where the test says the Sigma is pretty much the equal of the Canon) I did use it at wider settings and my copy did not show such a drastic drop in performance at 70mm f/2.8.

[LouDawg]

I own a Canon 24-70 f/2.8. Beautiful lens--it is really a joy to shoot with. The Sigma equivalent is definitely NOT an equivalent from quality perspective, both optically and physically. The Sigma looks and feels cheap, from the actual build material to the clumsy MF to the external focus (vs internal on the Canon). Optically the Sigma is not terrible, but not up to par with the Canon (I realize this is very subjective, but take a look at some of the test that have been done on this forum and elsewhere. I don't have a link handy.) The same applies to the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 but having shot with both the Canon and Sigma 70-200s, I can say the gap is somewhat lesser between the latter than the 24-70 range lenses.