24-70 f2.8 - Sigma vs. Canon

[Inspired Photography]

I know this question has probably been asked before, but my searches didn't find anything... so here goes.

I was going to buy a Canon 24-70 f2.8 L to add to my collection, but i have heard that the Sigma version is not bad also. Considering it is quite a bit cheaper than the Canon, it could save some cash for something else.

Does anyone know how these two lenses stack up against each other? I don't mind paying the extra for the Canon if it is worth it.

Thanks in advance!

Rob

[crazyfoo88]

I am looking at the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 as well right now, wouldnt mind to see the results from this :).

[LightRules]

See my sig for plenty test shots. I've had 2 24-70Ls, 2 24-70EXs, and 2 Tamron 28-75s over a 2 year period. I currently own the newest Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG Macro and a good copy of this lens is fantastic; this is the one I am keeping. It did have to go to Sigma to get a main flexboard replaced as I was having focusing issues with my 20D, but now it's perfect. The 24-70L is the best overall when considering refinement, USM, and low-light AF, but optically the Sigma is as good or better. I could have easily kept my 24-70s. They were good copies, though they both exhibited strong CA wide open, more so than my EXs or Tamrons. The Tamron is a good lens but build and AF speed and external rotating focus ring is not to my liking at all (as well as the 28mm starting point). The Sigma 24-70 is one of the best lenses for the money. It's build is robust, it has extremely fast AF, and IMO is the best alternative to the Canon 24-70L. For my money, this lens is worth every penny and the L isn't worth the difference. As of note, I have used the Sigma 70-200 EX f2.8 for a while but chose to recently go to the 70-200 L IS f2.8 because I think the IS is worth the difference. See my sig.

[ayotnoms]

for a range of opinions and reviews check this link:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

Not sure if you have to register to see the reviews but it's a site well worth getting acquainted with.

Cheers

[Nightcrawler]

I purchased my Sigma 24-70 on Tuesday, now if they would just hurry up and get it to me.

[Tom W]

See my sig for plenty test shots. I've had 2 24-70Ls, 2 24-70EXs, and 2 Tamron 28-75s over a 2 year period. I currently own the newest Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG Macro and a good copy of this lens is fantastic; this is the one I am keeping. It did have to go to Sigma to get a main flexboard replaced as I was having focusing issues with my 20D, but now it's perfect. The 24-70L is the best overall when considering refinement, USM, and low-light AF, but optically the Sigma is as good or better. I could have easily kept my 24-70s. They were good copies, though they both exhibited strong CA wide open, more so than my EXs or Tamrons. The Tamron is a good lens but build and AF speed and external rotating focus ring is not to my liking at all (as well as the 28mm starting point). The Sigma 24-70 is one of the best lenses for the money. It's build is robust, it has extremely fast AF, and IMO is the best alternative to the Canon 24-70L. For my money, this lens is worth every penny and the L isn't worth the difference. As of note, I have used the Sigma 70-200 EX f2.8 for a while but chose to recently go to the 70-200 L IS f2.8 because I think the IS is worth the difference. See my sig.

I thought I was a lens hog! :)

It's nice to see a 24-XX lens that might compete with the 24-70L - I'm also of the opinion that 28 is not a good starting point, at least not on the 1.6X camera. For a walkaround, I used to be torn between going wide with the 17-40 or long with my 28-105. Both were nice-sized for walkaround, but neither had the right range for a one-lens carry setup for touring on foot. Even 24 is not real wide on that sensor format, but it does give some overlap from wide to short tele.

Now on the 1D II, the 24-70L is a perfect range, and its size works well with the 1-series bodies. I don't find myself wanting anything wider most of the time.

I'm a little curious about the CA on your 24-70. It's rare on mine, though the 16-35 can readily produce some at the extreme edges at wider apertures in the 16-20 range. Haven't found an ultra-wide yet that doesn't have corner issues, except for some certain esoteric Zeiss glass that I can't afford.

[tommykjensen]

I had the 24-70 ex f2.8 from Sigma but I was not happy with it so I sold it. Maybe it was just a bad copy. My Canon 24-70 f2.8 has produced much better and sharper photos than I ever got with the Sigma.

[Tom W]

Isn't there a relatively new (within the past year) version of the Sigma 24-70 out? I think that was the one that f-stop JJ used for his comparison. If that's the case, they did a good job of upgrading the lens.

[tommykjensen]

Isn't there a relatively new (within the past year) version of the Sigma 24-70 out? I think that was the one that f-stop JJ used for his comparison. If that's the case, they did a good job of upgrading the lens.


I bought mine in september 2002.

[LightRules]

Tom, they came out with a new version called the "EX DG Macro" (older version was "EX DG DF"). I had the old one too, which is all right. Here's the link and MTF also (all lines wide open):

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3261&navigator=2

Impressive (especially considering this lens is $350). Its AF is noisy (almost like the wasp in the matchbox Canon 35 f2, but it is fast and locks quickly.

As for CA, it's quite evident in most 24-70Ls. At DPR, you'll see plenty posts with images to show for it. My 2 had the same (about as strong as my 18-50 f2.8 EX).

[Tom W]

Tom, they came out with a new version called the "EX DG Macro" (older version was "EX DG DF"). I had the old one too, which is all right. Here's the link and MTF also (all lines wide open):

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3261&navigator=2


Interesting - looks like its full-frame, but tuned to work best with the APS-C sensors. Good move, as that's where most will be sold.

Impressive (especially considering this lens is $350). Its AF is noisy (almost like the wasp in the matchbox Canon 35 f2, but it is fast and locks quickly.

As for CA, it's quite evident in most 24-70Ls. At DPR, you'll see plenty posts with images to show for it. My 2 had the same (about as strong as my 18-50 f2.8 EX).

Don't get me wrong - I can coax a little CA out of most of my lenses, but I've had some that are considerably worse than the 24-70. Seems like the wider one goes, the worse it gets though I even got some sort of fringing from my 135/2 once (wide open). I wonder if there's some lens/sensor interactions that make some lenses more prone to CA on certain cameras than on others. I didn't seem to have any CA problems on my 10D, except from that old 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 lens I had. But I have to admit that my image taking skills weren't quite as good then either, so there were plenty of other photographer-induced problems that I had to deal with. :)

Your testing efforts are appreciated, BTW. I've seen them before.

[wilflee]

I bought the Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG Macro after comparison with the 24-70L. The price difference, here in Canada, is $1000.

For $1000 more, the Canon gives you:
- better weather sealing
- better MF fine adjustments with AF on (the Sigma makes you slide a collar to go into MF mode and with AF engaged, the focus ring is hard to turn)
- silent AF (no HSM in Sigma)
- 77mm thread size (Sigma is 82mm)
- lens barrel does not slide out when zooming
- more solid construction (Sigma feels plasticky)

That said, I cannot see the difference in picture quality between the Sigma & Canon (and this is not on computer monitor but with 8X10 prints). Therefore, I went with Sigma.

The zoom ring was a little stiff to turn when new. But the issue went away after 2 days.

[wilflee]

Just want to add that the 82mm filter size of the Sigma didn't bother me at all. Since the 20D has a 1.6x crop factor, getting a 82mm --> 77mm step down ring meant I didn't have to buy new filters.

[LightRules]

- better MF fine adjustments with AF on (the Sigma makes you slide a collar to go into MF mode and with AF engaged, the focus ring is hard to turn)
- lens barrel does not slide out when zooming
- more solid construction (Sigma feels plasticky)

Actually, the MF ring on the Sigma is nice and wide, so actual MF'ing is better on the EX once you get to MF, which does take an extra step.

The L lens barrel does extend, just like the EX. The L is extended at 24mm. [http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/image/40915659]

The construction of the Sigma is actually very good; it feels completely metal and robust. Sigma EX lenses are not known for any plasticky feel.

[wilflee]

I stand corrected on the extending lens barrel. :)