Canon & Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Test (merged)

[LightRules]

I just put this up at my site:

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2470exl

***Update Below***
Sept 22 2007

Well it's been some 2 years and 3 months since I posted this comparison (from June 2005). The update here is as follows:

*I had used 3 copies of the 2470L up through June of 2005, and the best copy was the one in this June 2005 comparison. The 2470EX DG Macro in the test was my only copy I had but it was calibrated at Sigma NY for front-focusing (obviously came back fine and good).
*Since the comparison, and after having used these 2470 lenses quite a bit, I came to the conviction that the 2470EX was at least as good, if not better, than the L optically. You can see my findings here:
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2470exl
*I eventually sold the 2470EX (reluctantly) to a good man in Missouri (Lincoln Westfall).
*Lincoln recently sent this copy of the 2470EX to Klaus at Photozone for a test (on a APS-C body).
*Here are the results:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_2470_28/index.htm)
*You can see it's a solid performer, to say the least. Consistent with my own findings.
*And here you can compare PZ's findings with the 2470L they have used (count all FOUR of them):
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2470_28/index.htm)
*I think we can fairly conclude at this point that the EX is a complete "steal" of a lens (i.e., a properly functioning one, of course). It lacks the L's refined build and weathersealing and ring USM with FTM and "sexyness" (which is why so many buy the L :lol: ), but at $375, the EX remains a very solid bang for buck standard zoom.
*Note that both my tests and PZ's only consider APS-C bodies, so how these lenses compare at the edges on APS-H or FF is undetermined.

So consider this thread "updated".

[Loaded]

i have the Sigma I was wondering how i can test for front focusing

[lost]

Unfortunately I was not able to view most of the pictures. I have the Sigma and would like to know asside from the USM how they compared.

[lost]

Does any one know if a 67mm filter would do? I could get one for my 70-200 f4L and a step down ring. Hmmmm its a thought.

[Nightcrawler]

I am having problems seeing the pics too.

[LightRules]

It's pbase acting up again. Hopefully they'll have it working soon enough. As for focus testing, just shoot a lot at f2.8 and you'll know soon enough if your copy is fine or not. I should say also that many "focus problems" are user error, especially when working with narrow DOF or shooting against low contrast subjects. But fire off several hundred shots at f2.8 and you should be able to tell how your focusing is.

[OceanView]

Is the Sigma still having problems when using a 20D?
If so, that's a shame.
I would like to have tried it out.
Anyone know for sure?

[LightRules]

It's up now, re-loaded:

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/image/45240719/original

[blue_max]

Let's get one thing clear before I comment. I like Canon lenses.

Now, I agree that in this test the Sigma more than competes with the Canon. In some of your shots it definitely is better (well done on not moving the camera!).

The only thing I would say is that the Sigma had special attention. All lenses are mass produced. Your Sigma was looked at on an individual basis and fine tuned by professionals. One could argue that the Canon may have been more able to compete on a similar basis.

I don't have either lens, but this shows that the Sigma has the quality in the actual glass – the trick seems to be getting the most out of it. That also goes for the Canon.

It's rather sad that it seems to be such a lottery.

Graham

[condyk]

As usual, a great contribution. Very nice test. This is such an important range for many and I am amazed by the results. I had fully expected the Canon L to win, not easily but by a notable margin. The Sigma is better throughout ... it's that simple.

[LightRules]

Graham, your comments are well-taken. It should be noted though that my previous 24-70L actually went to Canon Irvine for calibrating as it was horrendous out of the box; I couldn't get a single shot in focus, it seemed. After I got it back, they replaced the main circuit board, adjusted the front element, and it was quite good. But "quite good" was about equal to this 3rd L I currently have. Regardless, QC is a serious issue today with many makers, and my Sigma did get a hands-on inspection. But again your comments are well-taken.

[blue_max]

Graham, your comments are well-taken. It should be noted though that my previous 24-70L actually went to Canon Irvine for calibrating as it was horrendous out of the box; I couldn't get a single shot in focus, it seemed. After I got it back, they replaced the main circuit board, adjusted the front element, and it was quite good. But "quite good" was about equal to this 3rd L I currently have. Regardless, QC is a serious issue today with many makers, and my Sigma did get a hands-on inspection. But again your comments are well-taken.

And this is the Canon lens that I suggest has a quality control issue – and get slated for perpetuating an urban myth!

The lens IS capable of being fantastic – many say so. It IS horrendously expensive for what it achieves (24-70). I can not imagine spending so much on a lens and finding it so poor. It is no wonder that the likes of Sigma and Tamron have capitalised. It is the focal length that is ideal for a general purpose lens and the battleground has never been hotter. It's great to have such a choice, but I am disappointed to hear, yet again, that this particular Canon lens has not performed. I so want to buy it, but it has to be clearly better than the opposition and it obviously isn't always.

Thanks for posting the test. Just maybe Canon will listen and it will up the quality for everyone.

Graham

[LightRules]

The L costs about $1200 and the EX costs $365. If it were simply optics, either the L is overpriced or the EX is way underpriced. But the $800+ difference is going to be in overall build refinement, weathersealing (rubber O-ring), and the excellent USM. For some this is worth it, for others it isn't at all. In terms of AF speed they are actually very close, except that the EX makes noise while the L is ninja silent. I don't like the L's hood as it feels flimsy and is too bulky; IMO a solid, flower-petal one like the EX is both smaller and will provide plenty flare protection.

There's no doubt that the L is still "the standard" of this zoom range. But IMO it isn't for its optics; it's for the other areas of build and refinement. The new Sigma is definitely a serious contender for those looking for a "bang for buck" lens. Optically, it's arguably second to none in this focal range.

[Tom W]

Nice test, fstop. I think that in terms of sharpness, the Sigma has a slight edge at 70, but it seems that the Canon holds the corners better at 24 mm. They are very close, though. The Sigma seems to have a little bit more fringing at 70/2.8, but not much. By f/5.6, they're both very good.

I think that the Canon exhibits a little bit more contrast, but this is hard to discern since even 1/10 of a stop of difference inexposure can give that appearance. And I'm not sure if more is better or not. Both are really looking good.

Good bokeh on both lenses - I don't seem to find the telltale Sigma color cast that I've seen in the past, though a complete, uncropped image with known colors would help there (of course, post-processing can usually take care of minor casts anyway).

Given that I like having 24 mm available, the Sigma would make a good alternative, if I didn't have a really nice Canon 24-70 in my possession already.

[Tom W]

In regards to the hood, JoJo, does the front element extend within the shroud of the hood on the Sigma, or is the hood attached to the front of the lens? Curious as I like that part of the Canon design where the angle of lens exposure changes with the focal length to provide deeper hood coverate at 70 mm while allowing wider views at 24 mm.

Also, is this Sigma a full-frame 35 mm lens?

[LightRules]

Tom, you are absolutely right that the Sigma has more CA at 70mm wide open. When you put a TC on, it's even worse (as expected), though I don't know anyone in their right mind using a TC on this zoom range. That said, the Sigma is generally sharper. Good observations.

[LightRules]

In regards to the hood, JoJo, does the front element extend within the shroud of the hood on the Sigma, or is the hood attached to the front of the lens? Curious as I like that part of the Canon design where the angle of lens exposure changes with the focal length to provide deeper hood coverate at 70 mm while allowing wider views at 24 mm.

Also, is this Sigma a full-frame 35 mm lens?

Tom, see my site as I've posted more images of the 2. That might answer your Q. But if I'm understanding you right, on the EX the hood is attached to the front of the lens, whereas on the Canon it doesn't. Hence, the hood moves with the EX but not with the L as you zoom. Both are extended at 24mm; they just go in opposite directions. Both are retracted at 70mm. And yes, the Sigma is FF compatible. It is a DG lens, not a DC (which is for APS-C cameras). Hope this helps.

[jeffherald]

Thank you for posting this information. I have been using the Sigma 24-70EX for a few years now and I have always wondered how it stacks up to the Canon. My belief has always been that the Canon is probably better, but not $800 better. It's nice to have that confirmed. For those of us who can't afford to spend "L" glass prices for our hobby, it's nice to know there are good quality 3rd party lenses in our price range.

Thanks again!

[Tom W]

Tom, see my site as I've posted more images of the 2. That might answer your Q. But if I'm understanding you right, on the EX the hood is attached to the front of the lens, whereas on the Canon it doesn't. Hence, the hood moves with the EX but not with the L as you zoom. Both are extended at 24mm; they just go in opposite directions. Both are retracted at 70mm. And yes, the Sigma is FF compatible. It is a DG lens, not a DC (which is for APS-C cameras). Hope this helps.

Thanks, JoJo. Interesting that Sigma would design the zoom "backwards" where 24 is longer than 70. I thought Canon did that solely to accomodate the variable hood coverage that the 24-70 offers, but if the hood attached to the front of the Sigma, that feature isn't presented.

Perhaps there's an optical advantage to this design for this focal length range.

[BtBam]

This has made me smile as i purchased the sigma 24-70 2 days ago :) My first lens and so far, im 110% satisfied!

[Nezmo]

I just had the same reaction as BtBam. I got my Sigma about a week ago after extensive research. Thanks for the information.

[Nightcrawler]

I will be getting mine on Monday. I hope mine is as good as fStopJojo's.

[lost]

Now that Pbase is fixed I get to dance up and down. I am glad that you have done this. I decided to go with the new sigma for the additional 4mm of coverage. That will get me really close to the 22mm of the 10-22mm that is on my list next.

I feel I must add a couple complaints so far. The filter is 82mm and damn expensive. I dislike having to swith the AF button and move the MF ring to engage Manual Focus. Why couldn't the switch be incorporated into the Focus Ring when you move it. If that makes any sense.

[LightRules]

Forget filters, just keep the hood on. As for the AF/MF, for some it's an issue for others it really isn't. Practically, I can switch to MF in 1 second. The focus ring is large and grippy and is really nice when you're actually manually focusing. You get really used to it quickly, IMO. Nonetheless, your point is well taken and what they really need to do is put HSM in it, which also means FTM; now that would be something else.

[uncle chris]

has anyone tested this sigma 24-70 lens in dimly lit situations, such as wedding receptions and the like? i am curious as to how the AF works under these conditions, if it locks quick or spends too much time "searching" for a focus lock.

[LightRules]

has anyone tested this sigma 24-70 lens in dimly lit situations, such as wedding receptions and the like? i am curious as to how the AF works under these conditions, if it locks quick or spends too much time "searching" for a focus lock.

I've used several copies of each of the following: 24-70L, 24-70EX, and 28-75Di. In terms of low light AF, they rank in that same order too. The L AF's the best in low light, and it also is the quietest (wedding ceremony, etc). The EX locks focus next best but does so with the most noise. The Di tends to hunt the most but without as much noise as the EX. In terms of AF speed per se, the L and EX are actually very close.

If I were doing weddings on a regular basis, I'd be using the 24-70L hands down.

[Dan GSR]

very interesting, as im in the market for a 24-70

anyone try both the canon and sigma on a 350 D ?

[condyk]

The Sigma and Canon are both hefty lenses, from memory I think something like 710g and 950g respectively. I'm not sure how this would impact on handling with such a small body as the 350. The Tamron 28-75 is much lighter at around 450g and smaller. On my 300D the Sigma has great balance and is a joy to use: I prefer it to the Tamron despite the weight, but I dunno if I'd fancy it as much on a 350 for extended shooting. I'd suggest trying one or the other to see if handling is Ok for you. Some people like the 350 size and others find it too small and uncomfortable to hold. The Tamron might just be a better match, but it would be personal preference.

[2112]

Alright. I am looking for a good, fast 24-70 lens and I see both Sigma and Canon make nice 2.8s There seem to be two different versions, at least for the Sigma. One is a EX DG Macro and one is a Standard Telephoto Zoom Lens but both are 2.8 and 24-70. SO my question is, which version do I want for portraits and modeling photographs? The Macro or the Zoom? Thanks.

[martook]

I think the Sigma would work fine if you get the BG-E3 batterygrip and E-1 handstrap, which makes a big difference in handling the camera. My 70-300 is the same weight, and it feels just fine, but I don't think I'd like it without the battery grip.

[condyk]

The EX DG Macro is the latest version and it is a standard zoom lens and not a Macro. There are a number of similar f2.8 models at this range from Sigma but all are older. The Macro designation is pure 'marketing', not a true 1:1 Macro, tho' it does good close up shots. Highly recommended. I love mine. So, just make sure you get the EX DG Macro.

The Canon can be a great choice as well and many love it, but is much more expensive and for me personally the value just isn't there in image quality at more than 3 x the price. It would probably depend on whether you wanted weather sealing and the USM motor and a Canon and thought it was worth the extra £600 (in the UK). The AF speed of the Canon and the Sigma are similar, but the Sigma is noisier as it doesn't have the Sigma HSM motor. The Canon is pretty much silent. Again, decide if this is significant to you.

Look at the Tamron 28-75 too. It's a fine lens that I had before getting the Sigma and is lighter to carry around. On that, remember too that the Canon and SIgma are quite weighty at around 950g and 710g and so adding the battery grip on the small 350 would improve handling if you do lots of hand held shooting. On a tripod it doesn't matter.

[davidfig]

There's no doubt that the L is still "the standard" of this zoom range. But IMO it isn't for its optics; it's for the other areas of build and refinement. The new Sigma is definitely a serious contender for those looking for a "bang for buck" lens. Optically, it's arguably second to none in this focal range.

Now this begs the question. If I plan to keep this for many years, would that change the outcome? Would you be more likely to get the Canon?

I quess when computers started grinding glass, the playing field was leveled.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

They are both zooms 2112. I beleive that one is a f/2.8 and the other is f/3.5-5.6

I would say the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 is EX DG Macro is the better of the two because of the faster lens. Also, numerous tests indicate that the Sigma lens performs equally and a little bit better than the canon L version. it depends on you, want to spend about 1300$ on ro 400$?

[EOSAddict]

Depending on what you want in terms of reach vs weight there are also Sigma 24-60 and 28-70 f.8 EX zooms although I don't know how they compare optically to the 24-70. The 24-60 ceraimnly holds well (had one ona 20D in a camera shop on Sat ... )

[xuxu1]

You might want to also have a look at the Canon 24-70L with ring USM. Extremly fast AF, great sharpness and superb color as others have mentioned. Though the price is significant higher. Well... somebody said a while ago... You get what you pay for. Seems he´s right.

ED

[xuxu1]

Now this begs the question. If I plan to keep this for many years, would that change the outcome? Would you be more likely to get the Canon?
I would. Because i´m sure that after many years i would have (a) new camera body(s). I would´nt want to go through the hazzle of rechipping lenses (if possible).

ED

[condyk]

Also, numerous tests indicate that the Sigma lens performs equally and a little bit better than the canon L version. it depends on you, want to spend about 1300$ on ro 400$?

Not sure numerous tests say that ;) The significant test was the fstopjojo one recently which overall showed for me that the Sigma was a better all round optical performer under carefully controlled testing conditions, but the Canon did very well.

I think to be fair, the choice is really around build preferences/priorities, the silent USM motor and whether someone feels more comfortable with a Canon product or not, rather than optical performance, as they are close on that. The Sigma is extremely well built of course, above criticism really, but the Canon L's are really exceptional in many ways and it's about balancing one's priorities.

[condyk]

I would. Because i´m sure that after many years i would have (a) new camera body(s). I would´nt want to go through the hazzle of rechipping lenses (if possible).

I think that is fair comment and I would add, from my perspective, that even if this Sigma lens no longer worked with any future body you could probably upgrade it three times before you lost any money. In fact, in this very specific and unusual case, where the excellent Canon L is so much more expensive than the competition, having the money left to upgrade over the years as lenses improve still further, may be an advantage. Certainly, if the Canon mount was ever changed then you would be in a much better position (hopefully, that doesn't happen any time soon!!) For lenses that are closer in price then I think ED's argument has more weight for many people.

[2112]

Thanks for the quick replies everyone, this helps alot.

[Rob612]

The EX DG Macro is the latest version and it is a standard zoom lens and not a Macro. There are a number of similar f2.8 models at this range from Sigma but all are older. The Macro designation is pure 'marketing', not a true 1:1 Macro, tho' it does good close up shots. Highly recommended. I love mine. So, just make sure you get the EX DG Macro.

The Canon can be a great choice as well and many love it, but is much more expensive and for me personally the value just isn't there in image quality at more than 3 x the price. It would probably depend on whether you wanted weather sealing and the USM motor and a Canon and thought it was worth the extra £600 (in the UK). The AF speed of the Canon and the Sigma are similar, but the Sigma is noisier as it doesn't have the Sigma HSM motor. The Canon is pretty much silent. Again, decide if this is significant to you.

I'll fully second Condyk. I have the same (EX DG Macro) and is absolutely excellent. I have not made any direct comparison with the Canon 24-70L (that is also here in Italy a 3x the price of the Sigma) but I'm pretty happy with it. Excellent quality, well built, comes with hood and pouch, never had a problem.

[weasel]

You didn't say anything about budget. If you can afford (or wish to afford) the Canon 24-70L then by all means go that way. I have this lens and can say it's a great piece of glass. Not only is it superior to the 3rd party lenses opticly but build wise as well. With the Canon lens one dosen't have to think "does the ring turn this way or that"? One dosen't have to be concerned if the lens will fit the next DSLR canon brings down the pike without "rechipping" (if it can, indeed, be rechipped). If one is limited by what one can spend then 3rd party may have a place in their consideration.

[martook]

You didn't say anything about budget. If you can afford (or wish to afford) the Canon 24-70L then by all means go that way. I have this lens and can say it's a great piece of glass. Not only is it superior to the 3rd party lenses opticly but build wise as well. With the Canon lens one dosen't have to think "does the ring turn this way or that"? One dosen't have to be concerned if the lens will fit the next DSLR canon brings down the pike without "rechipping" (if it can, indeed, be rechipped). If one is limited by what one can spend then 3rd party may have a place in their consideration.

I have the Tamron 28-75, and sure, I'd love to have the 24-70 L, because of the USM/FTM... but to me it just isn't worth the extra money.
You claim that the Canon is superior compared to the Sigma and Tamron... do you have any link to a good comparison between the lenses? Of the ones I've seen, none claim that the Canon is superior.
It doesn't really matter if it fits the next version or not, since you can buy three Sigma/Tamron lenses for the same price as one Canon, so it will last you a looooong time anyway. Just buy a new one when (if) the new body doesn't work. No rechipping needed.

I do agree that if you are a professional photog, the extra cash on the Canon is worth it, but otherwise... well, then it's up to you to try them and see which one you like most...

[weasel]

You claim that the Canon is superior compared to the Sigma and Tamron... do you have any link to a good comparison between the lenses?


2112 asked for opinions, I gave 2112 what he/she requested, my opinion. I have long since given up with the Canon vs. Tamron or Vivitar or Phonix or Sigma stuff. It's just ongoing and I no longer get into it with those that claim their 3rd party lens is just as good or even better than Canon, Nikon, et.

[condyk]

Weasal ... would be great to see a really nice shot from the Canon 24-70. As you are happy with your copy could you post one as it would help give a basis for comparison. I have seen many shots from it but yet to be convinced, unlike many other L's that I really like. I try to judge a lens by the finest shot I find from it, as at least it gives something to aspire to should I buy it. Do you have any good shots? A picture saves a thousand words, as someone once said.

[AjP]

I know this subject was probably brought before, here the situation, I'm shooting/ started to shoot weddings and planning to buy several L's

16-35 2.8L
24-70 2.8L
70-200 2.8L IS

but all 3 will be so expesive so that major question right now,

is to buy Canon 24-70 2.8L or Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG?????

Please edvice
definately gonna buy 16-35 and 70-200 Canon made

[davidfig]

First of all "fstopjojo" thanks for the comparison. I have been studing lens, partly through your site, and after looking at the Canon Vs Sigma shots here; I think the Canon looks better. They look real close except for one thing. The Canon out of focus parts of the pictures seem to have a smoother/creamier look (outdoor plant picture). My question is. . . am I looking for the wrong thing? Am I seeing things?

[martook]

condyk: yeah, I agree... the Canon 24-70 has to be one of few L-lenses that I don't go "oh wow, that is one amazing lens!" when I see pictures from it. It's not like it's bad in any way, the pictures are very good, but you can't help it, compared to 70-200, 16-35 and many others, at least the shots I've seen have not been as impressive.

I'm not sure how the Sigma and Tamron alternatives performs on full frame though, maybe here the much higher price on the Canon L is more justified.

[weasel]

Weasal ... would be great to see a really nice shot from the Canon 24-70. As you are happy with your copy could you post one as it would help give a basis for comparison. I have seen many shots from it but yet to be convinced, unlike many other L's that I really like. I try to judge a lens by the finest shot I find from it, as at least it gives something to aspire to should I buy it. Do you have any good shots? A picture saves a thousand words, as someone once said.

I have seen your ways on another thread where you teased, made lies about and then tried to cover up your actions. I sure won't get into with you. See, you even spelled my name wrong, I know, I know, the keys on your laptop are too close togeather.

[condyk]

AJP, You know the arguments and have probably seen the fstopjojo test.

The one thing I would say against the Sigma V's the Canon is the Sigma AF is noisy in comparison and that may just make a difference in a quiet church setting when you are first focusing on a subject. It doesn't bother me and I don't notice it, but I don't dshoot in a quiet church normally.Any minor deviations in finding focus are quiet. AF is otherwise very fast and to me seems highly accurate, so no worries there. My test shots have shown some impressive results and I am keen to find time to try real subjects!! It is a better lens than I thought and I had high expectations.

There are enough people who like the L to know it is probably a safe buy: it's just about value and only you can judge that.

[martook]

2112 asked for opinions, I gave 2112 what he/she requested, my opinion. I have long since given up with the Canon vs. Tamron or Vivitar or Phonix or Sigma stuff. It's just ongoing and I no longer get into it with those that claim their 3rd party lens is just as good or even better than Canon, Nikon, et.

Haha, yeah, I really don't want to get into a brand war either, I was actually serious with my question :)
It's your opinion that the Canon is superior, I just wanted to know what you base this opinion on... if it is by trying the other lenses yourself or if you have read direct comparisons between them that proves that that is the case? The reviews I've seen show that the Canon usually has the edge, but I wouldn't call it superior, as that implies a huge difference that at least I can't see.

I'm happy with my Tamron, and I don't claim that it's better then the Canon in any way... but I think it performs very well for what it cost me. I would love to have USM though, because I really don't like not being able to manually override the AF.

Anyway, if I had lots and lots of money, I would get the Canon lens. As it is now, I prefer to get a very good lens for less money, because then I can afford the Canon 70-200 f4 as well.

[AjP]

Thx a lot, it is hardest decision which one to buy, Canon is Canon... just wish they will low their price JUST a little bit :) oh well, I probably need to borow Sigma from my friend and play with it, since I already played with Canon L's, at least this way I'll figure out which one is more suitable for my situation.

[weasel]

Haha, yeah, I really don't want to get into a brand war either,...I'm happy with my Tamron, and I don't claim that it's better then the Canon in any way... but I think it performs very well for what it cost me. I would love to have USM though, because I really don't like not being able to manually override the AF.

Anyway, if I had lots and lots of money, I would get the Canon lens. As it is now, I prefer to get a very good lens for less money, because then I can afford the Canon 70-200 f4 as well.

Enjoy your lens, you have good reason to like it for you and that's the way it should be. Sorry, but as far as posting pictures, tests, et. go I refer you to this thread and what happened to csnudelman as why I don't get into it.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=85590

[CyberDyneSystems]

Merged:

Three threads.. all on first page with same debate over same two lenses..
Folks.. please take the time to read the current active threads in the forum you are posting.

If you have a question about The Canon & Sigma 24-70 f2.8, and there is a thread with the title "Canon & Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Test" on page one.. well... ;)

[LightRules]

I know this subject was probably brought before, here the situation, I'm shooting/ started to shoot weddings and planning to buy several L's

16-35 2.8L
24-70 2.8L
70-200 2.8L IS

but all 3 will be so expesive so that major question right now,

is to buy Canon 24-70 2.8L or Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG?????

Please edvice
definately gonna buy 16-35 and 70-200 Canon made
--------------------------------
IMO, if you're going to be shooting weddings professionally, and you will have the 16-35 and 70-200 Canons, if you can afford the 24-70L I would go that way. The MAIN reason is for its ring USM. The Sigma has a noisy AF and it "could" be distracting for certain shots. Otherwise, the Sigma is an excellent choice. Best wishes to you.

[condyk]

AJP ... one thought is to get the cheaper lens and use it to earn some money over a few weddings and then get the Canon L if you still want it. Cash flow is always an issue in any business so spending a lot up front isn't always prudent.

I have seen your ways on another thread where you teased, made lies about and then tried to cover up your actions. I sure won't get into with you. See, you even spelled my name wrong, I know, I know, the keys on your laptop are too close togeather.

If you are 'csnudelman' returned under another name well I know you have a view about me and that's fine. If not, sorry for the typo Weasel and best of luck with your Canon lenses and associated equipment.

[Dan GSR]

The Sigma and Canon are both hefty lenses, from memory I think something like 710g and 950g respectively. I'm not sure how this would impact on handling with such a small body as the 350. The Tamron 28-75 is much lighter at around 450g and smaller. On my 300D the Sigma has great balance and is a joy to use: I prefer it to the Tamron despite the weight, but I dunno if I'd fancy it as much on a 350 for extended shooting. I'd suggest trying one or the other to see if handling is Ok for you. Some people like the 350 size and others find it too small and uncomfortable to hold. The Tamron might just be a better match, but it would be personal preference.


the weight isn't really an issue for me
I use my 70-200 2.8 L without a problem

I was just wondering if these lense had any issues with the 350D body, like how some are not working well with the 20D

[condyk]

I haven't seen any posts about this ... I believe an earlier model Sigma had an issue with the 20D and use of an aspect of external flash but that was sorted. I also know there was an issue with Canon 70-200 IS motors not working consistently well with 20D's. Which other models where you thinking of?

I wouldn't worry myself. If you are then do a search here, on Google and at fredmiranda.com and I'm sure you will find something if there is anything to find. If you find anything factual then post it here as it would no doubt help others.

[DxHatchback]

thanks for the excellent post and comparison

i had been putting off getting the sigma 24-70 2.8 but its defiently on my list

[blinking8s]

how good is the sigma's focus? as far as speed in mid-light...such as a basketball stadium shooting from the ambient?

ive shot the canon and it was pretty good, just like the 70-200 2.8 but not near as accurate, it was sorta quarky from time to time for me, I just wasnt an overall fan of it, much like my 70-200 f4, its a awesome lens but it tends to act up now and then and give me a large range of just off focus shots.

[RikWriter]

Depending on what you want in terms of reach vs weight there are also Sigma 24-60 and 28-70 f.8 EX zooms although I don't know how they compare optically to the 24-70. The 24-60 ceraimnly holds well (had one ona 20D in a camera shop on Sat ... )


I owned a 24-60 for a while and it's a very very sharp little lens. I liked it a lot and would have kept it, but I had a chance to trade it towards a Canon 17-40L. I now have the Sigma 24-70 (got it on a trade for a point and shoot digital camera) and it's just as nice optically, but I miss the lighter weight of the 24-60.

[Raj]

Following Jojo's test & advise from few forum members, I changed my order to Sigma at the last minute. L is L no doubt abt it, however sigma seems to be very close too. So I decided to save some bucks which I can spend on getting a good flash & some portable storage. From whatever i could test till now, sigma perfomed well indoors too. AF is noisy indeed but its not an issue for me.
BTW sigma is EX too & build quality is excellent.
I am happy with my purchase :-)

[Manuel]

I know this subject was probably brought before, here the situation, I'm shooting/ started to shoot weddings and planning to buy several L's

16-35 2.8L
24-70 2.8L
70-200 2.8L IS

but all 3 will be so expesive so that major question right now,

is to buy Canon 24-70 2.8L or Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG?????

Please edvice
definately gonna buy 16-35 and 70-200 Canon made


I am in the same situation as you are.
Today I went to the store, and try two 24-70 sigmas, one 28-70 tamron, and just by curiosity the Canon 24-70L

I just downloaded the pictures to my iMac, and... my God! the Canon quality is AWESOME, after those results I guess I will definitelly go for the Canon. If I were to buy the Sigma/Tamron, I will be always be complaining and regreting that I did not get the Canon...

my 2 cents

[cfcRebel]

Following Jojo's test & advise from few forum members, I changed my order to Sigma at the last minute. ....I am happy with my purchase :-)Hey Raj, congrats on your new lens! Looking forward for some pictures taken with the new lens. :)

[LightRules]

Well it's been some 2 years and 3 months since I posted this comparison (from June 2005). The update here is as follows:

*I had used 3 copies of the 2470L up through June of 2005, and the best copy was the one in this June 2005 comparison. The 2470EX DG Macro in the test was my only copy I had but it was calibrated at Sigma NY for front-focusing (obviously came back fine and good).
*Since the comparison, and after having used these 2470 lenses quite a bit, I came to the conviction that the 2470EX was at least as good, if not better, than the L optically. You can see my findings here:
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2470exl
*I eventually sold the 2470EX (reluctantly) to a good man in Missouri (Lincoln Westfall).
*Lincoln recently sent this copy of the 2470EX to Klaus at Photozone for a test (on a APS-C body).
*Here are the results:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm
*You can see it's a solid performer, to say the least. Consistent with my own findings.
*And here you can compare PZ's findings with the 2470L they have used (count all FOUR of them):
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm
*I think we can fairly conclude at this point that the EX is a complete "steal" of a lens (i.e., a properly functioning one, of course). It lacks the L's refined build and weathersealing and ring USM with FTM and "sexyness" (which is why so many buy the L :) ), but at $375, the EX remains a very solid bang for buck standard zoom.
*Note that both my tests and PZ's only consider APS-C bodies, so how these lenses compare at the edges on APS-H or FF is undetermined.

So consider this thread "updated".

[angryhampster]

thanks for the update Jojo :) I whole-heartedly agree.

Do you know if there's a performance difference in the older model version the newer, "macro" model? I've got the older one and it seems to exhibit a bit more barrel distortion on the wide end than the PZ test showed.

[LightRules]

thanks for the update Jojo :) I whole-heartedly agree.

Do you know if there's a performance difference in the older model version the newer, "macro" model? I've got the older one and it seems to exhibit a bit more barrel distortion on the wide end than the PZ test showed.

I used to have the older non-DG version. Way back :D Anyway, I don't recall noticing a whole lot of difference in BD performance between the two versions. But the newer version is IMO "better", especially with wide open sharpness and overall contrast. That said, the older version is no slouch.

[angryhampster]

Definitely no slouch :) Thanks for the info.

[condyk]

Well it's been some 2 years and 3 months since I posted this comparison (from June 2005).

:lol::lol: Good update ... I remember all the many arguments well. I also remember how difficult it was to get any shots from the L advocates that actually showed how good they said it was. All talk and no shooting it seemed to me :p However, finally, it seemed folks accepted the L wasn't necessarily a clear leader in IQ but was still a very decent choice for all the reasons you give above.

[argyle]

Personally, I'd sacrifice a few things, save some bucks, and get the Canon. Many advantages over the Sigma: USM, overall quality, full time manual focusing, and no zoom creep. Another plus is the 77mm filter size...same as my 17-40L, 24-105L, and the EFS 10-22 (which are my main lenses), and the 100-400L. No need to carry odd-ball sized filters, step rings, or the like, which would just add to weight of whatever I'm hiking with at the time.

To cover that range, right now I have a Tamron 28-75. While it takes sharp pictures, it just plain feels flimsy and cheap, bad zoom creep (unless I keep the zoom locked when not shooting), and is very noisy when focusing. Sometimes paying extra is worth not having to endure with the inconveniences.

[JohnAng]

i just sold my sigma 24-70 2.8 and replaced it with a canon 24-70L
i used the sigma on m 400D and used it on my new 40D. The canon wasn't used on the 400D but used on my 40D
for me (maybe my sigma copy wasn't the best) the canon wins hands down. Even if the pq was on par i am still happy i went with the canon now.
low light focuses alot faster, that silent USM is to die for, full time manual focusing is also awsome and the build quality is supurb.
Also the zooming ring is so much smoother on the canon, with the sigma it got a little tight in some spot, this did losen up a little with a fair bit of use.
I say if you can afford the canon, definately get one, but yes the sigma is a hell of a lot cheaper, just wondering how it would go after a few years of use though.

[LightRules]

:lol::lol: Good update ... I remember all the many arguments well. I also remember how difficult it was to get any shots from the L advocates that actually showed how good they said it was. All talk and no shooting it seemed to me :p However, finally, it seemed folks accepted the L wasn't necessarily a clear leader in IQ but was still a very decent choice for all the reasons you give above.

Brilliant, Davey :D And this is exactly why you are absolutely sui generis. There's none like you.

Another plus is the 77mm filter size...same as my 17-40L, 24-105L, and the EFS 10-22 (which are my main lenses), and the 100-400L

Point well-taken.

i just sold my sigma 24-70 2.8 and replaced it with a canon 24-70L
i used the sigma on m 400D and used it on my new 40D. The canon wasn't used on the 400D but used on my 40D
for me (maybe my sigma copy wasn't the best) the canon wins hands down. Even if the pq was on par i am still happy i went with the canon now.
low light focuses alot faster, that silent USM is to die for, full time manual focusing is also awsome and the build quality is supurb.
Also the zooming ring is so much smoother on the canon, with the sigma it got a little tight in some spot, this did losen up a little with a fair bit of use.
I say if you can afford the canon, definately get one, but yes the sigma is a hell of a lot cheaper, just wondering how it would go after a few years of use though.

You point out precisely the strengths of the Canon. I don't think it's an IQ issue here. You're paying for "other stuff". And those things are meaningful.

[lwestfall]

Yes, the 24-70/2.8 EX really is sharp (at least my copy)! Here's a graph I made that shows how it compares to all the other f/2.8 zooms Photozone has tested on the Canon mount: http://www.pbase.com/lwestfall/image/86219299/original

No worries about the 82mm thread size - I added a cheapo thin aluminum 82-77mm adapter to the front and now it takes all the filters and caps I use on my other main lenses! And this doesn't cause ANY vignetting on a 20D and I assume a 1D (probably a bit on full-frame @24mm though).

I find the AF fast, accurate, and not very loud. I hardly use MF. (BTW, I have now cleaned the dust off the focus ring rubber that was embarrassingly there in the Photozone review pics.)

I really can't seem to find any zoom creep per se in it. The zoom ring does move more easily at the long end than the wide end, though. The Canon is smoother throughout. (BTW, I actually prefer how the Canon hood attaches behind the extending front segment, since that means it has an effective variable hood length that is proper at both 24mm & 70mm.)

Yes the 24-70EX is built like a tank - I've taken thousands of photos with it over the last couple years and it has held up fantastically.

So I think the only real advantages of the much more expensive 24-70L are the weather-sealing, smoother zoom ring, quieter & faster AF, and more clever hood design.

Only problem is, I've been trying the (unfortunately much more expensive but only slightly sharper) 17-55IS lately and may not be able to give up the IS now. So if anyone wants this tried & true (& famous) sharp copy of the 24-70/2.8EX, let me know and I may give it up for a premium. :)

Cheers,
Lincoln :)

[lwestfall]

And here it is for sale:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=384378

[jj_photography]

Hi

I would prefer the canon 24-70 because it is a L lens which is a luxury lens and it has an l glass which is quite good.

Cheers

[lwestfall]

Hi

I would prefer the canon 24-70 because it is a L lens which is a luxury lens and it has an l glass which is quite good.

Cheers

L-coholic, eh? ;)

[jj_photography]

yah hehehehe

;)

[GMCPhotographics]

I bought a Siggi 24-70/2.8 EX macro on ebay for UKP £150...which was an absolute steal and S/H puts another spin on all this. Mine copy is in line with Lightrules findings.
I spent a truck load of cash on a number of L primes (400/5.6, 135L, 85L, 17-40L) and ran out of cash. This lens fills a nice gap in my range.

For the money, this lens is a stunner. But the lens hood is pants...completely useless. Its smaller than the hood on my 17-40L. It also suffers from flare more than I'd hoped. But IQ wise it's sharp and contrasty.