Sigma v Canon 24-70

Which one should I buy. Money not a problem up to £1k. I have a nasty feeling that if I go for a Sigma 24-70 I will regret not buying the Canon 24-70. The Canon lens that I own do seem to be a lot sharper than Sigma. Please forgive me as I am not a professional just a very rank amateur. Have a look at my range of glass and I have got most things covered. I have read the reviews but non do a comparison Sigma v Canon 24-70. All help appreciated.

24-70 CANON .

I don't own either of these, but I've used a canon 24-70, and was not impressed by its sharpness. I've also heard that both the tamron 28-75 and the sigma 24-70 do a very similar job in terms of IQ, but cost much less.

If not limited to just the Canon or Sigma for this focal length range, it's worthwhile looking at the Tamron 28-75 as it really is a stellar lens!

ive heard great things about the tammy and sigma equivalent to the canon 24-70. you save a ton of money with third parties, but you can never go wrong with canon.

If money is no issue, then there's no question, get the canon 24-70. It's the best lens in that range without question, best IQ, best build, best focus..

I had the Tamron 28-75mm for about 3 years before I switched to the Canon version, The Tamron is really the best bang for the buck. The Canon version IMO is better overall BUT if money is the factor I'll look into the Tamron.

I had the Tamron several years ago. The lens was fine if you are on a budget- sharp focus and colors were o.k. The build quality is cheap plastic. The AF is speed is relatively slow. I now have the Canon 24-70 and I love it. Fast AF, sharpness if fine with my copy. Even if it wasn't, I would just get it calibrated. Build quality is top of the line and has a metal body. Colors, saturation, and especially contrast are excellent- best I've ever seen. Always go for the Canon L, you'll never go wrong.

MacCLS500 wrote in post #13429617
Which one should I buy. Money not a problem up to £1k. I have a nasty feeling that if I go for a Sigma 24-70 I will regret not buying the Canon 24-70. The Canon lens that I own do seem to be a lot sharper than Sigma. Please forgive me as I am not a professional just a very rank amateur. Have a look at my range of glass and I have got most things covered. I have read the reviews but non do a comparison Sigma v Canon 24-70. All help appreciated.

Sharper isn't the only issue here. Also, if you other Sigma lens is a cheaper one it doesn't count.

The question is, why do you want to have a f/2.8 zoom? They are all heavy and bulky. If you answer is that you photograph a lot indoors where flash is disallowed then the other manufacturers would do this as well as the Canon. If you want razor sharp pictures with stellar detail when closing down to f/5.6 then you can check the usual lens test sites for test photos.

emtp563 wrote in post #13430025
I had the Tamron several years ago. The lens was fine if you are on a budget- sharp focus and colors were o.k. The build quality is cheap plastic. The AF is speed is relatively slow. I now have the Canon 24-70 and I love it. Fast AF, sharpness if fine with my copy. Even if it wasn't, I would just get it calibrated. Build quality is top of the line and has a metal body. Colors, saturation, and especially contrast are excellent- best I've ever seen. Always go for the Canon L, you'll never go wrong.

I disagree with the "cheap plastic" description. I didn't find it to be so, but yes, in comparison with the L it is "cheap" feeling.

uOpt wrote in post #13430108
Sharper isn't the only issue here. Also, if you other Sigma lens is a cheaper one it doesn't count.

The question is, why do you want to have a f/2.8 zoom? They are all heavy and bulky. If you answer is that you photograph a lot indoors where flash is disallowed then the other manufacturers would do this as well as the Canon. If you want razor sharp pictures with stellar detail when closing down to f/5.6 then you can check the usual lens test sites for test photos.

All 2.8 zooms are not big and bulky - the Tamron is quite compact and relatively light. However, personally, I prefer heavier lenses and L's weight is perfect to me.

I kind of chuckle when I hear that a camera or lens is "heavy".
It is all relative, I would not have purchased most of my lenses if I listened strictly to forum type reviews or online type reviews. Testing a lens on one's camera or testing a camera oneself is basically the best way to make a good decision for oneself. When I put the 70-200 on my 7D (in the store), I was very surprised how the balance/weight seemed to help me be able to steady the lens.
I carry the 7D/70-200mii and the 5d/24-70 on almost every trip I make. There are times while out that I change lens while shooting, but the bulk of my shooting is with the above mentioned combos.
One of the other real important issues, is learning how to shoot with whatever combo you may be using. Sometimes it takes more than one trip out to finess the combo. Like any other endeavor one undertakes, if you want to be good, you need to invest time and educate yourself.
Rent both lenses (hopefully you will have a good copy of both) and spend a couple of days shooting with comparison of lighting that will be identical with both lenses.

Like everyone has mentioned on here, if money isn't an issue then Canon all the way, if not then I would choose the Tamron over the Siggy hands down.

Hope that helps

Best thing you can do is go and try them yourself, for me its the canon but thats just me.

I have both and you would not be able to tell them apart in real life. Best built is the Canon with the Sigma slighty below. If money an issue get the Sigma if not get the Canon. Both mine are sharp.

I wouldn't bother with the Tammy. But to be fair never used the 28-70 but I think they do feel cheap.

Thanks men for all the replies looks like I shall be going for the Canon. Had some great results from my 70-200. Looking forward to getting my 24-70. Thanks again.