sigma or canon

i'm looking to purchase a 24mm prime(i figure around 35mm at 1.6x) i've narrowed my decision down to the sigma f/1.8 ex dg or the canon 24mm f/2.8.

i cant find much info as far as reviews go on either of these lenses. the canon runs about 60$ cheaper, but the sigma is the ex dg model, which i believe is their best line. i don't know what to do, help!

The Canon looks a good option. Personally, I'd probably go for the Sigma 30mm 1.4. Super fast and well reviewed.

i acctually think i might wait and do that. it's out of my price range right now but in a couple months i should be able to pull it. i'm more concerned about covering the 100-300mm range right now, which is expensive

Has anyone experienced any focusing problems with their copy of the Sigma 30mm? I am thinking of getting one, but have read some reviews on Amazon about focusing problems.

Please consider this....Until recently I would never have thought to buy a sigma product but then a freelance guy came into work with the 12-24 he claimed it was awesome so I thought I would test it at 17mm against my canon 17-35 2.8. Wow the sigma was not only sharp but it had no chromatic aberation I about peed myself.I quickly sold the canon L on ebay for about half what I bought it for and ran to my camera dealer to buy the sigma. I tested 2 in the store and decided to buy one.I got home and did a little more testing only to find out the lens was sharp on the right side and soft on the left I mean really soft. I went back and bought a canon 17-40 which oddly enough is the sharpest of all 3. so what am I trying to say? Please do a little testing to be sure you get the best quality lens If your dealer wont let you - go somewhere else I know this was not your question but I love to unsolicited advice. If you already knew this allow me to appoligize for wasting your time.

Did you read the reviews at FredMiranda.com? Might also want to look at Photozone.

yea, i've read some reviews at fred miranda, and i would probably get the canon based on those reviews. a lot of people say auto focus is slow with the sigma, and since i allready have slow af w. my d60 i dont think i'd be happy with an even slower lens. the canon gets good reviews, but a noisey autofocus. at this point i have no clue what i'm going to do, and i'm thinking about not even getting this until i can afford to get the sigma 30mm1.4

I have the Canon 24 f2.8 and I love this lens. Plenty of contrast, quick focusing and built like a small tank. Never tried the sigma so I can't compare.

The Canon 24mm f/2.8 is not even $60 less than the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 by the time one gets the lens hood. Have you checked out Canon's 28mm f/1.8?

My first EF-mount lens was a Sigma 35-135 lens. For my EOS 650. It was slow to focus and very noisy, I had to have the motor replaced twice. This lens will not work on todays EOS cameras. I get error 99 because Canon made a change in the way the lens talks to the camera about the apeature. Sigma is not able to correct my lens. They can re-chip some older lenses to work through this problem but not the 35-135. If I had bought the similar Canon lens it would work properly today.

Is it usefull or fair to compare sigma's first generation EF-mount lenses with what the company offers today?

Will todays Sigma lenses work on tomarrows EOS cameras?

Will I buy a Sigma lens.... NO. That decision was made after buying my first Canon EF lens, way back when, and cemented recently when my sigma lens could not be made to work with my new EOS camera.....

PS - My Sigma 35-135 can be made to function without Err99 in Av mode as long as the apeature is left wide open.

yea i looked at the 28mm 1.8, but not in depth.its a bit over my budget. i also have 28mm on my 28-135 is, so i'm looking for that extra angle. it's for portraits mostly, so the 28 on that lens is fine because i'll be shooting between f/8 and f/116 most of the time, i don't need anything lower.

i'm looking for a nice prime for landscapes and casual indoor (low light) shots at or under $300. if anyone has any other suggestions i'd love to hear them, these are just the 2 lenses i found to be the most popular and best value.

There are some generalities that really need a sense of proporation here.

One is that the Sigma of 10 years ago (when the EOS650 was on the market) represents the Sigma of today. The Sigma of today do not target the same market as they once did, at least not fully. In those days, Sigma saw itself as an alternative to Canon's mid-price and consumer lenses. Now, with their EX line, they see themselves as an alternative to Canon's L-series lenses. Their build quality and performance has improved in line with their price point.

I had three Sigma lenses when I bought the 10D, and two of them had to be rechipped. Sigma handled it for me within two weeks, and it only cost me the shipping to Sigma USA. The third lens I didn't have rechipped because it was a consumer cheapie in the first place that I didn't intend to continue to use, and I had replaced it with an excellent Canon mid-grade lens.

Sigma also learned quite a big lesson as a result of that, and they are better at the Canon interface than they were. They claim that since 2001 they no longer have the problem. That doesn't prevent Canon from making a change just to cause Sigma problems, but I would rather complain about Canon if they do. But even if they did, I have no doubt that Sigma will rechip their lenses again as necessary.

Canon makes three grades of lenses. The consumer lenses are sometimes pretty good (an example is the nifty fifty) but often just cheap, and the mid-grade lenses are often of professional quality (an example is the 50/1.4) but don't have the same build quality as the L's. The L-series lenses are the state of the art. But not all Canon lenses are the best available at a given price point, and the price doesn't always distinguish the good ones from the not-so-good ones. Is Canon's 14mm L lens worth four times the price I paid for my Sigma 14? I doubt it. But I will never know, because I would never pay over $2000 for a 14 no matter how good it was. From my perspective, therefore, it might as well not exist.

Canon still doesn't have wide-angle zooms, for example, that can be used on my 10D. Sigma provided the only alternative that maintains full-frame compatibility, and that's not the only example where they have filled a gap left by Canon. Canon also leaves an affordability gap, and sometimes it's worth it to pay the price, and other times it's not.

Relevant to this thread, Canon doesn't have a really fast lens that is a moderate wide on the APS sensor, except for the very expensive 24/1.4L. There is no affordable 1.8 and Sigma provides something Canon does not.

The existance of Sigma is very likely the reason Canon has come out with f/4 L-series zooms that are much more afforable than the f/2.8 lenses that have always been in the L line. Sigma has targeted their EX line to fall between the L-series lenses and the mid-grade lenses, and in my experience they have hit that mark pretty well. Competition is good.

Rick "who thinks 9 dollars in shipping was not too much to ask to rechip a 14 and a 28-70/2.8 by Sigma" Denney