Canon 24-105 or Sigma 24-70?

haha so ive heard the 24-105, the 17-55 and the 17-85 are amazing lenses where do i go now haha

Pick one, buy it used, and see if you like it. If not, sell for similar price and move on?

jonathanheierle wrote in post #16341664
haha so ive heard the 24-105, the 17-55 and the 17-85 are amazing lenses where do i go now haha

Nobody even suggested that the 17-85 is an amazing lens. I don't think it has been mentioned in this thread. Be advised that there IS a 17-85; it is generally accepted as sub-par. The lens some of us have been referring to is the 15-85. It is quite a different animal.

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16341788
Nobody even suggested that the 17-85 is an amazing lens. I don't think it has been mentioned in this thread. Be advised that there IS a 17-85; it is generally accepted as sub-par. The lens some of us have been referring to is the 15-85. It is quite a different animal.

right, thats wht i meant my bad

How exactly would the sigma or some other 3rd party's 24-70 compare to canons 24-105 or the 15-85?

jonathanheierle wrote in post #16342046
How exactly would the sigma or some other 3rd party's 24-70 compare to canons 24-105 or the 15-85?

For image quality, you can look here, and throw different lenses in there. Make sure to check several apertures and focal lengths, as IQ does change a lot:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0

waterrockets wrote in post #16342891
For image quality, you can look here, and throw different lenses in there. Make sure to check several apertures and focal lengths, as IQ does change a lot:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0

i honestly cant even tell haha

it's subtle, and that's an indication that most modern lenses are pretty awesome.

Here's what to look for in the configuration I linked:
-midframe and corners are darker in the 24-105 -- presumably vignetting. Still happens if you reduce aperture to f/5.6
-center resolution in the 24-105 is just ever so slightly better. Look at the converging lines coming from the right to left at the top. The pixels get mixed up right around the big "32," but you can see some further to the right with the Sigma, at maybe 31.5.
-mid frame, the tips of the lines are more crisp with the Sigma
-in the big black square in the "corner" image, you can see some chromatic aberration in the Sigma, where there's a bit of purple fringing that you don't see on the Canon.

Another thing to note... the canon doesn't do f/2.8, and the Sigma doesn't do 105mm

waterrockets wrote in post #16343173
it's subtle, and that's an indication that most modern lenses are pretty awesome.

Here's what to look for in the configuration I linked:
-midframe and corners are darker in the 24-105 -- presumably vignetting. Still happens if you reduce aperture to f/5.6
-center resolution in the 24-105 is just ever so slightly better. Look at the converging lines coming from the right to left at the top. The pixels get mixed up right around the big "32," but you can see some further to the right with the Sigma, at maybe 31.5.
-mid frame, the tips of the lines are more crisp with the Sigma
-in the big black square in the "corner" image, you can see some chromatic aberration in the Sigma, where there's a bit of purple fringing that you don't see on the Canon.

Another thing to note... the canon doesn't do f/2.8, and the Sigma doesn't do 105mm

oh alright haha i couldnt tell i have a 70-200 so thats not a big issue that the sigma cant do 105mm haha, is the af system on the 24-70 fast? compared to a 70-200 f4?

You can go look at youtube videos for that kind of stuff.

This video is a great example, but there's a horrible distraction in the first 4 minutes, and it's tough to think about lenses. Until after the 4:00 mark. I'll go watch again a few times to make sure the entire first 4 minutes are distracting. I'll report back.

http://youtu.be/rcYMQX​siag8

waterrockets wrote in post #16343268
You can go look at youtube videos for that kind of stuff.

This video is a great example, but there's a horrible distraction in the first 4 minutes, and it's tough to think about lenses. Until after the 4:00 mark. I'll go watch again a few times to make sure the entire first 4 minutes are distracting. I'll report back.

http://youtu.be/rcYMQX​siag8

I actually preferred the first 4 minutes . . . after viewing that, I found the final 4 minutes to be strangely uninteresting.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16343399
I actually preferred the first 4 minutes . . . after viewing that, I found the final 4 minutes to be strangely uninteresting.

I'm starting to agree. I'll watch a couple dozen more times and see how it goes.

I have had quite a bit of lenses in the 24-70 range on FF and crop. I didn't really care for the 24-105. there isn't anything necessarily wrong with it but I just thought it was too soft for me.

I would recommend the sigma 17-50 2.8 to ANYONE. It is a really extraordinary lens at a very reasonable price. and gives you the 27-80 range on your cropped sensor. I also felt that the AF was lightning fast and accurate.

the older 28-70 L is also a very very good lens.

Lichter21c wrote in post #16343933
I have had quite a bit of lenses in the 24-70 range on FF and crop. I didn't really care for the 24-105. there isn't anything necessarily wrong with it but I just thought it was too soft for me.

I would recommend the sigma 17-50 2.8 to ANYONE. It is a really extraordinary lens at a very reasonable price. and gives you the 27-80 range on your cropped sensor. I also felt that the AF was lightning fast and accurate.

the older 28-70 L is also a very very good lens.

would the 17-50 be good for really fast moving sports?

both are not suitable for fast action sports or macro work.. they are good as general walk around lenses