Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG ASP DF vs Canon 24-70mm F2.8L

Have anybody compared these 2 lenses?

I have the Sigma lens, if I someday can afford it would I gain anything by trading it for the Canon ? The Canon lens is twice as expensive as the Sigma so it's a lot of money.

I recommend you buying the french magazine le chasseur d'images February issue. They test with a state-of-the-art test machine, both lenses in the canmeras 300D/10D and the 1Ds (full frame).
You can see all the details, sharpnes, vigneting, distortion, etc...
Unfortunatly i haven't got my issue now, so I can not post you scans.
All I remember is that the Sigma recived 4 starts with the 10D/300D, but the Canon was better in general (5 starts if I remeber well). The Sigma was not very sharp full open.

That would probably be a good advice if I could read french!

For what it's worth:

http://www.theimagepla​ne.net/tip2_022.htm

Tmmy wrote:
That would probably be a good advice if I could read french!

You don't need to speak french to understand the kind of information on these tests. Have a look at them here:http://www.photim.net/​Acrobat/CiLab.pdf

jalafer wrote:
Tmmy wrote:
That would probably be a good advice if I could read french!

You don't need to speak french to understand the kind of information on these tests. Have a look at them here:http://www.photim.net/​Acrobat/CiLab.pdf

I can't use a french dokument for anything!

Why not the Tamron 28-75 2.8? Felt much more solid to me and I couldn't be happier with the lens / value.

Adam

Agree with the Tamron. Save some money.

I have used both and I prefer the Canon overall because of it's speed and quiet focusing, but I bought the Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX lens because of the price. I have enjoyed the Sigma and I get great results from it. One thing I like better about the sigma is the fact that it focuses way closer to a subject then the canon lens. I was just using the canon 28-70 2.8L at a wedding yesterday and it barely focused close enough to do a picture of the rings. The sigma has no problem shooting close ups like that.

Adam Hicks / mwinog2777: Are You saying You think the Tamron is better than Sigma?

I am not looking to sell the Sigma, I just wondered if it would be worth some day (when I win a lot of $$$$ in lotto) trading it in for the Canon. (I prefer to have only Canon lenses).

Some threads on the Tamron:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=28358

https://photography-on-the.net …ad.php?t=28630&​highlight=

https://photography-on-the.net …ad.php?t=27036&​highlight=

https://photography-on-the.net …ad.php?t=20221&​highlight=

Best regards,
Andy

And for what it's worth, I had a friend with the Sigma lens, and when I bought the 28/75 Tamron a few months ago we both agreed that it was a better feeling and crisper lens. I didn't spend a whole lot of time with the Sigma though.

Here's a quick photo I took of my daughter on the pool table off the cuff handheld... so the composition isn't great but you get the idea. I cropped just the headshot and did not use any USM or sharpening on it. It was shot in Av mode at 2.8 100iso.

Adam

Scaled down full frame...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

That definately looks good, and Your daughter is cute.

When I was on the lookout for a less expensive bright fixed aperture lens it seemed to me that the Tamron was optically better. But I thought the extra 4mm (38-112) would come in useful quite often especially outdoors, and I don't have a huge workflow so I can take time to use software to prop the Sigma up when it needs it.

Adam, great shot by the way - cute!

Sam