sigma or cannon

Need help in deciding between cannon 24-70 f2.8L or sigma 28-70 2.8 EX even considering tamron. Is the cannon worth the extra money?
Cannon D10.

I won't buy Cannon, but Canon is a must:p then next is Sigma.

Also consider the Sigma 24-60. They're all amazing lenses. I'd get the SIgma, simply because the price difference is so large.

There seems to be too many focussing problems with the Tamron... *shrug*.

It depends. If you need top quality (and this particular lens is way better then Sigma) then yes. If you need it for normal use and normal photos, then Sigma will do just fine. I was shooting bunch of pro sport stuff which made me quite some money, with it and it's not bad lens, but it really is no comparions against Canon. But on other side it's also no comparison to Canon in price either being about 3 or 4 times cheaper.

The Canon is superior to the Sigma, but its also significantly more expensive. I'm with the others, its really up to you.

My Tamron was perfect out of the box, and there are lots of satisfied owners on this forum. The image quality is first rate, it weighs a pound less than the Canon and it won't get in the way of your built-in flash. The biggest drawbacks are that the focus is louder than Canon USM (not necessarily slower IMHO) and the focus ring turns during autofocus. The difference in price will pay for a nice 70-200 (either Canon f4 or Sigma f2.8).

I don't know about the sigma 28-70 or 24-60 but they wouldn't be bad choices if they're as good as the 70-200 f2.8 EX.

Every company makes good lenses and crummy lenses. Some of Sigma and Tamron's good lenses are close to Canon's best, but priced similar to Canon's lesser offerings.

KevC, I'm not picking on you at all but I do wonder about the reality ... or are there just lots of people saying there are problems because they've read there are problems, or are one or two people constantly bringing up queries about the same issue they are (or think they are) having? I don't know, but seems no one can buy this lens now without then posting questions about whether they have a good copy or not!

Wasn't there a poll on all this a while back?

OK, found it:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=49000

Thanks for the feed back. Guess I'll go and try them out befor I buy. If the cannon is noticably sharper I'll just wait.

Truth is, nobody would realistically have both to hand to do a back to back comparision in the same circumstances. Those that remember how a lens was are probably not that reliable (skills improve!). Somebody's ultra sharp lens would make someone else shudder – you have to try for yourself. The Tamron has had some glowing reviews on this forum and it's doubters. Having said that, the Canon 24-70 has had some real assaults on it's abilities according to some.

Sometimes it's down to emotions. Are you confident in your decision or would you rather follow the pack?

When all said and done, it's your money and your decision, but you have heard the arguements for both sides. You are the judge and have heard evidence from many witnesses – what you do with that information is up to you.

What is sure is that there are as many opinions as lenses!

Graham

Sorry, you're right. An online forum isn't a very unbiased sample space of all the glass out there. Obviously there will be significantly more people complaining if there is something wrong, versus people praising the lens.

The front/back focus problem with the Tamron I have only recently heard of. However, the issue I was address is lower light focus speed and accuracy. The Sigma seems to be better in this department. Just a thought to consider....

No idea about 24-60 but 28-70 is far from quality of 70-200/2.8. 70-200 Sigma can easily compare with Canon 70-200/2.8 while 28-70 is not same rang. As I wrote before... it's worse then 28-70 Canon and that means even worse then 24-70 Canon (which is a bit better then older 28-70). It's far from bad lens but they didn't have such "luck" as with 70-200.

I was talking about the 24-70 and the 24-60.... I hear the 28-70 is far "cheaper"

I think it's just a lottery. You can get a front focusing copy of the canon or a superb tamron copy...

Persian-Rice went though 2-3? copies of tamrons and would still end up dissapointed with them.

Then there's the sigma... and no reviews on them at all. Go figure.

I agree with primoz, the 28-70 f2.8 is a dog in comparison to sigma's 70-200 f2.8. I have both and although the 28-70 does take nice pics, focusing in low light stinks and motor noise is LOUD. The price was right for me at the time, but now a year later I want the Canon 24-70.

24-70 Sigma is even worse then 28-70, not to mention 24-70 has 82mm filter while 28-70 has 77mm filter. With filters around 150-200eur those 5mm less are worth fortune When I was buying that lens few years back, I tried both and went with 28-70 on end. And I was quite happy with it, but everyday work wanted something else on end.