Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 is better than Canon 24-70mm f2.8

This is what my friend told me today in reference to my Canon in regards to his Sigma.

He bluntly put it out there and said thats its better and that if I wanted to borrow it for a week I could,just to see the difference.

Is he pulling my leg ?

SLRgear.com has tested them both and had this to say in comparing them:

So your friend is mistaken.

thats what I said, cant be that my sweet lil ol' canon is w0rse than that want to be a Canon ,sigma .....no way....

WHICH Sigma? The older non-HSM one? Or the latest one with HSM? I've read that the latest one actually compares very favorably with the L.

I don't wish to be rude, but I got to ask - is this a series question? Only yesterday you asked virtually the same question about the Tamron.

You already have the L so why are you bothered about the performance of the Siggy or the Tammy? And I think your friend(s) seem very sensationalist with their views.

first you need to know which sigma. Second you need to decide if sealing and AF performance matter to you. I had the old non-HSM sigma and upgraded to the canon. IQ was VERY close. One won on the long end and the other on the short end, but neither by enough to make the decision based on that (both were great). But the canon AFed miles quicker and was quiet, but the new HSM version fixed a lot of that. The canon is the only sealed option.

But with siggy's HSM version coming in at $900, the savings are as much anymore. With the non HSM version coming in at <$500 it needed serious consideration if you were on a budget.

I looked at both when I was looking for something in that range
the HSM was nice... I had a lot of nice things to say about it...
but I thought the Canon felt and acted better, and the price difference wasn't enough to make me think I was saving much...
this is also a money-making lens for me - and Canon Service is way better than Sigma service (especially in Canada) - that has to be a consideration when shopping for these things!

I have the sigma 24-70 2.8 macro.....IQ is good as long as you have good light. In low light, it often misses focus. Im debating on trading it on something else.

I'll pick Canon over Sigma with that lens ANYDAY.

It's not. End of story. The only thing the Sigma does better is cost less.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #9222137
It's not. End of story. The only thing the Sigma does better is cost less.

+1!! lmao

pridash wrote in post #9221642
You already have the L so why are you bothered about the performance of the Siggy or the Tammy? And I think your friend(s) seem very sensationalist with their views.

Curious!

Well he should be high to tell this lol No way sigma is better than the 24-70 brick..

onurrus wrote in post #9222896
Well he should be high to tell this lol No way sigma is better than the 24-70 brick..

So, you've tried it ?

Mr. Clean wrote in post #9222137
It's not. End of story. The only thing the Sigma does better is cost less.

Yes.

And to the OP, who cares about 3rd party lenses. I never touched one and never will. Canon OEM lenses or nothing.