Reading mode: Light Dark

24-70 Sigma vs 24-70 Canon vs 35mm 1.4L?

Go to last post
R

Ryan Pinkston

Active member
Messages
94
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Right now I have the Sigma and am thinking of going to the prime 35mm 1.4L. If I'm not happy with the 24-70 Sigma then would I be happy with the 24-70 Canon?

Has anyone tried both of the 24-70 zooms?

Thanks!

Ryan
 
I was gonna get the sigma 24-70 ex as my next lens.
I would also be interested why you are not happy with it.

Mark...
 
Ryan Pinkston said:
Right now I have the Sigma and am thinking of going to the prime
35mm 1.4L. If I'm not happy with the 24-70 Sigma then would I be
happy with the 24-70 Canon?

Has anyone tried both of the 24-70 zooms?
Click to expand...
You can't compare the 24-70 EX with the 24-70L. The two are in a different league. The 24-70 EX is a good affordable workhorse with an excellent build, but don't expect color or bokeh miracles, or a sharp f/2.8.

Here is the 24-70 EX compared directly with the EF 28-135 IS. The 24-70L is a much nicer color/contrast/bokeh lens than either of these, but I don't have comparison shots with that lens on the same body.

Given that f/2.8 on the Sigma is quite soft and the 28-135 IS has IS, the speed is pretty comparable. These pairs are shot in RAW on an SD9 (without IS), but all RAW development parameters and WB are exactly the same per set. After lots of tests like these, I sold my 24-70 EX for the EF 28-135.

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/26772281-O.jpg
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/26772287-O.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/26775979-O.jpg
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/26775980-O.jpg
 
The only thing better about Sigma 24-70 than the 24-70L Canon is the price.

I tried Sigma first, sent it back twice, performance at 2.8 was terrible.

Ordered Canon version and images are great throughout zoom and f stop range.

I have seen many posts by guys like fstopjob and satellite city, and they are only repeating their vendetta against the Canon version of this lens using the same tired images
 
By a people, many of whom probably don't know how to use the lens in the first place.

One poster even went on to talk about the "great bokeh" of the 24-70, when its a known fact that the bokeh of that lens is one of its weaknesses. Great bokeh in a zoom? Try one of the iterations of X0-200.
--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken
 
Daemeon said:
By a people, many of whom probably don't know how to use the lens
in the first place.

One poster even went on to talk about the "great bokeh" of the
24-70, when its a known fact that the bokeh of that lens is one of
its weaknesses. Great bokeh in a zoom? Try one of the iterations
of X0-200.
Click to expand...
No one said anything about the L having great bokeh, you seem to have made that up.

I did say the 24-70 EX bokeh is rather poor, as is its color, and f/2.8 sharpness. Full size pics attached above.
 
hgmoore said:
I tried Sigma first, sent it back twice, performance at 2.8 was
terrible.
Click to expand...
And SaltLakeGuy tried 7 copies of the 24-70L and gave up. I guess we could play this "game" all night long. I've had 3 copies and they have been "good".
hgmoore said:
I have seen many posts by guys like fstopjob and satellite city,
and they are only repeating their vendetta against the Canon
version of this lens using the same tired images
Click to expand...
Actually many of the images are new and with different copies. So I'm not sure how they are "tired". In addition, I don't see how "tired images" is any kind of counter-argument to the tests themselves. Can you show some posts side-by-side of your copies so we can at least see how horrible the EX is?

BTW, 60% of my lenses are Canon, including the 70-200IS and 85 prime. I have no "vendetta" against Canon or this specific lens. I say it is the best in this class still if you read carefully my comments (but for build and handlings reasons).

...

--
http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/lenstests

“98% of all lenses are better than 100% of all photographers.” Michael Reichmann
 
I compared both lenses over a week of shooting, and found that the 24-70 was far and away the lens I would prefer to own, hands down; not only for its optical properties, but for its fit, finish, and apparent robustness.

My opinions are based upon specific and first-hand observations, and no "snobbery" whatsoever. How do you justify attempting to discredit my observations without having offered any of your own? Or is that the sum total of your basis for comparison?
Daemeon said:
By a people, many of whom probably don't know how to use the lens
in the first place.

One poster even went on to talk about the "great bokeh" of the
24-70, when its a known fact that the bokeh of that lens is one of
its weaknesses. Great bokeh in a zoom? Try one of the iterations
of X0-200.
--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken
Click to expand...
 
The Sig is not usable wide open...it is really an F4 lens, and even then, it does not provide the same or better contrast, color rendition and sharpness then the better Canon 24-70L. The so called tests you'll find on pbase are not controlled, and we really don't know the shooters, their methods, etc.

The sig owners call us canon owners gear snobs. We call them jealeous/envious.

Test both and judge for yourself.

As for the Canon 35L, it will smoke both the Sig and Canon 24-70 at 35mm, and wide open, and across all over lapping F-stops.

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.
 
Elan Remford said:
I compared both lenses over a week of shooting, and found that the
24-70 was far and away the lens I would prefer to own, hands down;
not only for its optical properties, but for its fit, finish, and
apparent robustness.

My opinions are based upon specific and first-hand observations,
and no "snobbery" whatsoever. How do you justify attempting to
discredit my observations without having offered any of your own?
Or is that the sum total of your basis for comparison?
Click to expand...
Uh-huh....that is a far cry from such hyperbolic and declarative statements (indicating them as some sort of truth) like the one espoused here:
Elan Remford said:
Yep. 24-70 EX = Ford Taurus. 24-70 L = BMW 5 Series.
Click to expand...
My opinion is not on trial here, but even if it were, you could just do a search and see that I am a FAN of the 24-70L. Heck, I even thought about buying it, opting instead for a lens that isn't even in this thread: The 28-70L. Gasp.....it was sharper than both the 24-70's I tried previously. Whoda thunk it. I've also tried seveeral sigma's and even the tamron. Optically, I'm sorry, but they aren't all that far behind, and the differences in print will be nill, if used in the right hands.

All in my humble (and educated) opinion of course.

And yes, hyperbolic statements like yours wreak of snobbery. Sorry. Most people who aren't snobs about their gear don't go out of their way to exaggerate the performance differences between the lenses, like I've seen in this thread. The differences just aren't that great, and even the MTF's (most people can't even read them), bear that out. The canon is indeed better. But not by that much.

--The artist formerly known as The Krakken
 
Including a 28-70L, which has less sample variability, and when matched up with two previous 24-70L's smoked them both (no doubt due to QC, since 24-70's are NEVER soft). :/

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken
 
It has been my personal experience that the 24-70L is clearly and noticably better then the Sigma.

I have/had both of these lenses, so I speak from personal experience.

Does this make me a snob?!? lol

Hey, look at me! I'm a snob!!!! Weeeeeeeeeee!

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.
 
I have/had both these lenses and I agree the 28-70L is a great lens, and would still have it if I hadn't lost it in Yosemite last fall...I replaced it with the 24-70L and I've come to find the 24-70 is sharper, but not by much. They both have comparable color rendition, and contrast however.

And both the 28-70L and 24-70L are noticably better then the sig.

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.
 
there are "some" who are "L-itists" who can't see anything beyond a white lens or a red ring or USM. They have brand-blindness and will accept no evidence to the contrary because of their misguided presuppositions. There are a few others (besides myself) who have used BOTH the Canon and Sigma 24-70 lenses for a "substantial" amount of time, often with various copies and many tests, unlike some of the posters here. For example, SaltLakeGuy went through 7 copies of the 24-70L and gave up (now has the Tamron 28-75 and loves it, although he concedes his 24-70EX was the sharpest wide open but it had focusing problems). Pepe Lepue uses the 24-70L but has high regard for the Sigma version and has done some good tests on them. Eugene Powers has both the Canon and Sigma 24-70 on his 1Ds and says the Sigma is 95% equal to the Canon. These are the kinds of people you want to listen to who can find pros and cons of EACH lens and offer helpful advice. In my case my current 24-70EX is the best optically I've had, and that includes being better than ANY of my previous 3 24-70Ls. Of course, it lacks HSM and weathersealing, but it also costs over 70% less. It is give and take, but it is hard to beat the Sigma 24-70 in terms of price/performance.

Take everyone's advice with a grain of salt, including mine. At day's end, given a good copy of any of these lenses will provide you with years of satisfaction. Best wishes. I'm done with this thread.

--
http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/lenstests

“98% of all lenses are better than 100% of all photographers.” Michael Reichmann
 
... Salt Lake Guy gave up after 7 tries because at least the count stopped at 7. IMO he should have started looking elsewhere for the problem after the second lens tested faulty, yet he blamed the lens and could have gone through 1000 without reflecting on what else could be wrong.

7 tries at a pro grade lens, Give me a break!! It would be hard to get 7 straight faulty copies of the kit lens.

Statistically it is VERY VERY VERY improbable to get 7 bad pro grade lenses by one of the best lens manufacturers.

I remember another gentleman here (Marco?) went through 4 24-70L's, and absolutely bagged the lens on this forum, which were giving him trouble with his 1D II. At that point canon replaced his camera and bingo, he was very happy with his lens. Moral of the story, don't always blame the lens!
 
Jojo, you claim to have had 3 good copies of the 24-70L, and yet you believe 1 person here who claims to have gone through 7 bad copies in a row!!

7 in a row!! You beilive this one guy over an ISO 9001 certified company?

7 in a row is very improbable!!

Ok, say 1 in 2 24-70L's are bad (Canon would be bust if that were the case), then 7 in a row is like getting 7 heads in a row out of 7 coin tosses. Give it a try,you'd be at it the whole day!! If 1 in 10 lenses are faulty (Still high), the odds are like winning the lottery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top