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

Well, I guess it is no problem, I figured it may cause quite a debate.

I never answered the question of why I "don't like" the lens. This thread has put my fears to rest about the optical quality of the Sigma. I guess I was just worried about always keeping ONLY the Canon name in my collection of lenses.

Carry on....

Ryan

it's a much better lens and almost half the size of those two back-focussing behemoths .

j/k .

ed rader

As long as you qualify your opinion as just that, your opinion, and leave room for others to disagree.

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

I see far too much trashing of the 24-70L based on web sized jpg's and images with questionable origin.

I know 4 photographers who own this lens, and they are all extremely happy with images from it. No returns, no recals, just good results.
--

Peru_Photog said:

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.

Click to expand...

I've tested both on a Sigma DSLR, yes you can do that. I used the 24-70 EX for years prior and was very happy with it. It's build quality is first rate, yes, similar to the L. It is one tough lens.

Color is the biggest difference, the EX is both bland and somewhat yellow by comparision. The yellow tint becomes stronger as the lens is stopped down. In diamond grade, the 24-70 is an F and the the EX is a K. Contrast is better on the L. The EX is soft wide open though I would call it usable, depending on the application. Stopped down, and especially onthe tele end, it is as sharp if not sharper than the L.

The L has areas of weakness too, the wide end wasn't so hot in terms of sharpness, some have complained of sample variations, and the price is too high considering the Sigma offering does fairly well at 1/3rd the $$$.

But in absolute terms, price/value aside, the L's color and contrast are in a class above the Sigma. Color is the most important aspect of a lens in my book though amost never quantified in reviews, its what makes or breaks great photos, other qualities rest can be worked around. And the difference in color is very large.

That the macro version of this lens is producing vastly different results with reguards to sharpness right?

People who shoot RAW (and most people here should be) and can PP quickly make the color cast of lenses a mere annoyance.
--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

Ignoring "carry on..."

I believe there have been two versions of the Sigma EX 24-70 f2.8 lens.

The version that was around until last fall was the one my partner and I considered in November. The salesrep, who we trusted then and still trust today, suggested it was OK for most purposes, but maybe we'd be happier with the Canon 24-70 f2.8L

We bought that and were very happy.

About the same time, Sigma had the new 24-60mm f2.8EX lens, and I understand it was noticably better than the previous 24070, but lacked the extra 10mm of reach.

In February I bought a Rebel XT, sight-unseen, with the kit lens, and had to wait a couple of weeks for delivery.

Now there is a new versin of the 24-70 Sigma f2.8EX.

That might be the optimum quality/price lens for many digital camera users, especially wedding photographers.

So maybe you're semi-problem relates to which of the two 24-70 lenses there may or may not have been on the market.

I try to buy both my shoes from the same company, and my suit pants and suit jacket from the same company, but I don't worry about lenses being from one company. But for those few photogrpahers who have images displayed side by side, of the same subjects, taken by various lenses, under the same lighting, yes, there can be differences from maker to maker, so maybe there's an argument to keep all lenses from the same company.

Imagiune, for instance, a dozen photos of diffrent cushioons of differnt sizes, shot onthe same background and then assembled into a montage. The shots from the 28mm lens, the 50mm lens and the 100/105mm lens would be a lot easier to color match of all the lenses were Canon, say.

BAK

Daemeon said:

That the macro version of this lens is producing vastly different
results with reguards to sharpness right?

Click to expand...

I'm sure you can find at least two different opinions.

Daemeon said:

People who shoot RAW (and most people here should be) and can PP
quickly make the color cast of lenses a mere annoyance.

Click to expand...

I can only shoot RAW and I disagree that a cast can be corrected. It can be shifted, changed, camouflaged, desaturated, painted, but never fully corrected. Better not to shoot through a color filter unless you want one.

Skumar,

I was NOt going to respond to your post about salt lake guy going through 7 bad Canon 24-70's BUT I just have to let you know a few things.

1) SLG has been on this forum for years and has been a very honest and straight forward person.

2) SLG has also been on FM for years as well, and has provided photog's with some great info and insite

3) If he said he went through 7 bad canon 24-70's lens, I would NEVER doubt his word : )

I just thought I'de bring this to your attention : )

--
Thanks
ALASKA 43
http://www.pbase.com/alaskadigitalphoto

No lens is going to get it truly right out of the box, due to the exorbitant coatings that are on these things.
--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

There are 2 versions of the EX, the old 20-70EX DG DF and the newer one 24-70EX DG Macro.

They have the same DG coating for digital and could have the same optics.

Good luck on on the lens. No matter what you purchased, there's always be greener fields ... LOL

I said EXACTLY what I said, nothing more and nothing less; and stand by the comparison.

Integrestingly enough, you seem to have some sort of bias toward the Simga; while I have a bias toward neither. Why would you presume that equating it to a Ford Taurus is some sort of slight? The Taurus is one of the best selling cars of all time; and millions of people love them.

The only time problems seem to come in is when any sort of comparison is made. In the end, the issue invariably comes back to its real source; it isn't that the 20-70 L is more like a 5-Series, it's that they don't understand how anyone might not share their passion for their Taurus.

(And by the way, I've owned both a Taurus and a 5-Series as well)

Daemeon said:

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:

Daemeon 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

Click to expand...

What is SLG's FM ID ?, I'd like to check out his work, might learn something

thanks,

harvey
--

and don't let anyone tell you it's unusable At 2.8! It's clearly the best value lens for the money at $700.00 less than the Canon. I'm not qualified to be an amateur but I have a gallery full of photos that speak for themselves. All with the 24-70 at 2.8 and hand held in terrible lighting conditions. These were taken the day after I received the lens and with no experience in low light photography. So unless you're a pixel peeping perfectionist go for it!

Shoot well,

Jim



--

you use the 24-70 often at the long end and f2.8-f4.0

Sent mine to Sigma 2x, the second time with images, and I was told by the service mgr that the extreme softness in above range was normal.

Exchanged it for the 24-70L, been very pleased with the L lens.

This is not a comment on all the Sigma line, tested the 150 2.8 macro, it is the next lens I will purchase

harvey

--

It might have been your particular copy, but please don't mock the hundreds who are pleased with the lens, lest we can conclude there are no bad copies of any 24-70L or 28-75Di or 18-50EXs around. Here's my 24-70EX at f2.8, 70mm, several crops for you, and i use it all the time:

hgmoore said:

you use the 24-70 often at the long end and f2.8-f4.0

Sent mine to Sigma 2x, the second time with images, and I was told
by the service mgr that the extreme softness in above range was
normal.

Exchanged it for the 24-70L, been very pleased with the L lens.

This is not a comment on all the Sigma line, tested the 150 2.8
macro, it is the next lens I will purchase

harvey

--

Click to expand...

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

“98% of all lenses are better than 100% of all photographers.” Michael Reichmann

I just sold a Tamron 28-75. It went on FM B&S in about 4 minutes.

I sold it to get a 24-70L. I found that I was using the Tammy about 80% of the time. The only thing I wanted was for it to be a little bit wider. I think the L will be just about right at 24mm. I don't mind the price if it is lens I use the most.

That said, the Tammy was an incredible lens for the money.

Jim

I am not mocking anybody. I was told by the service mgr that the softness in my images was normal.

--

If I have a bias towards sigma then why do I NOT own a SINGLE SIGMA LENS. Why are ALL my lenses Canon L series lenses. You are talking out of your other end.

Elan Remford wrote:
Nevermind what elan Remford wrote......

I do indeed shoot w/ the Canon 24-70L, but gave my Sigma 24-70 to my father to replace the Tamron 28-75 I gave him before.

I never mind shooting w/ the Sigma It does very well. . . . I like it better than the Tamron that some seem to tout around here.

fStopJojo said:

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

Click to expand...

--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed



http://www.pbase.com/domotang