View Full Version : I've upgraded to the Canon 24-70
http://www.vanilladays.com/images/IMG_8334-Edit.jpg
Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L
http://www.vanilladays.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/IMG_1126.jpg
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
The Canon does seem crisper, but £600 odd crisper? I've upgraded for a few reasons. The front end on my Sigma has become wobbly causing it miss-focus from time to time. I'll be getting it repaired. I'm increasingly needing faster focusing speed so I wanted USM. I got mine from Kerso so I didn't have to pay Jessops prices. I wouldn't have upgraded if I had to because I don't feel its £600 I could justify on USM and build quality. The Sigma is a great lens for its price. Nice and sharp. I've got great results from it and I don't regret buying it at all.
So if you want a lens in the range of 24-70 that'll do well in low light and you're on a budget, get the Sigma. Its great. If you can afford it go for the Canon because it will be more durable and quicker to focus.
rpstewart
19-06-2007, 12:38
Just out of interest where does the hood attach to on the Sigma? I've always thought that the hood on the Canon is one of it's distinguishing features, by attaching to the main barrel it protects the extending portion and given the backwards zooming it's always the correct size.
Jimmy_Lemon
19-06-2007, 12:39
Hehe - your hampster (?) seems to have eaten some spinach and then gone weight lifting!
Johnny1982
19-06-2007, 12:41
Congrats on the lens. Its what I would of gone for. Fantastic build quality. Easily one of Canons best lenses.
I am sure this lens is getting wacked with a IS unit very soon though given its massive drop in price within the previous year.
Just out of interest where does the hood attach to on the Sigma? I've always thought that the hood on the Canon is one of it's distinguishing features, by attaching to the main barrel it protects the extending portion and given the backwards zooming it's always the correct size.
Ah good point. On the Canon it attaches to the body and the front end extends inside the hood. So the hood protects the zoom. On the Sigma the hood attaches to the front end and only protects the front of the lens. The Canon is far better at protecting the lens and its easier to take the lens cover off too.
Hehe - your hampster (?) seems to have eaten some spinach and then gone weight lifting!
Haha :p Theres no p in hamster as Sumomo would tell you :p
Congrats on the lens. Its what I would of gone for. Fantastic build quality. Easily one of Canons best lenses.
I am sure this lens is getting wacked with a IS unit very soon though given its massive drop in price within the previous year.
Quite possibly in August. I imagine that'll bump up the price a fair bit though. It really is a much nicer designed lens than the Sigma. Even accessibility to the lens cap. Far easier to put on and remove. The hood is the size of the lens too.
Wyvern971
19-06-2007, 12:51
Congrats Pete, tis a great lens :)
not sure if it's £600 greater than the Sigma, but you can sell the sigma (after it's been repaired) and get some money back, or keep it as a backup in case you drop the Canon :eek: :( :'(
one thing i find a pain is using a CP with the hood on at the long end (due to the reverse zoom)
While the lens hood might protect the lens body more by being attached to the body does that not affect it's ability to reduce flare as the front element moves towards the front of the hood?
Thanks to Kerso it was only £300 more than what I paid for the Sigma. I can justify that.
While the lens hood might protect the lens body more by being attached to the body does that not affect it's ability to reduce flare as the front element moves towards the front of the hood?
I wouldn't think so. It seems well designed and it is HUGE.
No it doesnt as its made to focus the oposite way to other lens's
When at 70mm the lens is at its shortest and at 24mm its at it longest so the hood works as it should. another good thing about the hood being attached to the body is it shields the extending part of the lens from water / dust a bit more.
Its a fantastic design and a fantastic lens, had mine about 6 years.
Nice one Pete :) Really like mine but it needs to go back into canon, it's started giving me Err 01 on both bodies (tried cleaning contacts on bodies and lens), intermittent but can't rely on it so back it goes. :(
good choice pete, im sure you wont be dissapointed with it. How you finding the weight of the canon, when i had a go with it in the shop i was surpised it was so heavy, but it does have awesome build quality and produces a lovely crisp image! :)
It is heavier than the Sigma but by only 200g. So its not really an issue.
ranarama
19-06-2007, 19:53
Nice one Pete, I got this a few months ago and it's a quality lens. I know what you mean about the price jump but it's always an exponential jump in price with lenses. 'Twice as good', if you can define such a thing with a lens, is often 4x the price or more.
blinkerz
20-06-2007, 05:10
Im planning to get this next month, But I like the idea of a new version with IS, and would be even better if none of the lens extended. Surely you would think a £600 L lens would have the quality of the 70-200 etc, heck even my non L lens 10-22 doesnt extend.
My 100-400 extends and thats over £1k. The build quality is good. It feels very solid.
ranarama
20-06-2007, 11:55
blinekrz - I know what you are saying but its extension is part of the genius in that it works so well with the lens hood.
blinekrz - I know what you are saying but its extension is part of the genius in that it works so well with the lens hood.
You've got to ask though, if it's such a genius of a design, it means the hood is always at it's optimum shading for the focal length then why aren't ALL their lenses and hoods designed in that way? ;)
Call me cynical but I think their marketing dept got a bonus for coming up with that explanation :p
blinkerz
20-06-2007, 14:44
Surely by extending theres also the higher chance of dust and other nasties getting into the lens. I still want this lens but maybe i should wait for MkII ....
shiato storm
20-06-2007, 14:48
there's something wrong with your lens...there's a hamster in the way of every shot look. a piece of greenery getting savaged by the monster then during an interior architechural shoot he's back again!!
poser ;)
nice lens isn't it :) one thing I can't get over is the hood that's massive!! i'm of 2 minds, I've not played with the 24-105 but I think the hood on that (attached to front of lens, bit like the sigma) is perhaps better as it ends up being smaller overall. then again you bring up a good point about it protecting the zoom... 6 of one etc.
any reason - other than the f/2.8 - you went for the 24-70 over the -105 (with its IS and so on...)? just curious
shiato storm
20-06-2007, 14:51
Surely by extending theres also the higher chance of dust and other nasties getting into the lens.
yes, BUT there's a seal round the telescopic section that prevents this. it is one of the few lenses canon make with weatherproofing in mind. goes great with 1 series 35mm, eos3 and 1 series digitals. trust me, they've thought about what you've said. I guess if you stood in a sand storm then yes, fine dust will get in but then you'd be a muppet not to cover it up in those sorts of conditions. I've shot in pouring rain without probs too - if you're wondering about water...but give it a wipe and let it 'dry' over night though :)
Johnny1982
20-06-2007, 14:52
Surely by extending theres also the higher chance of dust and other nasties getting into the lens. I still want this lens but maybe i should wait for MkII ....
A mark II will be no different in build. It will only have the built in Image Stablizer
Extending barrels are quite well designed. Using a 100 - 400 which is fully push pull system and very little dust got inside.
Why do you need IS on a 24-70 short focal length ?!?!
The cost, weight and limited use would make it extremely specialised.
FranchiseJuan
20-06-2007, 17:12
Forget IS, give me a 24-70 F2 instead.
any reason - other than the f/2.8 - you went for the 24-70 over the -105 (with its IS and so on...)? just curious
I'd prefer constant f/2.8 over f/4. The reach isn't really an issue for what I do. Any large events and I'll take a 10D with the 100-400 on for extra reach. For daily use the 24-70 is perfect. I don't really get the point of the 24-105 f/4 IS. Sure it has IS and the extra reach but its only f/4. The depth of field at f/2.8 will be nicer than f/4 and people will stand out better.
The depth of field at f/2.8 will be nicer than f/4 and Hamsters will stand out better.
Corrected ;)
Oh ya :D Faster USM for catching them too :D
shiato storm
20-06-2007, 23:11
you can always drop the massive hood around them [hamsters] and halt them in their tracks...
haha :D Lettuce works just fine :p
shiato storm
21-06-2007, 12:04
ever fed it brocolli? one of the funniest things I ever seen, little chap tried to stuff it all in his gob and ended up sitting there with this massive growth-like thing either side of his throat...plonker!
hmm...from 24-70 to hamsters...:shrug:
Are there not rumours going around that Sigma will be releasing an updated 24-70 with HSM later this year? I am sure I read something about that on here.
Michael.
Haven't heard anything but it needs it.
Jonnyreb
21-06-2007, 18:38
Sigmas are great, but they just dont compare to Canon :shrug:
antonroland
21-06-2007, 18:48
Sigmas are great, but they just dont compare to Canon :shrug:
Oh boy oh boy
How many cans of worms are you opening here??:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Jonnyreb
21-06-2007, 18:51
Oh boy oh boy
How many cans of worms are you opening here??:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
I'm opening a six pack of whup-ass, kicking back and fiddling with pandora's box :nuts:
antonroland
21-06-2007, 18:53
I have heard an opinion once that the 24-70 and 70-200 are the real classic L lenses...
Obviously among the "regular" walkabout lenses.
Or is it because they simply offered a fair range of focal length in the film days?:shrug:
Jonnyreb
21-06-2007, 18:57
I have heard an opinion once that the 24-70 and 70-200 are the real classic L lenses...
Obviously among the "regular" walkabout lenses.
Or is it because they simply offered a fair range of focal length in the film days?:shrug:
You got it spot on there - 35mm or FF gives you super wide to telephoto in two lenses with (next to no) IQ deterioration
antonroland
21-06-2007, 19:10
You got it spot on there - 35mm or FF gives you super wide to telephoto in two lenses with (next to no) IQ deterioration
This is why I really want to know where they are going with the 5D upgrade - would love to have FF but wouldn't want to buy for that amount a month or two before they upgrade the model. THEN AGAIN... this Mk iii is not so far beyond the 5D (pricewise) either:thinking: :thinking: :thinking:
Jonnyreb
21-06-2007, 19:15
This is why I really want to know where they are going with the 5D upgrade - would love to have FF but wouldn't want to buy for that amount a month or two before they upgrade the model. THEN AGAIN... this Mk iii is not so far beyond the 5D (pricewise) either:thinking: :thinking: :thinking:
been wondering about the 5d & 1ds MkII upgrades. Can only think the digic III will be included and ISO management (though the 5d doesn't really need better ISO)
More pixels on the 1Ds would be counterproductive i would imagine...... its a mystery :shrug:
shiato storm
21-06-2007, 19:29
1dmkIII has an AF problem at the moment though. they fiddled with a near as damn-it perfect system in the mkII and now its not working right any more. oh well...
Jonnyreb
21-06-2007, 19:31
1dmkIII has an AF problem at the moment though. they fiddled with a near as damn-it perfect system in the mkII and now its not working right any more. oh well...
Theres a few views on the subject SS - check CT's links in the Admin thread of same issue
antonroland
21-06-2007, 19:46
Theres a few views on the subject SS - check CT's links in the Admin thread of same issue
Let's start a fresh thread on this - I think we have thread-jacked far enough:rules:
shiato storm
21-06-2007, 20:12
well, we've done ok haven't we :D, new lens, hamsters, 1dmkIII...can't fault it for variety ;)
photostar_1
21-06-2007, 20:34
I love my 24-70 but the thought of IS........oh my credit card is crying....when can I get one ....and will I ever be able to sell a non-IS once it's available??
The 10-20 Sigma is a lovely lens and the 24-70 doesn't replace it..it's just an extra addition.
alexisonfire
22-06-2007, 11:06
rumours going around that Sigma will be releasing an updated 24-70 with HSM later this year? I am sure I read something about that on here.
*Runs off*
Sigmas are great, but they just dont compare to Canon :shrug:
Only if you are offering to pay the difference!
Michael.
What do you think about that:
This is the lens that I do 95% of my photography with. What people have to understand here is that there is some sacrifice when you have a lens that provides you such versatility. I have used this lens since 2003, basically traveling the world with it. What I have discovered, the key to keeping this lens in top notch working order. The day I open one out of the box, I totally tape up the top half of the lens with a strong gaffers tape. This is done to structurally keep the lens taught. This helps eliminate any torquing that takes place with day to day walking around with this on your shoulder. By doing this ad hoc tape job you will have to give up your manual focus option. I know this sounds bizarre, but its true. Also I never and I mean never, do I walk around with the lens extended to 24mm focal length, for this really adds stress to the lens. If you want you lens to maintain critical sharpness for years to come and if you use the lens daily, almost year round like I do. This will keep it sharp. I know many of my colleagues who after 1 or 2 months of heavy use complain that it is no longer sharp. I can actually keep mine going for up to 3 years with out having to have the lens serviced.
To view my work with this lens go to VIIphoto.com and look at my work. Like I said earlier 95% of it is done on this lens. Also my book "My America" was almost shot entirely with the 24-70, 2.8.
We do not live in a perfect world. But for me this lens comes quite close to being perfect. Minus the tape job.
Yours Truly,
Christopher Morris
Is IS really needed on a lens that only goes to 70mm? There must be a lot of shakey togs about :-)
Have to say I wouldn't feel comfortable covering my 24-70 with gaffa tape the day after it arrived..
I've just picked one up for an absolute bargain price, had previously hired one from Stewart for 2 weeks and loved the lens, knew I had to have one, and got it Friday. Love it. Great to walk about, crisp and sharp, and very quick focusing. IS? Never noticed a need for it when I had one on hire, probably would be nice, but surely it would add to the weight considerably, and this thing does weigh enough already.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.