24-70 2.8 canon v sigma

inaneredstripe

inaneredstripe

Messages
6,457
Name
mark
Edit My Images
Yes
looking into some more fast lenses for the wedding togging.
her fav lens is the 24-105 L , but on occasion in low light it struggles.
so were looking at the sigma 24-70 EX DG and the canon 24-70L, both f2.8.
what i'd like to know is .
does the better image quality of the canon justify more than double the price tag?
 
You state that you know the quality is better in the Canon..... I would have thought that if your doing weddings and being paid for high quality photographs then the question is mute.
 
i have used both. its not just the image quality that should be an issue but also the focusing speed and accuracy.
i found the speed and accuracy to be much better on the Canon, it seemed to focus quicker and lock on much more securely than the sigma.
Although both are 2.8, i would recommend the canon for those real low light moments.
It does depend on how much use you are going to get from it though, like you say, is it worth twice the price......?
 
inaneredstripe said:
it would be if i had money falling out of my a***.
i,m leaning towards the canon. but how much better is it than the sigma?
is it realy several hundred pounds better?
Click to expand...

You are asking the question.. therefore I presume you can afford the canon.. if you go for the sigma then you are saying.. I am a wedding photographer but I dont want to use the best lens...

If your serious about being a wedding tog then go for it.. not half go for it...

Thats my opinion :)
 
Zaphod said:
i have used both. its not just the image quality that should be an issue but also the focusing speed and accuracy.
i found the speed and accuracy to be much better on the Canon, it seemed to focus quicker and lock on much more securely than the sigma.
Although both are 2.8, i would recommend the canon for those real low light moments.
It does depend on how much use you are going to get from it though, like you say, is it worth twice the price......?
Click to expand...

It's more than twice the price, more like 3 times.

That said i think the Canon is worth it, I am getting one. I have the sigma now, actually 2, its not that sharp (thou that could be because it doesn't focus properly), built quality is ok, focus ring is a little stiff, don't like the front element moving out when zooming and 82mm filter ring makes UV filters $$$ !
 
I've got the Sigma, from the reviews I read I couldn't justify the extra for the Canon.

The question I'd be asking is whether the focusing speed advantage of the Canon is needed for weddings and is there any visual difference between the two lenses when printed out for a wedding album ?

I'm almost certain than the only difference between some lenses is noticed by "pixel peepers" not "photo printers"


Ps. I don't think I've binned a shot from my Sigma yet because of lens issues, just shots that I've got wrong :D
 
I use the Sigma on weddings and in the studio at work...a colleague has the Canon version and for studio work the difference isn't noticeable. I haven't managed to use a Canon on any weddings yet but the prints I've had from the Sigma are top notch :) Although this will depend on which printers you use too....
 
The question, to me, in comparing these 2 lenses, is more one about durability than how sharp the lens may be. Pixel peepers as has been said will notice a small (and generally insignificant) difference in sharpness. The Canon lens should have better quality built and be up to the potential rigors of a professional existance. Does this warrant 3 times the price, that is the question you will have to answer for yourself ( it does if it lasts three times as long). I have used both Sigma and Canon lenses (and still do) and both are quality items capable of producing excellent results.
 
Slightly Off-Topic. What's the warranty period on Canon lenses, is it better / worse than the 3 year Sigma ?
 
I hired the Canon for a week and absolutely loved it. However I ended up buying the Sigma, because at the time I couldn't justify the expense of the Canon.

If I were to be in your position, I would take the Canon route. If you're going to be using it professionally then the "L" is the way to go, end of.

Steve
 
Can the "betterness" of the Canon lens be quantified? Is it 10% better? 20% better? Is it better enough to justify you spending 100% more on the lens?

In the end, no-one can answer that question but you...
 
Please keep in mind, that if you are not desperate to buy one now...

Rumour HQ states that Canon WILL release an updated version of the 24-70mm with I.S. (y)

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_60D.html

Current one is built like a tank though, er, except that it fits on a camera and doesn't blow stuff up. Which is a shame somedays I'll tell you. :thinking:
 
ta guys. ive heard the rumours of canon updating to IS.
well ive just bought a nice sigma f2.8 18-50 ex dc from this very sight, but for my 30D, not the 5D my mrs uses.(ta ray)
but i,ll still be looking for something for the 5D.
i too find it hard to justify the massive extra investment in the canon lens. especialy when that lens isnt gonna get huge amounts of use.
the wifes fav lens is her 24-105 f4 IS usm L glass.
the ex dg is after all supposedly sigmas pro spec lens.
my wife is VERY picky about the quality of shots we use, but to be honest , i doubt most clients would know the difference between the product of a sigma and an L lens if it jumped up and bit them on the a**e.
thankyou for all the comments and suggestions.
sorry to those with more money than me, but i think its gonna be the sigma.
 
Raymond Lin said:
don't like the front element moving out when zooming
Click to expand...

The Canon 24-70L front element moves out when zooming too.. albeit when zooming out.. (y)
 
This is subjective, but I have the Canon 24-70 F2.8L and love it. Good build quality, very quick and accurate focusing, with sharp results.
 
I have the Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro and love it. Very good images, beautiful colours and also doubles up as a macro.

The down sides? 82mm filter and mine has just broken near the mount although it's being repaired as we speak. I'm not sure what cause the break so I can't comment on whether its a common problem although I've not seen the same problem online anywhere else.

When (if) canon do release an IS version (or if they drop the 24-105 IS down to f2.8) then I'll be getting that. Until then I'll keep the excellent sigma and spend the difference on something else that will make a much larger difference on my images (y)
 
the canon will be the better lens in terms of IQ, focusing, colours

the downfall of the canon 24-70 2.8 is that for some reason, even though it's an L lens and expensive, there are so many bad copies out there. Google and you'll find lots of people complaining about the lens. Saying that when you do get a good copy WOW

for a wedding photographer the canon is the no brainer over the sigma, it's just a same they sent this lens to sigma's QC :shake:
 
Irritable_Rabbit said:
Please keep in mind, that if you are not desperate to buy one now...

Rumour HQ states that Canon WILL release an updated version of the 24-70mm with I.S. (y)

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_60D.html

Current one is built like a tank though, er, except that it fits on a camera and doesn't blow stuff up. Which is a shame somedays I'll tell you. :thinking:
Click to expand...

How old is the 24-70 ?

I find it unlikely that Canon will release an IS version at the moment, first of all, it will KILL the sale and value of the 24-105 F/4 IS, i mean that lens would be almost pointless, you can get a 70-200 2.8 IS, which together gives you 2.8 IS from 24-200. The only advantage of the 24-105 L over the 24-70L for me is only the IS, and canon is not stupid enough to kill one of their most popular glass like that. They will technically replace 2 lenses with 1 and lose a lot of sales. The price of the 24-70 IS 2.8 would also sky rocket, you think the 70-200 2.8 IS is expensive, if they put is in the 24-70 it'll be at least another £300. It's already £800 ish already, it's going to cost more than a 70-200 2.8 IS !
 
Never under estimate the power of the red L & IS, people will always buy it regardless of price.
 
Optically the Sigma is fine - if not the equal of the L then so close it makes no difference. A good copy of the Sigma is very sharp even wide open.


The key differences that I found are:

The Sigma glass seems to have a slight yellowish cast when comparing similar images with a Canon lens.

82mm filters for the Sigma - not a big deal but if you use filters (I rarely do) then they are more expensive.

2 actions to change to manual focus on the Sigma

much slower focusing on the Sigma - not nearly as snappy as the L - the L is far quicker.

focusing motor is noisy on the Sigma - can be distracting especially if it does a hunt shuffle looking for focus

focus accuracy can be inconsistent on the Sigma. I find that it can be a tad out front or back sufficiently often for me to take key shots twice and refocus in between shots.

I have owned two of the Sigma's (still got one) and for the money it is not a bad lens. It is usability features rather than optical quality which would push me towards the Canon but at nearly 3x the price you have to decide how key these are to your use.

For events I can happily shoot 90% on a 5d with a 50 1.4 and when i need longer I have the 70-200 on another body. If it was me buying at this time I would get a 24L or 35L and run a second body. Just a different option ;-)

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top