24-70mm f2.8 Lens

christurbo

christurbo

Messages
281
Edit My Images
Yes
What lens do you think would make a good 1st lens for a Canon 5Dmk3?

I was going to bundle in the 24-105 f4 lens, however have been looking at the 24-70mm f2.8.

I could get a second hand Canon mk1 L lens, new Sigma, or at a push a Tamron.

I've read that the Sigma is soft wide open, and the Tamron is closer to the Canon. That would be reflected in the low price of the Sigma.

Any experiences.
 
Canon mk2 if you can. I wouldn't touch the sigma one with a barge pole, Tamron can be quite OK if it is a good copy (plenty of problem reports all round the internet), Canon mk1 is nice and sharp, but the internals are extremely fragile (see lensrentals.com blog). So that really points to mk2
 
It's a shame that the 24-70L has raised in value as I'd recommend that. Although you can still pick them up for £800 or so on here occasionally.

The mk2 is just too much added expense for the benefits it offers. If you really think you need f/2.8 I'd go for the Tamron or wait for a well priced Mk1 L. Failing that go for a 24-105 f/4 IS.
 
They were all tested in AP mag last month. The 2 canon's were still better than the sigma tamron.
 
i woulb be temptated at the panamoz tamron price of £669 if you pay by bank transfer.
 
I have the Sigma 24-70 HSM. It's great at 24mm, but as soon as you go to 50-70mm wide open it's soft.

I'm debating replacing it with the Tamron or the Canon. The Canon will have to wait but if I go for the Tamron at least it's cheaper.
 
christurbo said:
I've read that the Sigma is soft wide open, and the Tamron is closer to the Canon. That would be reflected in the low price of the Sigma.

Any experiences.
Click to expand...

Yup, I have the sigma and while it may be be marginally soft at the long end, wide open, it doesn't take much stopping down to sharpen it up again. Take a lot of what you read anywhere with a pinch of salt - maybe those reviewers had soft copies? It isn't unknown for them to slip through Sigma's QC.

daugirdas said:
I wouldn't touch the sigma one with a barge pole,
Click to expand...

Is that from personal experience or just on what you've read? See above comment.

rjbell said:
They were all tested in AP mag last month. The 2 canon's were still better than the sigma tamron.
Click to expand...

But how much better? The law of diminishing returns states that as you go further upscale in terms of quality, there comes a point when the extra quality ceases to be worth the extra cost. Sigma, £599, Canon, L USM I£2299 - that's a hell of a premium to pay for a red ring! @Buy the Sigma from a shop so if it has a problem, you can exchange it for a good copy and save £1700 for other kit or a holiday!
 
Nod said:
Yup, I have the sigma and while it may be be marginally soft at the long end, wide open, it doesn't take much stopping down to sharpen it up again. Take a lot of what you read anywhere with a pinch of salt - maybe those reviewers had soft copies? It isn't unknown for them to slip through Sigma's QC.

Is that from personal experience or just on what you've read? See above comment.

But how much better? The law of diminishing returns states that as you go further upscale in terms of quality, there comes a point when the extra quality ceases to be worth the extra cost. Sigma, £599, Canon, L USM I£2299 - that's a hell of a premium to pay for a red ring! @Buy the Sigma from a shop so if it has a problem, you can exchange it for a good copy and save £1700 for other kit or a holiday!
Click to expand...

Both experience and mtf data and reviews - everything points to very poor glass. Even the mtf values look really well below the competition. While some of you sigma only users claim it's slightly soft for some of us that translates to unusable. Try 85 mm prime for a reference of a sharp lens, it is likely you won't touch sigma again
 
I have tried Nikon's 85mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 and while there's no doubt the IQ is marginally better than the Sigma, it's even more true that the Sigma stops at 70mm, so the 85mm is completely irrelevant to this discussion! ;)

I refer you to the law of diminishing returns again. Besides, it's still true that in most cases a prime will outperform a zoom.

As I said, the IQ is more than adequate from my Sigma to print up to A3+ and in all honesty, how many people here go much bigger than that?
 
I agree with Nod here , it seems to me that theres two types of photographers

those who spend a lot of their time reading test reviews, shooting test charts and making comparrisons of abstruse data

and those who buy the best lens they can afford then get out and take pictures.

IMO i'm far more interested in a view on does it take an acceptable picture from some one who's used it extensively, than in a marginal difference in mtf values according to techical data picked up second or third hand from a review
 
Nod said:
But how much better? The law of diminishing returns states that as you go further upscale in terms of quality, there comes a point when the extra quality ceases to be worth the extra cost. Sigma, £599, Canon, L USM I£2299 - that's a hell of a premium to pay for a red ring! @Buy the Sigma from a shop so if it has a problem, you can exchange it for a good copy and save £1700 for other kit or a holiday!
Click to expand...

No you are right, i got cut sort i was going to come back and edit it. There is very little in it at all and infact matched the nikon when shooting charts as did the Tamron, and its a lot more compact and lighter than the canon and nikon version which is a big plus for me because i hate weight and bulk.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top