Canon 24-70mm 2.8 and sigma 24-70mm 2.8 ??

The canon is the sharper of the two and is a fine lens but the new Tamron with VC is a one of the best third party lenses I ever used
 
Must admit I had a couple of copies of the Sigma 24-70 HSM before I got a good one and even at that it wasn't as sharp as the Canon 24-70L although not far off.

I'd always go for the Canon if I had the money but the Sigma (and I'm sure tamron) are both good alternatives providing it's a good copy.
 
Love my Canon 24-70L and it produces nice sharp images. It's big and bulky but on 1D bodies it's very well balanced. Not tried the Sigma but it has good reviews and does save a few bucks compared to the Canon L series lens.
 
I have the Canon 24-70 F2.8L (Mk1), and it's my workhorse lens, sharp enough to cut yourself on, and gives a nice bokeh. I did have the sigma version at one time but couldn't get away with it.

I don't use mine for portraits as it's a tad short on a full frame body, but on a crop body like a 550D it would provide enough reach for portraits, and just about wide enough for group shots.
 
We have the Sigma (not HSM), I can't fault it for IQ. But the focussing in low light is appalling. So, as a wedding lens it's a whole bag of frustration compared to a Canon USM lens.

I haven't tried the HSM version but it'd have to be loads better before I bought it over the Canon.
 
Phil V said:
We have the Sigma (not HSM), I can't fault it for IQ. But the focussing in low light is appalling. So, as a wedding lens it's a whole bag of frustration compared to a Canon USM lens.

I haven't tried the HSM version but it'd have to be loads better before I bought it over the Canon.
Click to expand...

Is the HSM version the newer one?
 
I was in the market for a 24-70 2.8 a fewe months ago. I couldn't justify even thinking of the Canon MkII so I was looking at either the Canon MkI (which was a push financially) the Tamron (which was about the same price at the time) and the newer Sigma f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM (which was easily in reach financially). I ended up getting the Sigma and after trying that I'm more than happy with the results. I wont be looking for a new 24-70 f2.8 unless I win the lottery. I got some great shots from it at my folks golden wedding do a couple of weeks ago using my 5D3 and the wife also got some great shots with it once I'd changed to a different lens.
 
Are the sigma and tamron ones weatherproofed?
 
Phil V said:
We have the Sigma (not HSM), I can't fault it for IQ. But the focussing in low light is appalling. So, as a wedding lens it's a whole bag of frustration compared to a Canon USM lens.

I haven't tried the HSM version but it'd have to be loads better before I bought it over the Canon.
Click to expand...

That does put me off a bit really, I wonder if the newer one is better in the lower light situations?

Like Modchild also said the Canon is a lot of money unless you win the lottery!
 
I spoke to a few people about the new 24-70 recently including the owner of a major camera equipment rental shop here in Texas. He said that the mrk2 is a improvement but lacks the "wow factor". When I ask him about the new 70-200 he said "now that was a upgrade worth paying for". Don't get me wrong its a nice lens but it seems to be way over priced. I'm starting to think that I might go with the 16-35 instead. I use the wide end mostly but I'm a bit nervous that I will miss the 36 through 69 length if I go with it. Thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top