How noticable is the difference really..

D

Duncan.F

Messages
1,452
Name
Duncan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,
I appreciate to some degree you get what you pay for in life [and photograhy!] but how much difference is there between say Sigma and Canon L? If I as a relative newcomer to photography saw two photos of the same subject taken in identical circumstances but with different lenses, would it be obvious to me?
The reason I ask is that I have a Sigma 17-70 as a general walkabout but mainly for portrait work. I am thinking of upgrading to a 24-70 L or similar but am I doing the right thing?! Clearly there is a huge price difference, say £180 compared to over £600 for the canon [and no IS]
I have a 70-200L F4 which I use for sport and candids and its fantastic, can I expect the same with a 24-70?
Your opinions appreciated!!

Cheers,

Dunc
 
The difference is quality. By ALOT. L glass is very high quality, the best lenses you can buy really.

And yes, you can expect the same results with ha 24-70, even better ones (in low light situations) actually as it as an apature of 2.8.

The 24-70 L is a very good lens, as all L glass is. When it comes to lenses and camera equipment in general, you get what you pay for and L glass is expensive becuase it's so good.

I have a 17-40 L and am never going to buy a lens that isn't the L seris ever again.

Oh and the build quality is MUCH better, they are far stronger. L seris lenses are made out of that magnisum alloy or whatever. Metal rather than plastic really, much better.
 
I heard a good quote on this topic not too long ago...

I believe it went: The Sigma does 95% of the Canon L, for 30% of the price...

Long term, the L glass is an investment. But in the Bang-for-Buck stakes, the Sigma wins.
 
I use Sigma. But if I could afford it, I'd only buy L glass.
Fortunately, I'm just a keen amateur who likes a decent photo. If you're a pro, or a real keen type, then L glass is a must.
 
Look through the galleries and try to guess what brand of lens was used for each shot.I bet you cant.
 
BigBaldBob said:
Look through the galleries and try to guess what brand of lens was used for each shot.I bet you cant.
Click to expand...

At 800 pixels across I should certainly hope not. Printed to 20x16 or as a double page spread in a mag, it's a totally different ballgame.

So the answer to the original question is as much about what you want to do with the lens as how good it is.

Also, the canon L version of a lens is quite likely to focus a little quicker than a sigma. This could mean that your hit rate goes up a notch. Is that notch worth 3x the money......... to some it will be, others not at all.
 
to be realistic, and I had the 17-70mm, not a huge amount of difference. The difference you will notice is the edge performance. The sigma tends to be softer wide open but stop is down a bit and things improve a lot. By contrast, the 24-70 and something like the canon 17-55 are more consistent across the frame even wide open. The difference is really noticeable with the 17-55mm. The sigma though is a far better performer across the frame than the tamron 28-75mm...that was really bad wide open.

but i'm rambling...someones little bit is another's, huge difference and for what it's worth I wish I hadn't gotten rid of the sigma, it was a cheap, perfect walkaround lens.
 
dazzajl said:
At 800 pixels across I should certainly hope not. Printed to 20x16 or as a double page spread in a mag, it's a totally different ballgame.

So the answer to the original question is as much about what you want to do with the lens as how good it is.

Also, the canon L version of a lens is quite likely to focus a little quicker than a sigma. This could mean that your hit rate goes up a notch. Is that notch worth 3x the money......... to some it will be, others not at all.
Click to expand...

Hey Duncan, next time you do a double page magazine assignment, or exhibit your work at 20x16 you're really gonna kick yourself for buying a Sigma.
 
I think it's a little too simplistic to simply compare two zooms and make an opinion on sharpness alone. Similarly, to use a zoom as a benchmark for the quality of 'L' resolving power would be to miss the point. The bigger picture (and not the centre spread) is worth debating.

Zooms first.....
The build quality of the Canon L's is up there with the best of them and would be superior to the majority of Canon and third party zooms. Sharpness is comparable in most cases although there are some non-L's which can surpass them, especially on a crop sensor body. Flare resistance and the ability to control CA is quite well catered for and generally they will cope better than non-L's....one area where L's excel is the contrast they can reproduce. I've seen zoom lenses out there that will produce images pretty much indistinguishable from an L and also seen L's that don't quite live up to 'the legend'.

Primes.....
A whole different world now. Most primes are sharp once their aperture sweet spot has been reached...usually two or three stops up from their maximum aperture. The L primes can maintain this sharpness for a wider aperture range. The internal construction of the L's gives much better bokeh and background isolation at the lower aperture numbers and they are generally faster lenses. Build quality remains superior and contrast is equal or better in most cases.

The price ratio is not really relevent. In most items we buy, the price is exponentially geared to increased standard. If you want something a little better then you have to pay a lot more. Is an L twice as good...no, not even close to those numbers. Is the L better...generally speaking, yes it is (IMO).

The ultimate gauge of people's perception would be a poll to see how many togs have sold their L to buy the equivalent lens in non-L format. If performance and quality was equal then it would be a sensible thing to do.

I'm nowhere near good enough to use non-L glass, that's for the pro's who can utilise all their skills to get the perfect image but I need all the advantages I can muster.

Bob
 
Hi,
Thanks for the inputs. I am still not sure....! One thing I have noticed is that the auto focus is really quick on the L lens I have and I do seem to get better [Its not really the right word but they just seem to be better!]. Perhaps its my perception because I use the 70-200 for rugby and the fast focus is essential.
I want to do more with portrait work, just for family and friends and I seem to struggle a bit with the Sigma. That, I think, is generally a light issue indoors.
I am trying to convince myself really [but your help would be useful!], I could raise the dosh.... I suppose.
But which one 24-70 or 17-40 or something else. Ideally I want a good walkabout but must be good for portrait work.
Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Dunc

Got to go and do some plastering round a friends, back later!
 
If you can afford L glass then buy it, if not, there's no point beating yourself up over it. The 24-70 would serve you best as a walkabout/portait lens.
 
I recently sold a Sigma 24-70, in favour of a Canon 24-105 L.
When I bought the Sigma, it had a front focus issue, so wasn't to pleased with it from the outset. The lens was returned to Sigma. It was away for 3 weeks, inside that time I bought the Canon, and decided to sell the Sigma. When the sigma arrived back to me, I
set up and took some comparison shots using the 2 lenses.
The difference between the 2 of then was negligible quality wise.
Sigma had done a great job in recalibrating the lens.
So the conclusion I came up with is that, pound for pound the Sigma wins, but only if you get a good copy.
In my opinion Sigma are let down badly by their quality control.
 
Duncan.

Canon Bob has really summed it up. Is the difference worth the extra. I have a Sigma 135-400 for my Canon. But found the focus to slow. I now have the 100-400 Canon, much better and quicker. Image quality, full frame the Canon wins. Is it worth the difference, to me yes, to someone else, who knows. The only way you're going to know is to use both lenses. See if you can get a dealer to let you try the Canon and compare it to the Sigma.

If you can't find a dealer locally Focus is at the NEC next month, could be a useful visit. Doing picture tests could be a bit of a challenge though.

You might find this review of help

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02092906canonef2470l.asp
 
BigBaldBob said:
Hey Duncan, next time you do a double page magazine assignment, or exhibit your work at 20x16 you're really gonna kick yourself for buying a Sigma.
Click to expand...

If you want to reply to something I've written, it's generally accepted as good manners to say it to me.

Do you never print your work then Bob? Some people still like to have photographs and if the original poster wants opinions and thoughts on this lens choice, then it's a good if we can offer a broad range of thoughts for him.

True, if all you ever want to to with your images is post 800 pixel versions on the web, then a good quality lens is going to be mostly wasted. If you like make lots of prints and enjoy seeing real photos, quality could be more important. There is not that much difference between a sigma and a canon but to some, that small difference is important.
 
Some good points made already and I agree with Dazza's comments on quality.

I started my L glass collection by buying second hand. If you don't like the lens you can move it on with fairly small loss (assuming you buy correctly). The difference is there but not in every shot. Contrast is the most noticeable difference and has been said produce lovely BOKEH.

I have bought Sigma lens and will continue to do so if the need arises. The last one I bought was a Sigma and although I don't expect the 2nd hand value will be worth much this is just one other factor and you will need to decide how it applies to you.
 
dazzajl said:
If you want to reply to something I've written, it's generally accepted as good manners to say it to me.

Do you never print your work then Bob? Some people still like to have photographs and if the original poster wants opinions and thoughts on this lens choice, then it's a good if we can offer a broad range of thoughts for him.
Click to expand...

Exactly, maybe you should have responded to me directly also,instead of dismissing the point I was making.You seem to be assuming that I use Sigma glass exclusively and don't print any of my work?
I have a large range of glass in my collection, ranging from wife naggingly expensive Nikkor lenses to more modestly priced Sigma and Tamron glass that I have collected over the years.All of which Ive used and still use to create and sell large prints.
There are a number of professional photographers that use Sigma glass regularly, and very successfully.To infer that you cant print large high quality images with Sigma glass simply isn't true.
There are limitations to the cheaper glass, usually speed,build quality and durability but the difference in image quality certainly doesn't hinder your ability to print top quality images.
My advice to Duncan would be this.
If you look after you gear well,get the speed and durability you require from the cheaper brand, and are just interested in taking great photographs buy the Sigma.If you desperately need faster glass and also have an interest in looking at test charts, buy the Canon.
 
Exactly, maybe you should have responded to me directly
Click to expand...
I did Bob.

There are a number of professional photographers that use Sigma glass regularly, and very successfully.
Click to expand...
I know, I'm one of them. Like many people I try to use the best tool for the job and sometimes that's Sigma. I don't consider them to be lesser than a canon from some snobbish viewpoint but rather my experience of using them has shown me that they can be very good. However, I stand by the comments that canon L glass is, in general, a better product. How much that's worth in real terms will be different to each user.

You may want to take a re-read over some of what's been said. The comment about comparing quality of lenses using web images was a direct reply to your post. All the rest is is general opinion and not written to start a flame war........ Although I'm not busy this evening if you want to book one. ;)
 
Walls sums things up quite well.
Dont be thinking you'll be getting completely different quality shots because you wont.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top