sigma 24 70 f2.8

Save your money folks and buy the Nikon / Canon 24-70 f2.8 . Get the Sigma and you will always be questioning a bad shot on Sigma QC. I have the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and have to say, it is virtually prime lens quality from f2.8 onwards. You pays your money and all that.
 
Boldonian said:
Save your money folks and buy the Nikon / Canon 24-70 f2.8 . Get the Sigma and you will always be questioning a bad shot on Sigma QC. I have the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and have to say, it is virtually prime lens quality from f2.8 onwards. You pays your money and all that.
Click to expand...

Would be nice to see a 100% crop and original straight out of the camera too just to see how much better it is. Anyone else with the canon 24-70 f2.8L also would be good to see how much better it is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
strobemonkey said:
I thought they are at f2.8 ???:lol::lol::lol:

This is just my sigma lens.. it only gets sharpe at f8 and above that's why it only lasted a few hours with me, it went back the same day it was delivered.
Click to expand...

What did you replace it with and a photo and 100% crop would be nice to see how much better it is if you did get a better lens.
 
Ajophotog said:
What did you replace it with and a photo and 100% crop would be nice to see how much better it is if you did get a better lens.
Click to expand...

i replaced it with a 24-70L last year, i can assure you the L lens is so much better than your sigma. A lens will not stay that long with me if I'm not happy specially in the sharpness department. I just sold the lens 2 weeks ago as it was heavy and bulky for my needs. I now have a Tamron 28-75. I will do some f2.8 shots for you when I get the time.
 
Last edited:
Ajophotog said:
Would be nice to see a 100% crop and original straight out of the camera too just to see how much better it is. Anyone else with the canon 24-70 f2.8L also would be good to see how much better it is.
Click to expand...

There you go http://picasaweb.google.com/daugirdas/Canon2470mmSampler# (full size available)


These are meant to illustrate what the L is like wide open, and there is also one at f/8. They are not meant to be arty, newsworthy or interesting in any way. The light was mostly very low, hence f/2.8 and high-ish ISO. They have only very moderate sharpening applied (LR default), and minimal or none NR.

A quick preview for the curious: (embarrassment from work)
20101215-IMG_6166.jpg


20101213-IMG_5815.jpg

(Focus in the middle)

20101204-IMG_5392.jpg

good light pixel peeping goodness (hand held - would be even better on tripod)

20101030-WM6J8677.jpg

He used Sigma lens on Nikon :lol:
 
daugirdas said:
There you go http://picasaweb.google.com/daugirdas/Canon2470mmSampler# (full size available)


These are meant to illustrate what the L is like wide open, and there is also one at f/8. They are not meant to be arty, newsworthy or interesting in any way. The light was mostly very low, hence f/2.8 and high-ish ISO. They have only very moderate sharpening applied (LR default), and minimal or none NR.
Click to expand...

I D/L the files and looked at them at 100% and they were worst than mine if I'm honest, the ISO is high and they were shot at f2.8 but at 100% they lack the detail and sharpness. Be good to see what others think. I will take some at F2.8 and post up crops later.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think we have to remember the difference in price in the two lenses.
It's huge.
If Sigma 24-70 really was as good as the L, Canon would be in serious trouble!!

I think for the price of the Sigma, it can be a damn good lens.
I'd love a 24-70 L, but would have to have some serious persuasion for me to fork out £700-£800 for it.

When I get a bit of time spare ( :lol: ) I shall prove that the Sigma is capable of producing some darn good shots at F2.8
 
3 taken with the sigma and one with the 24-105 f4L, easy to spot the f2.8 Siggy shot but the f4 and f8 not so easy against the Canon.

The Siggy insn't as bad for the money as people think. F2.8 is soft but stopped down I find it is fine.

5274301555_f0b21123ac_o.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think people are going a bit too far here. Even at f2.8 the worst shot here would look fine as a whole image print, even when printed pretty big. I'm pretty sure that things will only look bad after a big crop and a large print and how often do any of us really do that?
 
I love a good Sigma-bashing thread (it always seems to be the same people too... ;) )!

To be honest, I don't really see how the comparison between the Sigma and Canon versions is really relavent. Of course the Canon will be sharper, have more contrast, and faster AF, It costs 3 or 4 times the price!

It's all well and good saying 'save your money and get the canon', but some people cannot justify, or do not want to spend the best part of a grand on a lens. Some people can and will. Nothing wrong with either option!

Very few people will be seriously trying to chose between the two. If they have the money, the Canon is clearly the better lens, if they don't, then there's not much point suggesting it to them anyway. Different lenses, aimed clearly at different customers :).

Edit: Or, if you bat for the other team ( ;) ), replace 'Canon L series' with 'Nikon pro with spangly gold ring', and change '3 or 4' to '5 or 6' times the price :D )
 
Last edited:
I think at the end of the day if the Sigma lenses were as good , then the likes of Nikon and Canon would have serious issues regarding pricing etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top