- Messages
- 35
- Name
- Gabor
- Edit My Images
- Yes
By far my most used lens is the Canon 24-70 2.8L (mki). I haven't upgraded to the mkii as I didn't see a enough difference to justify the cost. In any case the mki is built well and handles great, the one thing I would consider upgrading for is image stabilization!
I heard there is an IS version of this lens on it's way from Canon..however I anticipate this will cost an arm and a leg when it hits the shelves.
So now I've been looking at Sigma's 24-70 2.8 optically stabilizied ART lens as a possible candidate to replace the old Canon lens.
I'm not familiar with Sigma lenses, but I only heard good things about its ART range, so was wondering if anyone has any experience with this particular lens? At £1200 it looks good value, but how does it compare to the L series build and image quality? Is it worth the money or shall I wait to see what Canon has in store?
I know Tamron has an image stabilized version as well, but I don't particularly like its build quality over the Canon, though its price is very good. In any case the Sigma looks more like it could match the L lens in quality?
I heard there is an IS version of this lens on it's way from Canon..however I anticipate this will cost an arm and a leg when it hits the shelves.
So now I've been looking at Sigma's 24-70 2.8 optically stabilizied ART lens as a possible candidate to replace the old Canon lens.
I'm not familiar with Sigma lenses, but I only heard good things about its ART range, so was wondering if anyone has any experience with this particular lens? At £1200 it looks good value, but how does it compare to the L series build and image quality? Is it worth the money or shall I wait to see what Canon has in store?
I know Tamron has an image stabilized version as well, but I don't particularly like its build quality over the Canon, though its price is very good. In any case the Sigma looks more like it could match the L lens in quality?