* spend my money

Danger_Mouse

Danger_Mouse

Messages
636
Name
wayne
Edit My Images
Yes
*help me

I have just purchased a canon 5D (mk1) and am now looking for a lens to pair up with it.

i currently have:
nifty 50 1.8
sigma 70-200 2.8

i want to fill the 24-70 range and maybe have a little more range but i find i will loose speed if i do.

I will be looking second hand and new, and will spend what i have too.

my main areas of photography are portraits (studio and location) but may venture into weddings soon.

i have read i will need 2.8 minimum for weddings so have looked at

canon 24-70 2.8
and sigma 24-70 2.8

whats the difference like in these? would the sigma be good or will i always wish i had gone for the canon? its a big price difference!

also the 24-105 would be nice for studio but now im thinking i may just use the 24-70 for that too, or the 70-200

so, sigma or canon really?
 
Can't comment on the Canon side of things but I have used Sigma's in various forms and have no complaints. They produce great image quality (assuming a good example) and the EX build quality is very good (but not weather sealed).
 
I can't compare the two you're interested in, but I have the 24-70 sigma and find it excellent quality. I picked it up second hand for £175 and for that I think its excellent value for money. Slightly soft at the wide end, but the same can be said for most lenses to be fair. Otherwise, very good quality.

For what I paid for it, I think its an absolute bargain. The Canon would have to be massively more impressive to be worth the extra cash, and I just don't think it can be.
 
24-105L is the only thing that springs to mind.

It may be F/4.0 but it more than makes up for that in IS level.

Providing you're not shooting race cars that is.
 
The 24-70 would be ideal for you with the 2.8. Even though the 24-105 has image stabilisation, that only really helps you eliminate camera shake and is no good if your subject is moving, even a little bit. With lenses, aperture is the key so I'd always select a wider aperture as the first choice.

If the choice is Canon v Sigma and you can afford the Canon, then it's a no-brainer. Why pay for 2nd best if you can buy one of the best lenses in Canon's lineup.
 
or indoors where it's a great doorstop but the IS is useless because it does not counter subject movement.

How about the 85mm f1.8. Faster than your zooms at f1.8 blindingly good indoors and outdoors, sharp as a tack, light enough to use all day and one of the best lenses Canon makes. Only thing missing is a red band around it and IMHO is an utter gem of a lens and a bargain.
 
It was the 24-105 4 L that i was looking at but i now think i will then have to get a 2.8 for when i do a wedding.

I think i will look for a Cheap canon or a sigma (see what comes up) as there is a big price difference from sigma to canon, then can get the canon when im earning money from the shoots.

will just have to check the lens to make sure its sharp before parting with monty.

Thanks for the imput.... and stay tuned for questions about flash guns next month.lol
 
I have used both the canon and the sigma.
The canon is faster, great bokeh, better built, for portraits i found it to be excellent but when it came to landscapes there aint a lot of difference.
If you can afford the canon get it and never look back, if your budget is limited then get the Sigma for now as it is a reasonable compromise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top