| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2007 09:44:23 AM · #1 |
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM $$$expensive
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon $inexpensive.
Has anybody had experience with both of these lenses who can compare them? One lens or the other for recommendations?
Thanks! :-)
|
|
|
|
09/15/2007 10:19:28 AM · #2 |
Well, this isn't exactly what you asked, but I'll throw out there that the Tamron 28-75 has darn near the same range as the two you're asking about, and it's quality is at least equal to that of the Canon, at a much more reasonable price.
That said, I work with a photog who uses the Canon 24-70, and it is a great performer, but is also pretty heavy. Up side of that is, it's built like a tank.
As for the Sigma, I've got nothing...
|
|
|
|
09/15/2007 11:15:33 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
the Tamron 28-75 has darn near the same range as the two you're asking about, and it's quality is at least equal to that of the Canon |
You are insane. |
|
|
|
09/15/2007 11:32:33 AM · #4 |
I have the Canon, it is brilliant.
I do not have the Sigma, it may or may not be brilliant.
:) |
|
|
|
09/15/2007 11:36:20 AM · #5 |
Hi,
I went with the Sigma to save on budget and boy do I love it. I have been extremely happy. I really can't compare it to the Canon but I went to a volleyball match the other day and used the Sigma the whole time, it was awesome! |
|
|
|
09/15/2007 11:47:01 AM · #6 |
While a few cheaper zoom lenses can come close to the Canon 24-70 2.8L (or any Canon L lens), they do so only in a very narrow part of their range under specific conditions. The Canon 24-70 2.8L will give you clear, sharp, crisp images across the whole 24-70 range and across all of it's fstops. In addition, the build quality of the cheaper lenses won't be near that of the Canon.
If you can't afford the Canon lens and it's something cheaper or nothing... go with nothing and save your money till you can get the Canon.
Mike
|
|
|
|
09/15/2007 11:48:26 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
the Tamron 28-75 has darn near the same range as the two you're asking about, and it's quality is at least equal to that of the Canon |
You are insane. |
Thanks mate :-) I'm used to that response by now; I get it every time I refuse to jump on the "L-glass is the best!" bandwagon. Comes down to how much you're willing to spend for a name, I guess.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2007 12:06:36 PM · #8 |
What are you shooting?
Will it be wet and does focus speed matter? If so, then get teh L glass. If not, then get the other glass.
Yes, there is a HUGE difference in focus speed between L and third party lenses, and once you use L and grow used to that speed, you can't shoot with less lenses - you'll just get frustrated at how slow they focus.
And L focuses faster than canon's other USM lenses, at least the ones I have. Shoot something coming at you at 70mph and you'll see the difference in hard cold pixels.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2007 12:08:04 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
the Tamron 28-75 has darn near the same range as the two you're asking about, and it's quality is at least equal to that of the Canon |
You are insane. |
Thanks mate :-) I'm used to that response by now; I get it every time I refuse to jump on the "L-glass is the best!" bandwagon. Comes down to how much you're willing to spend for a name, I guess. |
Comes down to a tenuous grasp on reality, mate.
I've owned that Tamron and I own the Canon now, and there is no comparison between the two in either image quality or build. I'm not an L glass fanboy (see 50 and 85mm L primes in my bag?), but I can recognize quality when I see it.
If you are shooting images to post on the web, buy the cheaper lens. If you want to be making large prints, buy good glass.
Message edited by author 2007-09-15 12:09:02. |
|
|
|
09/15/2007 12:08:50 PM · #10 |
Can't comment on the Sigma ... but I have both the Tamron and the Canon. The reason my Tamron doesn't get used any more? Focusing speed. The Canon simply focuses faster in low light conditions. When I'm shooting weddings/receptions, you have to nail the shot "as it happens". There's no time for slow-focus-hunting. Other than focus speed ... I really liked the Tamron and used it for a long time before I threw the money at the Canon lens.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2007 12:58:08 PM · #11 |
| The 24-70 Canon on the 350XT is fast to focus, precise, and act like a 38-112mm lens - a useful range, and mostly wide enough at the 38 end. It performs very well on the 350XT. The 77mm filters are expensive. The long lens hood means that you do not have to go and buy a UV filter merely to protect the front glass element. It is a heavy lens but for city work and social occasions in terms of flexible use it is hard to beat - although you might do well with the 85mm, 50mm, and 28mm primes. I have not tried the 28mm and have heard that is softish. |
|
|
|
09/15/2007 02:03:59 PM · #12 |
Thanks folks! :-)
I want to get a portrait lens and I'm too lazy to swap between my 100mm and 50mm primes. My 50mm prime is cheap anyway, and tends to have colour cast at lower light at a distance, plus is slow to focus, and cheap feeling, and noisy.
I so rarely use my 18-200 Sigma anymore because it just doesn't compare to my other lenses. It's been on the shelf at home for the last year, and I'm missing opportunities because of it.
Also, I've decided to buy a 40D as soon as I can get one. Maybe wait for October to roll around so I can get one at Henry's here in Canada (a third-world country, so we're behind), or take a drive to Buffalo, NY, if there are any there.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/30/2025 06:54:54 PM EST.
