DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Help With Lens Choices
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/23/2003 09:00:40 PM · #1
I'm getting ready to buy some new equipment and I'm studying up on my lens choices. I want a lens in the 24-70 F2.8 range.

Canon 24-70 F2.8L USM

$1300

F2.8 thru F22
Closest focusing distance is 15"
Uses 77mm filters
3.3" long (think this is not fully extended maybe)
34 oz

Sigma 24-70 F2.8 EX

$379

F2.8 thru F32
Closest focusing distance is 15.7"
Uses 82mm filters
6" long fully extended
24.7 oz


Can anyone tell me why the Canon is about $900 more than the Sigma lens with the same specs? I know that one feature difference is probably the USM on the Canon. Any ideas on this would be greatly appreciated :)

09/23/2003 09:24:47 PM · #2
What about the question of plastic versus glass optics? Is that relevant?
09/23/2003 09:31:44 PM · #3
Originally posted by Morgan:

What about the question of plastic versus glass optics? Is that relevant?


I don't know.. that's why I'm asking. The specs that I can find on the Sigma and Canon sites don't discuss any 'plastic' elements, but I'm sure that could be one of the reasons the Sigma is cheaper. Do you know anything about this?

09/23/2003 09:49:53 PM · #4
the description of the sigma and canon both say glass is used
09/23/2003 09:53:26 PM · #5
Originally posted by achiral:

the description of the sigma and canon both say glass is used


They do specify that some of the elements are glass but that doens't seem to rule out that others are plastic... it's hard to tell.. I can't find good 'reviews' anywhere...

09/23/2003 09:57:59 PM · #6
This Review of the Sigma lens specifically states that the lens element materials are lead and arsenic free glass... does that mean that there are no plastic elements?

09/23/2003 10:52:11 PM · #7
If you are buying the lens for a 10D....

Note that not all Sigma's will work as advertised. I had this unfortunate experience with the macro lens from Sigma (105/2.8). It works with my 10D about half the time (and it's really great when it works!). But the rest of time, I get Error99 messages. And I have to restart the camera every time it does that. I learned from an email forwarded by Jacko that apparently, Sigma 105's with serial numbers below 3xxx are NOT completely compatible with the 10D. Mine is a 2xxx.


09/23/2003 11:02:15 PM · #8
March 2002 popular photography magazine has a review of the sigma.
09/23/2003 11:47:25 PM · #9
John,

I'm sure you've tried it, but if not the DPReview.com Canon SLR Lens Talk forum is full of questions, comments, reviews etc. on all the Canon lenses. Use the search, though I just glanced and there's a thread at the top asking if the 24-70 is worth it...

fredmiranda.com reviews has some good user reviews on it.

Supposedly the Sigma EX line is all very good. The issue is as much with colour and contrast as it is with sharpness and build quality. I have the 70-200 F4L and I can say without hesitation that an L lens is superb in every sense of the word...build, colour, contrast, sharpness, autofocus speed etc. is all top notch. My 70-200 focuses internally, too, so there's no change in length or rotation of the front element, so using a polarizer is easy, and dust isn't as likely to get in from the front. I'm pretty sure the 24-70 focuses internally as well, though you may want to check that.

I'm also sure you're aware of it, but the 24-70 on a 10D has the field of view equivalent to a 38-112. Keep the 1.6x crop in mind while shopping. The 24-85 is supposedly a very good lens, too, if you're not sure about dropping a ton of money.

Also consider a few prime lenses instead. I have the 28 f/2.8 and the 50 f/1.4 to cover the medium range and both can fit in my little bag. They cost less than half what the 24-70 would (and the 50 1.8 and the 28 2.8 would be a cheaper combo still) and I could equal or beat the 24-70 in optical performance. The 1.4 has a big advantage in light-gathering capability, and the two cover most of what the zoom could. With your style of shooting (that which I have seen) I'm not sure a zoom would be needed. You seem to take still-life shots more than action/pj type stuff (where a zoom is the best) and a fixed perspective might suit you.

I know that Mag has the Sigma, and I know he really likes it. You can search pbase for 24-70 shots by adding 'site:pbase.com' to your google searches. It will bring up a lot of examples.

09/23/2003 11:55:29 PM · #10
PS The Sigma is 100% glass...
09/24/2003 01:24:21 AM · #11
Some sigma shots (compared with a Tokina though):

//www.tawbaware.com/sigma_tokina_test1.htm

//www.popphoto.com has reviews for both lenses.
I'm assuming you've already scoured photo.net for info.

I have to agree with jtf about prime vs. zoom, but you've probably
read/heard it all before. On the other hand, those extra 4mm would
go a long way. Even if the optics are bad (and that's such a relative
term), who takes pictures of MTF charts all day and hangs them on their
wall? If you like what you get, what else matters?

Anyway, the answer to your question (besides the obvious: brand)
is that USM is sweet (but really only for telephoto...TLAs sell well tho), the Sigma lens' AF is slow & noisy, and the zoom is a little stiff in the wide range. Of course, you'll figure all that out after you've tried the lenses yourself in the store.
09/24/2003 01:45:23 AM · #12
Could always get the 24 2.8 to match the wide end, which is apparently a very nice little lens. True about the very slight differences. With the Canon L lenses you're buying the best, and paying a huge premium for them. With regards to the Sigma not being compatible with the 10D - apparently Sigma will recalibrate and/or re-chip the lenses for the 10D for free.

Originally posted by dwoolridge:

On the other hand, those extra 4mm would
go a long way. Even if the optics are bad (and that's such a relative
term), who takes pictures of MTF charts all day and hangs them on their
wall? If you like what you get, what else matters?
09/24/2003 05:58:33 PM · #13
Hope you don't mind me extending the question a little, but I am currently having a very similar debate myself. I bought the Canon 24-85 3.5-4.5 as the starter lens for my 10D. I want something faster, but the price on the Canon 24-70 f2.8 is a little steep and would delay some other lens purchases, like the 70-200 f2.8. I was considering 20mm(32mm)f2.8 and 50mm(80mm) f1.4 primes as a possible alternative to the zoom. Have you considered this option and does anybody here have experience with these lenses?
09/24/2003 06:35:05 PM · #14
As I said above I have the 28 2.8, 50 1.4 and the 70-200 F4L. The 50 1.4 is just awesome. One of the best head-and shoulders portrait lenses out there for the 10D. Just a great short telephoto at a very useful focal length. The 28 works as a 'normal' lens on the 10D, in that its effective FOV is about equivalent to a 45mm on a 35mm camera.

The Canon 20 is supposed to be inferior to the Sigma at that focal length, but then you've got to realise that there are some steep compromises at 20 and under. You're also paying a steep price for performance at the edges on teh better lenses, but only using the center with the 10D. The 17-40 F4L is purportedly a very good lens, but expensive.

I went prime on the wider end of my lenses 'cause I can usually stand where I want with the type of shooting I'm doing with those lenses, and for the optical performance (aperture, sharpness, colour and contrast) the primes can meet or beat the L zooms almost to a lens. The L zooms offer convenience, build quality and excellent optics, though at a great cost.

I went for the 70-200 F4L for the long end as it's virtually free of the typical consumer zoom hangups (distortion, softness etc) albeit at a cost of a slower max. aperture than a prime, and more of a hit to the wallet than a consumer zoom. Still, the longer you get the harder it is to make up the difference by changing your position on the ground. I plan to use my 70-200 for sports, mainly, and a zoom is a good tradeoff for those applications. Still, at F4, it's only really effective in good light. The 70-200 F2.8L and its IS version is arguably the best zoom Canon makes in terms of optics. Heavy, but if you're not carrying it around everywhere or don't mind some weight, it'd be awesome to get. The Sigma 70-200 2.8EX is a good tradeoff between the F4L and the F2.8L, apparently, if you can't decide between the two.

Dell has the 70-200 F2.8 IS on right now for $1299, if that interests you...

Hope that helps.

Message edited by author 2003-09-24 22:04:39.
09/24/2003 11:24:30 PM · #15
Originally posted by jimmythefish:

Dell has the 70-200 F2.8 IS on right now for $1299, if that interests you...

You've got my attention, but I cannot find it on the Dell site. Is it hidden someplace out of site?
09/25/2003 12:08:29 AM · #16


Message edited by author 2003-09-25 17:34:07.
09/25/2003 12:09:06 AM · #17
This link from the Canon SLR Lens Talk forum...

70-200 F2.8 IS at Dell
09/25/2003 01:18:05 AM · #18
Thanks for the link to Dell, that price is $400 less than what B&H is showing right now.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/17/2018 12:42:34 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2018 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 11/17/2018 12:42:34 AM EST.