sigma 24-70

[bazz46]

been looking at the above lens anyone with any results compared to the canon equivalent?

[Slartibartfast]

Can't compare to the Canon - as I haven't got one, but I do like the Sigma.

Mine suffers a bit from zoom creep, I think as it's such a heavy lens. But it is well built, and (mine at least) is nice and sharp.

It doesn't have HSM - and you will notice. It's loud and not as fast to focus. It would also be nice if it had full time manual focus over-ride.

I got one on the S/H market as the 3rd party lenses don't tend to hold the value as well as the Canon ones and I know at some point in the future I might want to go with the Canon.

If you can afford (and are happy to pay!) go for the Canon - if not the Sigma is a great lens that you'll still be very happy with!

[El_Sid]

It doesn't have HSM - and you will notice. It's loud and not as fast to focus.

The latest version does... but at about twice the list price.

[Barney]

It doesn't have HSM - and you will notice. It's loud and not as fast to focus.

The latest version does... but at about twice the list price.

The latest version is much better though.

[El_Sid]

So it ought to be...

I don't have the non-HSM 24-70 but I do have it's close relative the 28-70 which, aside from the weird AF switching system, is pretty good. OK it's not quick to focus and a bit noisy, distorts rather a lot at 28mm and is probably softer than it's Canon rival but for a fast standard zoom at a reasonable price it's hard to beat.

[bench_ubbster]

I have the non-HSM version of this lens. But the only comparison I can make is with the 17-40mm and 70-200mm f4L lenses. The Sigma is sharper than the 17-40mm (between 24 and 40mm at f/4), but it is susceptible to flare. Compared to the 70mm of the 70-200mm f4L I'd say it's very close call IQ speaking. I'll sort out some examples.

The non-HSM version is a heavy beast and has a 82mm filter thread

This is with 17-40 @ 26mm

This is with siggy 24-70 f2.8 @ 24mm

Careful, huge files! But both treated exactly same in PSE and camera settings very similar.

[bench_ubbster]

That sounds very similar to my 24-70. I should have added it does distort at 24mm but easily sorted in DxO or PS.

[bazz46]

but are they as good as the canon?

[Barney]

but are they as good as the canon?

In Oct 09 WDC rated the Canon at 96% and the Sigma at 92% (The Nikon VR1 was rated 96% which would suggest that the new VRII is the best 70-200mm out there)

Whether the extra 4% for the Canon is worth how ever much more the lens will cost is the question.

[TimF]

OK it's not quick to focus and a bit noisy, distorts rather a lot at 28mm

So did the Canon 28-70mm f/2.8L. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Learning]

but are they as good as the canon?

In Oct 09 WDC rated the Canon at 96% and the Sigma at 92% (The Nikon VR1 was rated 96% which would suggest that the new VRII is the best 70-200mm out there)

Whether the extra 4% for the Canon is worth how ever much more the lens will cost is the question.

Whether the extra for the Nikon is worth it is also the question. As a DX user I might just get the old version of the Nikon.

[Steve52]

I have the F2.8 version which I use for my band work. Yes it is a bit on the heavy side, but I find it ideal for my use. Can't compare to the Canon as I use Sony. I got my lens here

Here are 2 pics from recent gigs. The first is at 24mm, the second at 70mm.





Hope this helps with your decision.

[DuncHam2010]

Hi

Were these pictures at the gigs taken using flash?, and what ISO were you using please - take it you had aperture at F2.8

regards
Duncan