Canon 24/1.4 vs Sigma 24/1.8

[terry_smith2]

Has anyone worked with either or both of these lenses? OK, the winner

is Canon, but by how much? And is it worth the huge price difference?

[goulden]

"And is it worth the huge price difference?"

 

what are you shooting for, do you sell your shots, what wide lens do you use now, in what way aren't you happy with it, how much is your budget able to stretch etc etc etc....

[astcell]

If you are just shooting for snapshots and to send the pictures in email, the Sigma wil probably do fine. Another thing to consider is the build. I have used Sigma and while the images appear fine, I doubt the lens will last as long as the Canon.

[mondiani]

I received my canon 24 mm 1.4 last week my first prime lens :) Actually I didn't use the sigma, and so can't tell you. What for will you use these lenses? Maybe if you had the opportunity test them in store tough these unusual lenses can't be easily found. I just trust canon much more than sigma so...

[navarra]

I own the Canon 24/1.4 and use it on a drebel (1,6 crop factor). I find it a bit softer than I hoped when used wide open, and usually corners are softer than the center even at smaller apertures. This said, 90% of the pictures I took with it so far were taken at apertures between 1.4 and 2.0 (that's the reason I bought this lens) and while sharpness might be a bit lacking, color and contrast are very good. I find it a bit too big and heavy for my tastes as well, but I guess no lens of this kind is small and light. I say if you know what to expect from such a lens (mainly SPEED) you won't be disappointed.

 

Simone

[ky2]

FWIW: there's a 24/1.4L listed for sale on this site for $675.

[david_kieltyka]

A friend of mine owns the Sigma while I own the Canon. Performance is actually quite close. The Canon has richer color saturation and better flare resistance, though the Sigma is also good in both departments. The Sigma's hood is sturdier than the Canon's and bayonets on & off with a positive feel lacking with the Canon. The Canon's extra speed is handy in low-light situations, thus it was my choice.

 

-Dave-<div></div>

[gareth_harper]

I bought the Canon 24mmLf2.8 to replace the disappointing EF24mmf2.8

Distortion wise it is excellant, much better than the f2.8 While it is sharper than the f2.8 it's not as sharp as I had hoped it would be.

Build quailty is very nice, though the hood was incredibly tight at first.

"OK, the winner is Canon"

Well you have answered your own question.

"but by how much?"

I don't know, I haven't used the Sigma, for all I know it may be a better lens than the Lf1.4

"And is it worth the huge price difference? "

Again I've not tried the Sigma, but the answer I suspect is probably not.

[._._z]

From Popular Photography's test: <p>

 

<u><A href =

http://www.popphoto.com/pdfs/2002/1102/1102_sigmalensesf.pdf>

PDF file</a></u> <p>

 

<i><blockquote> Corner images shot from f/1.8 to f/2 ... were slightly soft. Flare

was very well controlled... AF timing was average, and auto-focus action was judged

slightly noisy....Conclusion: ...superior picture-taking performance

</blockquote> </i><p>

[._._z]

That was for the Sigma.

[terry_smith2]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I would use it mostly in low light, but the difference is only half a stop. I already have a 14/2.8 L, 17-35/2.8 L, 28-70/3.5-4.5 II, and 28-105/2.8 Tamron for wide lenses. Going longer there's the 50/1.4 USM, 85/1.2 L, and 70-200/2.8 L. I used to have the 24/3.5 TSE and 28/1.8 USM. These went in trade against my EOS 3 last year as I wasn't using them very much. We get lots of grey and rainy days here in Belgium and I want something to go between my 50 and the 14. It probably won't see a lot of use, a "when all else fails" lens.

[kevin m.]

After borrowing the 24mm L and comparing to the Sigma 24mm f1.8 I had just purchased, I returned the Sigma and ordered a Canon for myself. If you plan to shoot wide open - and why else buy a lens like this - the Canon is clearly superior wider than f4.0. Even in a 4x6 test print, the Sigma images are noticeably duller than those from the Canon, and that's in the center of the frame, too, not just the corners.

 

You do get something for your extra $800

[gareth_harper]

Joe, I'm looking at your lens line up and wondering why you want the 24mm. It would have to be either because you love 24mm and/or you are a serious low light fan.

Personally I only bought the 24l because the EF24mmf2.8 performance was somewhat lacking and I happen to love the 24mm mark. That lens is by far the most expensive bit of kit I have.

So if money is not a problem buy the canon lens, if it's for occasional use and you have a budget to stick to get the Sigma.

 

While I'm very fond of my Canon SLR's, 2xEOS33's, for wide angle stuff if I had a little more cash I'd get a Voigtlander or a Lecia with a suitable 21 - 24mm lens.

[terry_smith2]

Actually, I'm very interested in the Sigma 20/1.8 except for the fact that the test done by Chasseur d'Images shows it to have rather poor optical performance. Sigma's 24/1.8 and 28/1.8 are much better in this respect. The next best choice for me is a fast 24. Money for stuff like this is harder to come by than it used to be since I make little or nothing from photography. The 35/1.4 isn't an option because it's not wide enough even though it's an excelllent lens.