Canon 24-70 2.8L, Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX or Tokina 28-80 ATX Pro?

[glenn_cummings1]

I will be purchasing a Canon 30D and would like a quality lens that

will probably be on the body 70% of the time, the other 30% will be

with a Canon 70-200 2.8L. I know that the Canon 24-70 2.8L is a

superior lens, however how does the Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX and/or the

Tokina 28-80 2.8 ATX Pro stack up in regards to image quality? Both

are built well and can withstand rugged environments.

 

Any recommendations or personal experience with either of these

lenses would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Glenn

[rustymadd]

Try looking here http://search.pbase.com/search?q=Sigma+24-70+2.8+EX&b=Search+Photos&c=sp

 

 

 

C Painter

[lovcom_photo]

What help me decide to get the 24-70L was the performance wide open (F2.8). Those other lenses were not sharp enough to my eye when used wide open. Also the 24-70L provides better contrast, and color rendition. No the others are not built as "rugged" as the 24-70L either, and remember that ONLY the 24-70L provides true dust/moisture sealing. The others do not offer a sealing gasket at the coupler end. Since lenses are kept over decades, or at least over the life of many bodies, don't fret about the higher cost of the Canon. Put your $$ into the best glass, not the bodies...they come and go.

 

Also the zoom ring on the Canon is silky smooth, as is the AF switch in comparison to the others.

 

In short, the Canon provides better sharpness, color, and contrast then the other two.

[steve_unsworth1]

I have the Tokina and agree with the previous poster that it isn't that sharp wide open. A bit of a disapointment truth be told.

[charles_lipton]

How about a used Canon EF 28-70mm 2.8L? They can be had reasonably (between $600-$800) on ebay in mint condition and although discontinued, are still a great lens. I'm sure better than the Tokina, Sigma or Tamron.

 

Good Luck

[e._r._averitt]

Stay with Canon, it will have a better build, + better resale qualities.

 

Even the lowly 24-85mm F3.5-4.5 will work good on 1.6 bodies.

 

 

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4370973

[j.kivekas]

OK, here we go once again:<br>

- <a href="http://www.photozone.de">Photozone tests</a> ...Canon & Tokina<br>

- <a href="http://www.photodo.com">Photodo tests</a> ... MTF-curves<br>

- <a href="http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=698">Pop photo tests</a> .. all three<p>

You should also consider the Tamron 28-75/2.8 SP XR Di which has been praised a lot.

[bellavance]

I recommend the Canon 24-70/2.8L. It's a great lens, and the one I used the most with my 20D.

 

I have since purchased the 5D (with the 24-105/4L IS) and I still can't get myself to sell the 24-70/2.8L.

 

Pierre

[marknagel]

Here's a comparison I did of the Canon 24-70 and 50/1.4, (4) Tamron 28-75, Sigmas 24-70 and 18-50.

 

http://www.nagelhome.com/Test%20Final.jpg

 

Mark

[dogbert]

Not a bad test, but I notice a couple of problems. The Sigmas, are zoomed in a little closer, and the Sigma 18-50 is probably at the end of its zoom range, whereas the other lenses are probably in the the middle?

[steve santikarn]

just to confuse you further, don't forget the upcoming EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS which may be available soon. Might be an interesting option if you are a fan of wide-angles...

[marknagel]

Geoff, yes they were all at 50mm, or as close as I could get them to 50mm. One thing to note with Sigmas, the 18-50 was better than the 24-70 throughout its range and impovments were more noticable at lower lengths.

 

m

[m_barbu1]

If you're detail-oriented, you'll likely notice the differences between the others and the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L. Whether or not you can live with the differences depends on your tolerance for imperfections. IMO, the Canon is noticeably better than the Sigma. I haven't looked at the Tokina, but suspect the difference is similar. Don't get me wrong, though. The Sigma lens isn't <i>bad</i>, per se. ...but, it's not as good as the Canon, either. :-)

[rdkirk]

The Tokina is out of the running these days. It's an older design that was okay in its day, but it always lacked sufficient sharpness and resistance to flare wide open. In fact, my copy made a very nice soft-focus portrait lens wide open. My Canon 24-70L and Tamron 28-75 Di are both much, much better at full aperture.

 

Be sure not to confuse sheer weight with better build quality. It was Canon itself, in fact, that proved the worth of polycarbonate lenses. A lot depends on exactly how the design is implemented. I would rate the Tamron Di as being equal in build quality to Canon non-L lenses such as the Canon f1.8 85mm, and certainly better than the Canon consumer (plastic mount).

[glenn_cummings1]

Thanks to all that contributed with your knowledge and experience. I think I will stick with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. I've had Tokina's in the past and was not impressed. Not sure with the Sigma, but I have tremendous confidence in the L lens.

 

Thanks