Sigma 24 - 70mm f2.8 lens v. Canon

[rachel_chaplin]

<p>I currently have an 85mm f1.8 lens and want to buy a Canon 24-70mm f2/8 lens for wider shots and more flexibility, but those are pretty pricey compared to the Sigma equivalent, which is significantly less expensive. <br>

My question is: Is there a marked difference in the performance of these lenses? <br>

Thanks! </p>

[davebell]

<p>I don't know about the Sigma, but there are very good reviews of the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8. I own one and it is fantastic, one of my favourite lenses, and my only non-Canon lens too....</p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>I have a copy of the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Macro lens and it's soft at f/2.8 up to about f/3.5. I also have a Tamron 11-18mm lens (totally different lens I know) that's pretty sharp top to bottom compared to the Sigma lens. In all, I'd say rent the Canon and see if you like it. If it doesn't impress like it should, then start looking at the Tamron.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>Second on giving the Canon a try... I suspect you'll like it. I couldn't live without mine (okay, that's overly dramatic, but I really rely on the lens).<br>

It's a really nice lens. Makes a great walkaround lens if you don't mind the heft. And along those lines, I actually like the heft, it's good and solid, built like a tank, and feels good in the hands on my 5D with the battery grip on.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Used to own the Sigma and it was soft until f5.6 at most focal lengths so I sold it.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I don't have the Sigma (or Tamron) but do have the Canon. It is a great lens and almost as good as the 85 F1.8. This lens and the 16-35 F2.8 II tend to be the lenses that spend the most time on my new 5DII body. With my film bodies (e.g. the 1V) I tend to use primes quite a lot. While many people miss IS on this lens I have never really felt it needs IS and I much prefer it to the 24-105 F4 IS that it replaced. Of the few non-Canon SLR lenses I have owned over the last 25 - 30 years I have generally found Tamron or Tokina to be better than Sigma. I suspect that it depends on what body you plan to use - my guess is that the Canon will be better on a full frame body and that on an APS-C body the difference may be less. The cheaper lenses tend to be softer wide open - especially at the edges. Again i do have to stress that I have not used the Sigma.</p>

[anthony_hicks]

<p>Bear in mind that Sigma have very recently completely redesigned the 24-70/2.8, the new version has HSM focusing (their equivalent of USM) and is only just starting to hit the shops. I tried one at the Focus on Imaging show here in the UK on Sunday, and it handled very nicely, but I haven't seen a review of it yet. I would say this lens is certainly worth a look.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>I second David's comment. I have the Tamron and love it. I bought it after looking at endless reviews. The bottom line seemed to be: slightly better than the Sigma, slightly less good than the Canon, and 1/3 the price of the canon. If you have crop-factor camera, the difference between the canon and tamron will be even smaller, because you will lose the edges where the canon has better sharpness (according to reviews). I have a crop-factor camera, so that made it an even easier choice for me. I put my tamron through a variety of tests when I bought it, and it shines. It is reasonable wide open and sharp as a tack when you close it down a stop or two. I had no problems with front or back focus. I use it much of the time now, and have no regrets. I can think of a lot of other uses for the $600+ I saved.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I have all three, my daughter uses the Sigma, Canon 1) Tamron 2) Sigma 3) how I would rank them. I do a lot of low light events and that is where the Canon stands out.</p>

[photo_dark]

<p>Low light? Canon wins hands down. For all around photography on a tighter budget, the tamron or the sigma are a better option.</p>

[edward_rapier]

<p>Last year I bought the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (because of the comparatvely low price) but I returned if after one week because I was so unhappy with the pictures. I bought the Canon 24-70 f2.8 and it is just fantastic. Maybe I just happened to get a "bad copy" of the Sigma lens (people on other forums are always talking about "bad copies" and "good copies") but now I am leery about ever buying another Sigma.</p>

[shambrick007]

<p>If money's an issue, look for a clean, used 28-70/2.8 Canon L.</p>

[anthony_hicks]

<p>You can get "bad copies" of a lens by any manufacturer. Last year I bought a Canon 24-105L which was shocking, it went straight back.</p>

[spipaw]

<p>Angela, I agree with Sheldon. The fact of the matter is this: If you want L quality then buy an L lens. Too many times I have bought Sigma or Tamron and I always go back to just saving my money and buying the L. If you think you will be happy with another brand then buy it.</p>