Canon 24mm f/2.8 vSigma EX DG 24mm f/1.8 on an EOS 50E

[adi]

hello good people.

I need some help chosing from these two wide primes: Canon 24mm f/2.8

and Sigma EX DG 24mm f/1.8 on an EOS 50E. I am interested mostly in

the build quality and the color quality. If other details are offered

I will be happy to take them into consideration.

I would like to use the lens I'll buy to try some street fotography,

indoor and landscapes. So far I have only the 70-200/f 2.8 an I felt

a lot of times the need for a wide lens.

In a perfect world I would choose the Canon one. Actually I would

choose the 24-70L but this is not a perfect world. My pocket tels me

to stop spending and that's why I considered the Sigma one. It looks

like a new lens but since I never had a Sigma, and since I've heard a

few complaints about compatibility, I'm asking for help.

 

Thank you all in advance for your advice.

Adrian Mihalcea

[aim rollphoto805]

I was debating the same lenses Adrian. I haven't used either of them, so I don't know how much better one is than the other, build and color quality wise- like Adrian wants to know. any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Oh yeah, and I'm looking to shoot architecture/landscape/skating.

[nello]

Actually, I bought the sigma 24mm 1.8 not long ago. I really liked it

for the most part. The only major problem I had with it was the size.

Its HUGE! When people saw it (and its petal hood which non-photo people think is curious looking)I found it hard to blend in.

Its also very heavy!

 

I've dropped it twice. Unfortunately, the second drop killed it. My

A2E flipped out of my bag and landed on the HARD STONE palace walk way at Versailles. The lens didn't fall apart, but the autofocus switch got jammed so that I couldn't switch to manual focus. Then a week later the autofocus died. Also it seems that it doesn't respond

anymore to the camera's aperture settings. Pictures taken after the lens died definitely show the lens not responding to aperture settings

anymore.

 

By the way, switching from manual focus to autofocus requires a two step process that is occasionally annoying. Manual focus on the sigma, however, is nice and smooth and the focus ring is comfortably very large. Yet, I've been spoiled with USM autofocus on my canon lenses. So I found the autofocus on the sigma to be adequate, but still less than desirable. The canon 24mm 2.8, however, also lacks USM.

 

Its a very very sharp lens, though. And I mean Tack Sharp. It also has the ability to focus on objects at extremely close distances which allows for some interesting shots.

 

One might argue why you would even need 1.8 on a 24mm wide angle. Personally, I find the aperture lends the Sigma an approach to creativity. The 1.8 aperture was definitely a selling point for me, and it gave me "artistic" options (and a bright viewfinder). Yet, I have to think a lot of people would find it useless to have 1.8 on a 24mm. (BTW I LOVE shallow depth of field, so I'm biased that way)

Of course, it all boils down to your photographic goals.

 

Also some might say that its soft at 1.8, but what else do you expect?

 

I'm also not a landscape photographer. I'm mostly into portraits, so

I don't have extensive knowledge to really critique a wide angle lens. Straight lines do, however, come out being very straight. (a

problem that sometimes gets under my skin with my 28-105 usm at the wide end!) I do also believe that distortion in this lens is extremely well controlled.

 

The lens comes with a nice well padded green case, and petal type hood. The hood is designed so that you can still put a filter on with

out stacking problems. (i.e. the hood attaches to the lens barrel and not to the filter threads)

 

-And speaking of filters, the filter size on this lens is huge. So if you want a polarizer, etc. then do your math before you purchase. The price of the sigma may lose its sparkle.

 

-Also, this lens makes candid photography a bit less candid. Its size

also makes it difficult to squeeze into you backpack when space is limited.

 

-Lastly, I wish it were built sturdier. I was always scared of dropping it. And then I did drop it... Now, its sitting on my desk

waiting for me to get enough cash to repair it.

 

So, to summarize, I believe the lens to be a strong performer optically. I use primes for the majority of my work, and the Sigma

does hold up. But there are definite trade offs to consider

in your deciscion between it and the canon 24mm 2.8

 

Hope this helps.

 

ps. I use an A2E and Elan7E didn't have compatibility problems, at least with those two canons.

[aim rollphoto805]

Wow Nello, thanks so much! That was exactly what I was looking for.

[carina]

FWIW: The original Sigma 24mm f2.8 Superwide II is: (a) smaller than the EOS 24mm ; (b) Uses common 52mm filters ; © As tested by Photodo and Practical Photography, as sharp if not sharper than the Canon lens, and the new Sigma f1.8 ; (d) Focuses VERY close and does 1:4 ; (e) VERY durable (we have more than 40,000 frames on each of ours, and they have been dropped more than once!). Now that Sigma, for whatever reason, has made all there lenses faster, the older ones are available for little monies. Please note that I am not familiar with EOS50e, and you may or may not have to rechip this older Sigma lens; I use them on A2's and 630's and older Rebels without problem.

[adi]

Thanks a lot for your answers. They are indeed helping. I've past the wory about the lens quality. Now I just have to make a decision based on (you'll laugh maybe) weight. I think I'll try to find a shop that has the Sigma one in on the stock to try how it feels - since Nello tells us that it's huge.

 

By the way, the 77mm filter doesn't scary me at all since my other lens has the same size for filters, so if I buy one polarizer I can use it for both.

 

Thank you so much.

[peter2]

The Canon EF 24/2.8 is a small, light and easy handled lens. You will not miss USM at all! It's very sharp and you could place it in a pocket.

 

The Sigma DG-serie is aimed at the digital market in the first hand. Therefore it could give worse picture quality "outside the middle" of the frame.

 

I've used the Canon lens but not the Sigma.

[larry_lambert1]

Sorry about the death in the family Nello, at least it died in a beautiful place!

[nello]

Larry,

 

Sometimes at night I wake up in a cold sweat, screaming, reaching out my arms as if I could still save her... In my heart I know it just wasn't her time to go.

 

Ah, the tears, Larry. The Pain.

 

-Thanks for your words of kindness.

[nello]

Also, I forgot to add that the macro ability of the sigma 24mm 1.8 DG EX allows a magnification of up to 1:2.7 which is more magnification than all of the others. And that's very impressive, especially considering that the 50mm Canon macro (a lens designed and billed as a true macro lens) does 1:2

 

But on the flip side:

 

1)you have to move the lens extremely close to the subject in order to get 1:2.7

 

2)I'd rather have a 100mm for macro work.

[stevel]

I've been using the Canon lens you referred to for several years with absolutely no problems. It is tried and tested technology, it isn't that expensive and is fast enough - I use it for landscape mainly and so use a tripod/monopod all the time so speed isn't an issue.

 

I have this vague memory that people used to say that you should always buy your prime lenses from the manufacturer of the camera (the same wisdom used to say that the rule wasn't true for telephoto's - hey ho!)

 

Happy shopping