DSLRUsers.com

Hi all Ok.....call me tight but I'm looking for a cheaper alternative to the Canon 24-70. Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma and how well does the image quality stack up against the Canon. I'm expecting the Canon to be a better lens.........but is it so much better that the price difference is justified?

Hi,

I had the Sigma 24-70 and I now have the Canon 24-70. The difference is night and day.

Issues with Sigma:

Orange color cast, lacked contrast, noisy AF (VERY!!!) , slow AF, back focus issues, very very eratic focus. I was lucky enough to have this lens stolen from me My BIGGEST gripe was focus - it was just awful. Never accurate, taking photos was always a hit and miss and my results are very similar to what people on Fred Miranda find.

I replaced it with the Canon. I'm much happier

The Canon is light years ahead. AF is silent, and far faster. The contrast is far better and this lens resolves imo alot more detail. Bokeh is superior also and the colors are far far better. View my Flickr for some 24-70 shots

I'd never buy a Sigma lens again over the L series. I suggest if you can afford it, go the Canon as you won't regret it. The Sigma just had far too many quality issues but I guess for $400 what can you expect.

Best of luck!

I'm at the other end of the scale.

I bought the Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 cause I needed a fast short focal length lens.

I'm over the moon with mine. It lives on my D70s body.

I find the focus spot on, and quick enough for motor sport photography




The auto focus is a bit noisy, but it's not something that bothers me personally. I've used this lens to shoot weddings and sports and as I said, I'm extremely happy with it.

This is the problem with Sigma (and more often now, Nikkor) that you will get such different results from different people.

How do both these lenses, the Sigma & the Canon, compare with the Tokina 28-70 & the Tamron 28-75??

I know it is tempting to save money, I tried it myself and regretted it. The Canon 24-70 is one of the best lens there is, period. My advice would be to save up for it because anything will be fourth rate.

I can comment on the Tokina, it is the biggest piece of junk I have ever had the misforture to use. On the rare occasion that it is actually worked it was so soft it looked out of focus and the autofocus on it was like watching paint dry it was that slow. It spent most of the time that I owned it either not working or having someone trying to fix it, in the end it would work reasonably reliablable as long as the apeture was set at F3.5 or below.

tbgphoto wrote:I can comment on the Tokina, it is the biggest piece of junk I have ever had the misforture to use. On the rare occasion that it is actually worked it was so soft it looked out of focus and the autofocus on it was like watching paint dry it was that slow. It spent most of the time that I owned it either not working or having someone trying to fix it, in the end it would work reasonably reliablable as long as the apeture was set at F3.5 or below.

That would be a vote for "no" then I take it.

I ask about the Tokina as I have the 12-24 & I love that one, so being in the hunt for a lens around the 25-75 range, I wondered how it stacked up compared to the Sigma, Tamron & Canon.

What about the Tamron 28-75... I have one, the results are fine and I use primarily in low light...

Renae wrote:..but is it so much better that the price difference is justified?

yes.

Not just image quality ...

I have been using the Tamron 28-75 mainly for portrait shots and a variety of other styles and have found it a joy to work with. The other lenses I found to be comparible were much more expensive, so all round this is a great purchase.

Cyrus