I really want a Canon 24-70, but the prices are just staggering. The Sigma version is very reasonably priced and some of the reviews aren't half bad. I was just wondering if anyone has some experiences to share. Ideally, has anyone had both and can offer some comparison/contrast notes?
I've had that lens for about 4 years now as my go-to zoom lens. I think it is a pretty good value. I don't have a comparison to the Canon version but I did compare it to the Tamron 24-70:
Lara Ferroni who I write and teach food photography classes with has one and we use it all the time. Seems just as sharp as my 28-70mm L. I'm sure lots of people will chime in here with the usual "Sigma is crap" but I have owned and used several of their "EX" lenses and all have performed equally with my Canon glass.
I had the 24-70 f/2.8 HSM lens. Really liked it alot, fast focus, adequately sharp. That said, it took three trips to Sigma to finally calibrate the focus correctly. Once it was corrected, it performed flawlessly. Sold it to help fund the purchase of the 5D3... Miss it to this day... The Tamron wasn't available then, and that lens seems compelling as well - especially when compared to the price of the 24-70 f/2.8 Mark ii....
#1 I'm a Nikon shooter, and #2 I was in a camera store so take this with a grain of salt... but,
I just obtained the Sigma 24-70 HSM in a lens trade. I haven't received it yet, so I went to the camera store to check it out. The salesman told me that even though the Sigma 24-70 HSM is a full frame lens, "it wouldn't do full frame." But the new Tamron 24-70 is all the rage and of course it WOULD do full frame. The reason given was that the Sigma 24-70 wasn't sharp on a full frame camera. Considering the new Tamron was $1300 and the Sigma was more like $850, it took me the entire ride home to figure out that he was just trying to make a sale.
Thanks, guys. I was starting to second guess this, but it sounds like I'll be pretty happy. All I have to worry about is getting a sharp copy. Now I know what to look out for.
I'm a big supporter of brand name 'pro' glass because I've learned the difference between the two. With that being said though, I wouldn't hesitate to buy anything Sigma in the future. My experience has been good with the Sigma lenses that I have owned in the past, and from what I have heard even though their quality control is spotty, if you send it in for calibration they are pretty good about fixing the problem.
BTW... Howdy neighbor! I'm from Lafayette. (but live in Houston now).
Yeah, I know what you're saying. I had the Canon 17-55 f2.8 and was stunned at how good it was. The IS was amazingly good, but what I really started to appreciate was the difference in color saturation and contrast. The optics are just so good in higher end Canon glass. The 17-55 isn't even an L lens!, and I assume that Nikon is just as good (at least that's what everyone commends them on).
Also, Hello! Good to see some fellow LA people on here. I just graduated from LA Tech in Ruston and am now living closer to Baton Rouge.
I had the first version of the Sigma 24-70/2.8. It was pretty good, but a bit noisy on AF and slow-ish. Focus accuracy was pretty good, but overall IQ just a bit above average. It was useful as an event lens of the 5D. I upgraded to the Canon L after about a year, and it was a night and day difference! Super-fast focus and super-sharp images (for a zoom). Still my best full frame zoom. But the Sigma could be a good starter lens at a good price -- give it a try. You can always sell and upgrade later if you feel like a change.
