I have sold my Canon 24-70L two days ago due to lack of use and size. Here comes the Sigma along. I think i did make a wish, if the 24-70L was only a tiny bit more compact. Sweet.
Sean Mullins wrote:
I just bought the old Sigma 24-70 from KEH and it sucks. I do have the 10-20 HSM and love it so Ill have to check this out when it is released.
Yeah the 24-70 isn't regarded too highly with the 24-60 and 28-70 being rated much higher from what I've read. I hope this new Sigma is a big improvement and a real alternative to the Tammy 28-75 and Canon 24-70L. I like how the new Sigma is much smaller than the old one.
Should be awesome if they get the optics like more of their recent lenses. HSM was needed on their 24-70, and it's nice to get it so much more compact. It was silly that the 24-60 f/2.8 (which I own) is relatively compact, but their old 24-70 was HUGE in comparison.
I wonder if it will resolve better than the 24-70L? That seemed to be a complaint in a lot of people's eyes with the 21MP sensor coming out.
While I always look at the Tamron and Sigmas, I can never bring myself to buy one. Not because they aren't good. Actually, there's 2 pros around here, that they only have Tamron in their bags (by pros, I mean someone who has weddings booked for around a year +, makes an enormous sum of money, and does a crap load of portraits too) and they get very good results.
I always steer clear, because in my head if say the Tamron 28-75 is X amount of dollars, and the Canon 24-70 is double, if the Tamron was better like I've been told, no one would buy the Canon, or Canon would be forced to down the price, or release a better product. In a way, life is you get what you pay for, and in a way it's not.
Not to throw another guitar story out there, but a few years back, a USA Jackson Soloist cost an arm and a leg less than a USA Gibson Les Paul, and lb. for lb. the craftsmanship, components, and overall quality of the cheaper Jackson, was better than the Les Paul. So while I know you can spend less, and get more, I don't know if it'll apply in this case.
Quite honestly, I'd love for the off brands to be just as good as the Canon/Nikon. Means I could buy more stuffs!
Any idea when this is going to be available? If it's similar in image quality to the Tamron 28-75, I'm going to trade...I'd love to have HSM, and I could use the extra 4mm on the wide end...and I generally like Sigma's build quality better than Tamron's...
RobertLynn wrote:
I wonder if it will resolve better than the 24-70L? That seemed to be a complaint in a lot of people's eyes with the 21MP sensor coming out.
While I always look at the Tamron and Sigmas, I can never bring myself to buy one. Not because they aren't good. Actually, there's 2 pros around here, that they only have Tamron in their bags (by pros, I mean someone who has weddings booked for around a year +, makes an enormous sum of money, and does a crap load of portraits too) and they get very good results.
I always steer clear, because in my head if say the Tamron 28-75 is X amount of dollars, and the Canon 24-70 is double, if the Tamron was better like I've been told, no one would buy the Canon, or Canon would be forced to down the price, or release a better product. In a way, life is you get what you pay for, and in a way it's not.
Not to throw another guitar story out there, but a few years back, a USA Jackson Soloist cost an arm and a leg less than a USA Gibson Les Paul, and lb. for lb. the craftsmanship, components, and overall quality of the cheaper Jackson, was better than the Les Paul. So while I know you can spend less, and get more, I don't know if it'll apply in this case.
Quite honestly, I'd love for the off brands to be just as good as the Canon/Nikon. Means I could buy more stuffs!
The Tammy is a superb lens and IQ wise is right up there with the L. They are 1/3 the price and just over half the weight. The reason people still buy the L are AF speed, build, perception of quality with the L label and the extra 4mm at the wide end is significant. I own 7 L lenses, but after seeing how good the Tammy was for the money I just couldn't bring myself to buy the L. I did try one and my Tammy was much better wide open. I'd love it if the Sigma was even better as that would mean it's very good and would have better build and much faster AF.
I just found this lab test on the sigma 24-70. It doesn't get much better. I also have one and find the image quality to be superb, although I'm not thrilled with focus accuracy. I keep it around as a back up to some Canon L's, but never hesitate to use it because I think I'll take a hit in quality.
Huh, interesting. Wasn't expecting them to update this particular lens. No longer macro designated and still requires 82mm filters. Owned 2 copies of the old version previously and they were decent for the money (got 'em used so not that much).
kenshin wrote:
Huh, interesting. Wasn't expecting them to update this particular lens. No longer macro designated and still requires 82mm filters. Owned 2 copies of the old version previously and they were decent for the money (got 'em used so not that much).
Argh 82mm filters still, I thought it was much smaller, obviously only in length then.
MFD is much worse than the Tammy.
