Scott Sewell wrote:
Don't mean to pick on ya, Jeff, but what am I missing here? Where's the $800 difference in these images? They look pretty close, to me. Certainly not an $800 difference!
The Big Bad wrote:
The sigma 24-70 doesnt look to bad but you can see what the extra $800 or so buys you in the 24-70L, (aside from USM, weather sealing etc)
The 18-50 test though is really hard to make a judgement due to the fact that the sigma is in warm direct sunlight and the Canon is in diffused light. Additionally the difference of 10mm presents quite a difference in subject size
I would really be intrested in seeing more between the 17-40 and the 18-50, particulary in corner sharpness if you still have the ability to redo some test
20Dshooter wrote:
Excuse me, ut is there any logic or rationale to this statement, or just pure, blind L loyalty?
The former. I (and my clients) set the highest of standards. Using the best tools available is often my competitive advantage and makes my job just that little bit easier.
That is a good, reasonable answer. My clients couldn't tell the difference, though. Is the L better? Yes. How much better? Not much. Is the L worth it to you? Only you can say.
