p.1 #2 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
That can't be right. The Canon should be WAY sharper in the center at f2.8 than that.
Still, impressive showing from Sigma. They are becoming a lot bolder in their offerings lately. Instead of targeting the lower market or specialty lenses, they are specifically challenging the big players with the Sigma 50mm f.14 and this lens.
p.1 #5 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
good to see these tests though. I was kinda curious as to why Sigma was so high with the price. Im really interested in the size and weight advantage of the Sigma, but will have to see it tested against other 24-70L copies.
p.1 #8 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
I think the photos on the left show center sharpness and the right shows edge sharpness.
It probably is a bad copy. If that's really how sharp the Canon L is, it wouldn't have gotten the reputation it has now. That said, it looks like the photos taken with the Sigma looks as sharp as Gary's photo which means the Sigma is just as good as the L lens.
p.1 #9 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
n0b0 wrote:
I think the photos on the left show center sharpness and the right shows edge sharpness.
It probably is a bad copy. If that's really how sharp the Canon L is, it wouldn't have gotten the reputation it has now. That said, it looks like the photos taken with the Sigma looks as sharp as Gary's photo which means the Sigma is just as good as the L lens.
Yes, that's correct. The One of the left is the 100% crop of the center, the right side is the edge/corner crop.
Very impressive results. If you read the discussion over that forum, it was discussed too the 'known' deficiency of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L at 70mm wide open. Somewhat similar to the known issues of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L wide open at 200mm. It seems that in their knowledge, the Canon lens is somewhat soft at that focal length and apertures, and that the Sigma seems to have bested it in this aspect. They also seemed to talked about the barrel distortion at 24mm of the Canon too.
I've only had the chance to play with my friend's Canon once, so I'm not in the loop if such is indeed the reported behavior of the Canon?
Also, they mentioned that the colours are nice, but a little bit (very slightly) warmer than the Canon which was a bit more neutral.
Now... let's see what's the street price when its finally available!
p.1 #10 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
Thanks guys, interesting stuff. I too wish someone would give a hands-on "from the field" kind of review though ~ from real shooting circumstances to print (or web) work.
I really loved the Canon, the IQ, performance, etc. was all great. I have considered a used (or even new) copy, but now seeing this one on the horizon, I'd like some more information before I make the final purchase.
But I'm just wondering if the Sigma performs closely, or as good as the Canon (in low lighting settings, street shooting, quick focusing, etc) ... considering the smaller size and weight, which for me, is a very big factor at the moment. Having recently travelled and lugged around the 100-400 (3 lbs. - for a much different use obviously) ... I can say, with some authority, it did cut back on some of my enjoyment for the long hike/walk kinds of outings.
Yeah, it looks like (Amazon?? I looked at so many sites I cannot recall) had it for $899 or thereabouts for the Nikon mount.
p.1 #11 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
Somewhat similar to the known issues of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L wide open at 200mm.
Where do we get all these known issues from? I've never heard of them and the Canon "L's" would have never gained the rep they have with looks like this. Here's the 70-200mm f2.8 IS @ 200mm wide open. If this is bad I'd hate to see good. It's more than acceptable for this kind of glass.
p.1 #12 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
I have heard quality issues with the Canon 24-70. When I bought a 5d2 2 months ago I purchased a 24-70 from amazon.com as my standard lens. It was really soft and back focused. I exchanged for another copy and it is extremely sharp. Any softness is due to my lack of skills.
p.1 #13 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
Sorry Gary but the way you edited what you quoted makes it sound like I said all those things, would you mind deleting my post that you quoted? it's irrelevant to what you're saying anyway. Thanks.
p.1 #14 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
I have used 3 separate copies of the canon over the past 5 years. One was good and the other two were "decent". Close-ups shots will always make lenses appear sharper because you are actually seeing more detail. But I concur that the lens isn't spectacular wide open. If you look at www.photozone.de you can see that he tested 4 different copies and the MTF results are still not up to par for a lens in that price range.
p.1 #15 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
Where do we get all these known issues from? I've never heard of them and the Canon "L's" would have never gained the rep they have with looks like this. Here's the 70-200mm f2.8 IS @ 200mm wide open. If this is bad I'd hate to see good. It's more than acceptable for this kind of glass.
Oh Man !!! Phewee !!! I just had to click on Gary's link just to see if it was that picture of the beer bottle that's made the FM pages countless times !!
I was almost disappointed when it wasn't
p.1 #16 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
reggie747 wrote:
Oh Man !!! Phewee !!! I just had to click on Gary's link just to see if it was that picture of the beer bottle that's made the FM pages countless times !!
I was almost disappointed when it wasn't
p.1 #17 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
Gary Petersen wrote: Somewhat similar to the known issues of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L wide open at 200mm.
Where do we get all these known issues from? I've never heard of them and the Canon "L's" would have never gained the rep they have with looks like this. Here's the 70-200mm f2.8 IS @ 200mm wide open. If this is bad I'd hate to see good. It's more than acceptable for this kind of glass.
Gary,
I have the lens myself. In fact its one of my favourite lens especially for close up sports and candid portraits.
In my books however, that lens is not sharp at 200mm wide open, but it works well with most forms of shooting other than inanimate objects or resolving details of objects at a distance. But it does not achieve the kind of sharpness you can get with even its f/4 Non-IS cousin. Sorry to be blunt here, but that picture you linked there isn't exactly a stellar example of 'sharpness' either.
p.1 #18 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
Jess Edward wrote:
My Canon 24-70 f2.8L is way sharper than that at f2.8. You must have a bad copy that your using for your tests.
Me too, I can't find issue like this in my Canon 24-70, looks like they used a defective lens for comparsion.
The Sigma perform good anyway
Or I'm too early with beer 
