p.2 #1 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
These look like cell phone pics. Any real test shots would have been of something more than a run-down, crappy building. At least show a typical brick wall, focus chart, ruler, dollar bill, or newspaper. Besides, there is so much more to a lens than ultimate sharpness!
p.2 #2 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
I have the Sigma 24-70mm, have owned a couple copies of the Canon 24-70mm and presently use a Canon 24-105mm, and I definitely think the Sigma was the sharpest of the three. The issues with the Sigma are inconsistent focus at long range, never seen this in a lens before but I never use the Sigma for aerial photography as I get to many out of focus shots. I would never hesitate to use it at something like a wedding though. The other feature that drives me nuts is the focus and zoom are backwards compared to a Canon, and after shooting for years with Canon this makes me a little crazy.
p.2 #3 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
The "known issues" regarding softness at max aperture and max focal length fit with my personal experience. But perhaps your view depends on where you are coming from when you get to the L zooms. Before my 24-70 I was using a 28-70, and before that a Tamron 28-75, both of which were very slightly sharper. Before my 70-200 2.8 (non-IS) I was using an older Sigma 70-200 2.8 that also had a certain drop off in sharpness at max focal length. And I also had several very sharp Canon primes before I filled out my arsenal with the two L zooms. To me, that these zooms had some softness at the extremes of their designed ranges was just part of the tradeoff you make in exchange for their versatility. That's not to say that the zooms are bad at the extremes but just to acknowledge that they are not in the same category as some of Canon's better primes when one talks about a lens being sharp at it's max aperture. It wouldn't surprise at all if Sigma's new 24-70 is indeed measurably sharper than it's Canon counterpart at the extremes. It has been 7 years since the introduction of the L. Sigma is smart enough to have heard the feedback and aimed it's more modern design to exploit Canon's weak points, or "known issues". Comments regarding the size and weight of the L are common, most people are surprised at how big and heavy it is when they first encounter it. That was one of the selling points for the very popular Tamron 28-75.
p.2 #4 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
I have been using a Siggi 24-70/2.8 for the last 2 years and it's proven to be a sharp lens. I recently bought a Canon version, which is a far far better lens. It's better built, weather sealed, it's AF is more accurate and quiet. It's Hood actually does something and it's practically flare free. But it's a lot more expensive, it's heavier and it's IQ is practically the same. I find that the sigma is a little wider too at both ends.
The Canon is far nicer to use and own though
p.2 #5 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
The new 24-70 HSM, though, should affect the vast majority of those issues...except for weathersealing. Should have fast, quiet AF, and it's much more compact (and should be very well built.)
p.2 #6 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
Well, I think I'm going to go for this lens, but it through some paces in Europe ... that is if I can get it before I go (May!). It's sure wide though, for that weight, I think the filter size is 82mm.
p.2 #7 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
Might be a dumb question, but is this lens FF compatible? I shoot with Nikon and plan on getting a D700 within the next 6 months and if I could get this lens and save myself $800, I'd sure be a happy camper.
p.2 #10 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
maxxevv wrote:
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.
The 70-200 2.8IS doesn't have an f/4 cousin. Maybe like a dirty next door neighbor or something. I hate that these lenses get compared, because they aren't even in the same neighborhood. You don't buy the 70-200 2.8IS for long treks and daylight shooting. You buy it for low-light shooting and because there's nothing that can touch it feature-wise in one lens. Most PJ's a lot of wedding photogs, and event photogs have the 70-200 2.8IS as their go to lens.
As for the OP's example, their Canon must be way out of whack, or the test is in favor of the Sigma forcing the Canon to look bad. Notice how they said that Canon needs to update with an IS version right now. Why? Because that Sigma has it?
Sorry to come off rude here, an IS update may be in need for some. Hopefully if they do it's an option (like the 4 70-200's), and not totally eliminating the original 24-70. My 24-70 is extremely sharp wide-open through-out the range, with it's worst (if you could call it that) coming at the wider end. If my lens took those pictures posted by the OP, they would be probably as sharp as the Sigma.
p.2 #11 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
forget the poor L result for now, focus on the Siggy result. Finally a 24-70 they have gotten right it seems. The last two attempts haven't been great.
Hopefully more tests will show the Sigma to hold up under scrutiny.
p.2 #13 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
Pixel Perfect wrote:
forget the poor L result, focus on the Sigggy result. Finally a 24-70 they have gotten right it seems. The last two attempts haven't been great.
Hopefully more tests will show the Sigma to hold up un scrutiny.
I agree. This looks really good. Love it when Sigma , Tamron and the others get it right.
p.2 #14 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
i have been holding back buying a standard zoom for my 5d II because of cost and weight, now the sigma might just be the ticket. i realy hope hsm is faster than on the sigma 50mm/1.4 ex, my canon 50mm/1.8 II blows it speedwise out of the water.
p.2 #15 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
William Castleman reviewed the 24-70L, comparing it to the older 28-70L. At the end of the review he wrote -
",,,The EF 24-70mm offers the advantages of wider perspective at 24mm and generally higher MTF at wide angles than the EF 28-70mm f/2.8L. This better wide angle performance of the EF 24-70 comes at the cost of slightly lower 70mm MTF performance at wide aperture and slightly greater linear distortion and chromatic aberration."
Sometimes our favorite lenses, which can do no wrong simply because we own one, has flaws we simply fail to acknowledge. Subjective experience is useful in many ways, but sometimes a more careful analysis is warranted, such as Castleman did using the USAF 1951 Resolution Pattern.
p.2 #16 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
Well, I went ahead and ordered this one for an upcoming trip to Paris & Amsterdam. Again playing with my friend's Canon (and she'll be taking that one), if I can shave some weight off my back (we are going to be walking a ton), that is going to be key.
p.2 #19 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
To be fair the 24-70 has never been known to be great at 70. I tried a copy the other night when I got first had the 5D Mk II it wasn't as sharp as I hoped at 70.
Maybe on a lower resolution sensor this softness is less noticeable.
p.2 #20 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
Regardless of the comparison photos and how decent the canon 24-70 is, the sigma photos alone look pretty damn good. Nice job sigma, particularly adding HSM which has been missing in their standard zooms. Give it a year to come down to ~$600 and I may pick one up.
