p.3 #1 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
RichWood wrote:
Except it hasn't. There's no stabilisation on the new 24-70. It's gained HSM over the older version, but not OS.
I know that it doesn't have OS or IS or VR. What I was saying is, most people that cry about the 24-70 cry that it needs IS. My point was, this new Sigma doesn't have it so why make the comment that the current Canon needs it?
p.3 #2 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
Anytime someone comes out with anything that hurts the Canonites feelings about their products they cry 'it must be a bad copy' or 'must be a bad setup' never 'poor production control' thats only for those other guys. But they never mind about trashing all the other gear that any other manufacturer make. Just an observation, I used to love my older 'FD' mount gear, but at the time did not like the original slow EOS AF focusing. And quite frankly felt betrayed by Canon by being 'Forced' to buy all new if I wanted to stay current. Eventually, someone is always going to come out with someting better than what you got. Grow up and get a life! Or at least if you are going to whine have some cheese with it!
p.3 #3 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
Sure, this copy of the siggy looks pretty good. And yes, the compared to 24-70 is not very good. Those are sample sizes of exactly 1. I am sure that the siggy will prove to be a nice lens, but just as likely is the "bad copy" and focus error syndromes that seem to pop up once the glass gets out in the field doing work besides shooting test charts.
Many people that don't own the 24-70L or 70-200/2.8IS cry about how awful they are. Many pixel peepers who do own them complain about softness wide open at 100% crops - but how often does anyone REALLY print at poster size? The counterargument to the naysayers is that both lenses are proven as reliable workhorses over the long haul. You can call me a fanboy of you want, but a LOT of people have been making a living off of these 2 highly popular L's for a long time.
I for one am very pleased with my copies, and I know that whatever the circumstance they will do their jobs for me every time. That's something that I cannot say about my 3 former tammies and 2 former sigma's. Unfotunately, neither vendor can truly compete with Canon's AF speed (tammy) or reliability (sigma). I would dearly love to get a rock solid 50 1.4, but there is no way I am going to play russian roulette with sigma.
p.3 #5 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
By now, haven't we all learned that copies of even the best lenses can be deffective or that focus may need calibrated?
There are thousands of professional photographers who earn their living with this lens. It's safe to say that their copies don't all perform like the one on test here.
p.3 #6 · Test Result,Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM Vs Canon 24-70 2.8 L, S Win?!!
I tried one at a local Photo show about 2 months ago. Sigma had a booth. They even had a model under hot lights to shoot.
I took great care to make sure I nailed the shots. Out of 7 shots in total, 4 were way OOF, 2 were bang on, and 1 was so so.
All were 1/2 body to 1/4 body shots. All at 70/2.8 except for 1 which was at 24mm. That was one one the sharp ones. I must say, it looked very very promising.
