The new Sigma 24-70 HSM could be a competitor for the canon but its not cheap compared to the Tamron (which optically is very good).
You could always look for the older 28-70L if you want more value for money.
anorphirith wrote:
I'm looking to buy a 24-70mm for weddings
I never tried a non canon lens before, and I'd like to give it a shot
so
Sigma ?
Tamron?
other ?
hmm you have FF, on APS-C the tamron is wonderfully sharp corner to corner if a bit lower in contrast on FF is does soften up at the edges even stopped all the way down unless the edges happen to be the distance away that matches the field curvature which almost never happens unless the subject is very far away like maybe even hundreds of feet away
the edges near 75mm on FF can get a nasty double image bokeh
anywhere at all near the center it is mad sharp though, the entire central 10MP or so will just be truly insanely sharp and free of CA then it will slowly tail off and then rapidly at the far borders and corners (sometimes that doesn't matter for weddings though) unless you have a very, very distant subject or one that happens to match the field curvature; but at least with the copies i tried even at the borders and corners it was noticeably sharper than the 24-105, if not at all sharp
i found it to be sharper than the 24-105 anywhere in the frame
it has very low levels of longitudinal CA/PF even at f/2.8 compared to others
focus is incredibly slow though, the slowest AF I have ever encountered
if you can live with the slow AF (fairly precise though) and a little bit lesser contrast it may make sense though as the similar canon zooms aren't really all that on a 5D2 so is 4x the price worth it if you still won't be getting all that anyway? depends on the AF, if you did indoor sports it would HAVE to be the canon, not sure about weddings.
maybe you could even pair a 24 II or 35L or f/2 with a 70-200 f/2.8? of course that setup costs a lot, but for serious wedding work that plus maybe even an 85 1.2 or 135 f/2 might be something....
the new sigma may be good, never touched it, read varying opinions, not sure what to make of it
there are building rumors of a new 24-70 IS, that might be the ticket, of course this lens has been 'almost here' for at least 5 years! this time though, for the first time ever, a somewhat reasonable source has mentioned it, so maybe this time it is real, see you in early 2010 anyway i would be shocked if that one did not turn out to be by far the best for this although one wonders about the price
wow thanks for the interesting reply ! that tamron sounds more and more interesting !
I actually use a 5D2 + 17-40mm + 50mm f/1.4 + 200mm f/2 IS
so I'm really missing something between 24-70 ! for low light where focus may be a problem I can use the 200mm or the 50mm
do you have pictures of the strange bokeh and the dramatic loss of sharpness ? I'd like to see if the pictures would still be usable
thank you
Firstly, L gives great performance, perhaps at a price. The performance is remembered long after the price is forgotten.
Part of the $$$ you charge is the aura of being 'professional' - which is why it's bad form to use a P&S, despite them getting better, at least for good light situations.
If you don't use the L, then guests who are 'experts' (and with the explosion of DSLRs on the market, they are not uncommon) will consider whatever you use (except Zeiss, Leica, etc.) as 'not really professional' (regardless ofthe result) and it invariably impacts the overall result (now, I know it shouldn't, but it does)
I used the 24-70L with a 5D and a 1Ds3 and was disappointed, over all at the long end. The Tamron was not significantly better, so I moved to the Sigma 24-70 HSM and I was happy. It has not only excellent sharpness but also an incredible contrast.
.......chinese reviews...lol ~~~ I was wondering why that thing looks familiar , but I think thers is also some kind of QC on sigma lenses ( at least for the 24-70 ) that unless you get a sharp copy , otherwise it;s not really that good .
Beauchamp wrote:
So you've read.
So I have experienced. It is slower - no doubt about it. And it hunts. But oh my - razor sharp and the color and contrast are IMHO almost as good as the 24-70L. It weighs a LOT less and is a fraction of the price. I have used it successfully at weddings but I have had a couple of occasions where worrying about focus made me wish for the 24-70 - I hate worrying at weddings!
I've read? Or maybe so I've experienced. I have access to a Tamron 28-75 with a clown at work. I've given suggested this lens a number of times, but when focus speed is king, I'm going for the Canon.
RobertLynn wrote:
Did Canon tell you it's going to be very soon? For over two years, people have been saying yesterday. I wouldn't hold your breath.
well I don't take chances
jaclarkaus wrote:
Bottom line - if you are getting paid, get the L.
Firstly, L gives great performance, perhaps at a price. The performance is remembered long after the price is forgotten.
Part of the $$$ you charge is the aura of being 'professional' - which is why it's bad form to use a P&S, despite them getting better, at least for good light situations.
If you don't use the L, then guests who are 'experts' (and with the explosion of DSLRs on the market, they are not uncommon) will consider whatever you use (except Zeiss, Leica, etc.) as 'not really professional' (regardless ofthe result) and it invariably impacts the overall result (now, I know it shouldn't, but it does)...Show more →
I'm sure that with my 200mm f/2 IS nobody will doubt of my "aura"
this time though, for the first time ever, a somewhat reasonable source has mentioned it, so maybe this time it is real, see you in early 2010
anyway i would be shocked if that one did not turn out to be by far the best for this although one wonders about the price