Dye P
Is there a lot of Difference between Canon 24-70 mm f/2.8 & Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 lens besides the price? I'm newbie in photography and my friend recommended 24-70 f/2.8 lens for my canon, I'm just wondering If It's worth it to invest twice the amount of Sigma lens. Thanks
Answer
If this is your first DSLR, you might hold off on dropping anywhere from $450-$1450 on a lens that you aren't yet sure you really need. You didn't mention which Canon you have. I mention this because that may be a factor in your decision. Specifically, are you shooting a 1.3x crop or full-frame camera such as the 5D/5DMarkII or andy of the 1D/1Ds series? If the answer is no and you're shooting a 1.6x crop-body such as a Rebel T2i(EOS 550D), 50D or 7D, then a 24-70mm f/2.8 may not be the best choice. That said, if you're talking about the older Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG zoom that Sigma lists for around $750 (actual street price is closer to $500), then I've owned and shot it and offer a direct comparison to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM I currently own and use on both my 7D and my 5D Mark II. Iâve also used them on a Canon 40D that I recently sold.
As mentioned above, I currently shoot the Canon lens and prefer it to the Sigma. Iâve shot these lenses side-by-side on the same cameras. Iâve actually owned two copies of the Sigma. The first one I purchased several years ago for use on a Canon 40D. While I liked the lens overall at the time, it had focusing issues and wouldnât autofocus properly on my 40D. It worked great as a manual focus lens though. Because of the AF issues on my 40D, I eventually sold that lens to buy the EF-s 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM which actually was a more useful lens given the 1.6x crop factor on cameras like my old 40D or the 7D I own today. To be fair, a friend of mine who (unlike me) is a professional photographer, continues to shoot the Sigma today on his 40D and 7D and neither he nor his clients has been disappointed. He is however, evaluating the possibility of moving to the Canon lens due to image quality.
The differences in build quality are fairly obvious when you handle both lenses. The Canon does focus faster and is almost silent where as the Sigma seems slow and can be readily heard grinding away across a small room. The Canon also offers full-time manual focus capability where as the Sigma has a clutch that must be engaged. The Canonâs hood is superior in that it works at both ends of the lensâ zoom range where as the Sigmaâs only offers a benefit at the short end of its zoom range as is true of most lens hoods. Both lenses have the rather odd tendency to physically extend their barrels when zoomed âoutâ to 24mm but, this is specifically why the Canon comes with a much larger, longer hood. And curiously, the Sigma requires 82mm filters that are a bit more expensive than the 77mm filters required for the Canon lens. For many people, all of these differences add up to little more than subtle luxuries that simply do not justify the higher price of the Canon. Thatâs a personal call and I was certainly of the same mindset when I bought my second copy of the Sigma but, after three years, Iâd matured a bit as a photographer and started noticing more things I didnât like about the Sigmaâs image quality.
Image quality is admittedly subjective but, typically very important to photographers. This is where the Canon has a visible edge in my opinion. Neither of the two copies of the Sigma lens Iâve owned offered the same degree of sharpness and clarity across the frame as the Canon. The Canon, I think, renders colors more accurately too. Iâve shot a dozen different Sigma lenses in addition to the two Iâve owned and I swear they all have the same weird yellow color cast to them. I also realize now that the Sigma is simply more prone to flare and ghosts when bright light sources were in frame or just out of frame than the Canon. And finally there is the issue of getting what you paid for. While both the Canon and Sigma are supposed to be 24-70mm lenses, one of them is clearly wrong. Specifically, the Sigma does not appear to be quite as âwideâ at 24mm as the Canon and visibly shows more barrel distortion. At the opposite end of the zoom range, the Sigma doesnât seem to be quite as âlong.â In fact, Iâd say Sigmaâs 24-70mm is closer to a 26-68mm zoom and Iâm not the only person who has made such observations. With all this said, Sigma does offer a newer 24-70mm f/2.8 that by all accounts is much better than their previous lens and closer in performance to the Canon lens but still cheaper. It may be worth a look.
If this is your first DSLR, you might hold off on dropping anywhere from $450-$1450 on a lens that you aren't yet sure you really need. You didn't mention which Canon you have. I mention this because that may be a factor in your decision. Specifically, are you shooting a 1.3x crop or full-frame camera such as the 5D/5DMarkII or andy of the 1D/1Ds series? If the answer is no and you're shooting a 1.6x crop-body such as a Rebel T2i(EOS 550D), 50D or 7D, then a 24-70mm f/2.8 may not be the best choice. That said, if you're talking about the older Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG zoom that Sigma lists for around $750 (actual street price is closer to $500), then I've owned and shot it and offer a direct comparison to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM I currently own and use on both my 7D and my 5D Mark II. Iâve also used them on a Canon 40D that I recently sold.
As mentioned above, I currently shoot the Canon lens and prefer it to the Sigma. Iâve shot these lenses side-by-side on the same cameras. Iâve actually owned two copies of the Sigma. The first one I purchased several years ago for use on a Canon 40D. While I liked the lens overall at the time, it had focusing issues and wouldnât autofocus properly on my 40D. It worked great as a manual focus lens though. Because of the AF issues on my 40D, I eventually sold that lens to buy the EF-s 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM which actually was a more useful lens given the 1.6x crop factor on cameras like my old 40D or the 7D I own today. To be fair, a friend of mine who (unlike me) is a professional photographer, continues to shoot the Sigma today on his 40D and 7D and neither he nor his clients has been disappointed. He is however, evaluating the possibility of moving to the Canon lens due to image quality.
The differences in build quality are fairly obvious when you handle both lenses. The Canon does focus faster and is almost silent where as the Sigma seems slow and can be readily heard grinding away across a small room. The Canon also offers full-time manual focus capability where as the Sigma has a clutch that must be engaged. The Canonâs hood is superior in that it works at both ends of the lensâ zoom range where as the Sigmaâs only offers a benefit at the short end of its zoom range as is true of most lens hoods. Both lenses have the rather odd tendency to physically extend their barrels when zoomed âoutâ to 24mm but, this is specifically why the Canon comes with a much larger, longer hood. And curiously, the Sigma requires 82mm filters that are a bit more expensive than the 77mm filters required for the Canon lens. For many people, all of these differences add up to little more than subtle luxuries that simply do not justify the higher price of the Canon. Thatâs a personal call and I was certainly of the same mindset when I bought my second copy of the Sigma but, after three years, Iâd matured a bit as a photographer and started noticing more things I didnât like about the Sigmaâs image quality.
Image quality is admittedly subjective but, typically very important to photographers. This is where the Canon has a visible edge in my opinion. Neither of the two copies of the Sigma lens Iâve owned offered the same degree of sharpness and clarity across the frame as the Canon. The Canon, I think, renders colors more accurately too. Iâve shot a dozen different Sigma lenses in addition to the two Iâve owned and I swear they all have the same weird yellow color cast to them. I also realize now that the Sigma is simply more prone to flare and ghosts when bright light sources were in frame or just out of frame than the Canon. And finally there is the issue of getting what you paid for. While both the Canon and Sigma are supposed to be 24-70mm lenses, one of them is clearly wrong. Specifically, the Sigma does not appear to be quite as âwideâ at 24mm as the Canon and visibly shows more barrel distortion. At the opposite end of the zoom range, the Sigma doesnât seem to be quite as âlong.â In fact, Iâd say Sigmaâs 24-70mm is closer to a 26-68mm zoom and Iâm not the only person who has made such observations. With all this said, Sigma does offer a newer 24-70mm f/2.8 that by all accounts is much better than their previous lens and closer in performance to the Canon lens but still cheaper. It may be worth a look.
Lens on DSLR cameras?
Q. I am new with DSLR cameras, when it specifies the zoom (eg, "18-55mm") does it mean that it can only zoom to that length? :S
Thanks so much, I understand now. I am buying the 18-55mm and 70-300mm Lenses.
Thanks so much, I understand now. I am buying the 18-55mm and 70-300mm Lenses.
Answer
The 18-55 mm lens on a DSLR is the most useful. It gives the user a lens that can take wide angle landscape shots as well as head and shoulder portrait shots.
The next lens most new users of DSLR's buy is the 55-200 mm to allow them to reach out and shoot sports, action or some wildlife.
The serious landscape shooter usually saves their pennies and buys a 10-24 mm super wide angle zoom lens to take amazing landscape and architectural shots.
Add an macro lens and there you have it.
The 18-55 mm lens on a DSLR is the most useful. It gives the user a lens that can take wide angle landscape shots as well as head and shoulder portrait shots.
The next lens most new users of DSLR's buy is the 55-200 mm to allow them to reach out and shoot sports, action or some wildlife.
The serious landscape shooter usually saves their pennies and buys a 10-24 mm super wide angle zoom lens to take amazing landscape and architectural shots.
Add an macro lens and there you have it.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
