I've upgraded to the Canon 24-70

P

petemc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,504
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
No
IMG_8334-Edit.jpg


Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L

IMG_1126.jpg


Sigma 24-70 f/2.8

The Canon does seem crisper, but £600 odd crisper? I've upgraded for a few reasons. The front end on my Sigma has become wobbly causing it miss-focus from time to time. I'll be getting it repaired. I'm increasingly needing faster focusing speed so I wanted USM. I got mine from Kerso so I didn't have to pay Jessops prices. I wouldn't have upgraded if I had to because I don't feel its £600 I could justify on USM and build quality. The Sigma is a great lens for its price. Nice and sharp. I've got great results from it and I don't regret buying it at all.

So if you want a lens in the range of 24-70 that'll do well in low light and you're on a budget, get the Sigma. Its great. If you can afford it go for the Canon because it will be more durable and quicker to focus.
 
Just out of interest where does the hood attach to on the Sigma? I've always thought that the hood on the Canon is one of it's distinguishing features, by attaching to the main barrel it protects the extending portion and given the backwards zooming it's always the correct size.
 
Hehe - your hampster (?) seems to have eaten some spinach and then gone weight lifting!
 
Congrats on the lens. Its what I would of gone for. Fantastic build quality. Easily one of Canons best lenses.

I am sure this lens is getting wacked with a IS unit very soon though given its massive drop in price within the previous year.
 
rpstewart said:
Just out of interest where does the hood attach to on the Sigma? I've always thought that the hood on the Canon is one of it's distinguishing features, by attaching to the main barrel it protects the extending portion and given the backwards zooming it's always the correct size.
Click to expand...

Ah good point. On the Canon it attaches to the body and the front end extends inside the hood. So the hood protects the zoom. On the Sigma the hood attaches to the front end and only protects the front of the lens. The Canon is far better at protecting the lens and its easier to take the lens cover off too.

Jimmy_Lemon said:
Hehe - your hampster (?) seems to have eaten some spinach and then gone weight lifting!
Click to expand...

Haha :p Theres no p in hamster as Sumomo would tell you :p
 
fstopeleven said:
Congrats on the lens. Its what I would of gone for. Fantastic build quality. Easily one of Canons best lenses.

I am sure this lens is getting wacked with a IS unit very soon though given its massive drop in price within the previous year.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly in August. I imagine that'll bump up the price a fair bit though. It really is a much nicer designed lens than the Sigma. Even accessibility to the lens cap. Far easier to put on and remove. The hood is the size of the lens too.
 
Congrats Pete, tis a great lens :)

not sure if it's £600 greater than the Sigma, but you can sell the sigma (after it's been repaired) and get some money back, or keep it as a backup in case you drop the Canon :eek: :( :'(

one thing i find a pain is using a CP with the hood on at the long end (due to the reverse zoom)
 
While the lens hood might protect the lens body more by being attached to the body does that not affect it's ability to reduce flare as the front element moves towards the front of the hood?
 
Thanks to Kerso it was only £300 more than what I paid for the Sigma. I can justify that.

Kev Mills said:
While the lens hood might protect the lens body more by being attached to the body does that not affect it's ability to reduce flare as the front element moves towards the front of the hood?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think so. It seems well designed and it is HUGE.
 
No it doesnt as its made to focus the oposite way to other lens's
When at 70mm the lens is at its shortest and at 24mm its at it longest so the hood works as it should. another good thing about the hood being attached to the body is it shields the extending part of the lens from water / dust a bit more.

Its a fantastic design and a fantastic lens, had mine about 6 years.
 
Nice one Pete :) Really like mine but it needs to go back into canon, it's started giving me Err 01 on both bodies (tried cleaning contacts on bodies and lens), intermittent but can't rely on it so back it goes. :(
 
good choice pete, im sure you wont be dissapointed with it. How you finding the weight of the canon, when i had a go with it in the shop i was surpised it was so heavy, but it does have awesome build quality and produces a lovely crisp image! :)
 
It is heavier than the Sigma but by only 200g. So its not really an issue.
 
Nice Hamster :)
 
Nice one Pete, I got this a few months ago and it's a quality lens. I know what you mean about the price jump but it's always an exponential jump in price with lenses. 'Twice as good', if you can define such a thing with a lens, is often 4x the price or more.
 
Im planning to get this next month, But I like the idea of a new version with IS, and would be even better if none of the lens extended. Surely you would think a £600 L lens would have the quality of the 70-200 etc, heck even my non L lens 10-22 doesnt extend.
 
My 100-400 extends and thats over £1k. The build quality is good. It feels very solid.
 
blinekrz - I know what you are saying but its extension is part of the genius in that it works so well with the lens hood.
 
ranarama said:
blinekrz - I know what you are saying but its extension is part of the genius in that it works so well with the lens hood.
Click to expand...
You've got to ask though, if it's such a genius of a design, it means the hood is always at it's optimum shading for the focal length then why aren't ALL their lenses and hoods designed in that way? ;)

Call me cynical but I think their marketing dept got a bonus for coming up with that explanation :p
 
there's something wrong with your lens...there's a hamster in the way of every shot look. a piece of greenery getting savaged by the monster then during an interior architechural shoot he's back again!!
poser ;)

nice lens isn't it :) one thing I can't get over is the hood that's massive!! i'm of 2 minds, I've not played with the 24-105 but I think the hood on that (attached to front of lens, bit like the sigma) is perhaps better as it ends up being smaller overall. then again you bring up a good point about it protecting the zoom... 6 of one etc.
any reason - other than the f/2.8 - you went for the 24-70 over the -105 (with its IS and so on...)? just curious
 
blinekrz said:
Surely by extending theres also the higher chance of dust and other nasties getting into the lens.
Click to expand...
yes, BUT there's a seal round the telescopic section that prevents this. it is one of the few lenses canon make with weatherproofing in mind. goes great with 1 series 35mm, eos3 and 1 series digitals. trust me, they've thought about what you've said. I guess if you stood in a sand storm then yes, fine dust will get in but then you'd be a muppet not to cover it up in those sorts of conditions. I've shot in pouring rain without probs too - if you're wondering about water...but give it a wipe and let it 'dry' over night though :)
 
blinekrz said:
Surely by extending theres also the higher chance of dust and other nasties getting into the lens. I still want this lens but maybe i should wait for MkII ....
Click to expand...

A mark II will be no different in build. It will only have the built in Image Stablizer

Extending barrels are quite well designed. Using a 100 - 400 which is fully push pull system and very little dust got inside.
 
Why do you need IS on a 24-70 short focal length ?!?!
The cost, weight and limited use would make it extremely specialised.
 
shiato storm said:
any reason - other than the f/2.8 - you went for the 24-70 over the -105 (with its IS and so on...)? just curious
Click to expand...

I'd prefer constant f/2.8 over f/4. The reach isn't really an issue for what I do. Any large events and I'll take a 10D with the 100-400 on for extra reach. For daily use the 24-70 is perfect. I don't really get the point of the 24-105 f/4 IS. Sure it has IS and the extra reach but its only f/4. The depth of field at f/2.8 will be nicer than f/4 and people will stand out better.
 
you can always drop the massive hood around them [hamsters] and halt them in their tracks...
 
ever fed it brocolli? one of the funniest things I ever seen, little chap tried to stuff it all in his gob and ended up sitting there with this massive growth-like thing either side of his throat...plonker!

hmm...from 24-70 to hamsters...:shrug:
 
Are there not rumours going around that Sigma will be releasing an updated 24-70 with HSM later this year? I am sure I read something about that on here.

Michael.
 
Sigmas are great, but they just dont compare to Canon :shrug:
 
Anton Roland said:
Oh boy oh boy

How many cans of worms are you opening here??:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Click to expand...

I'm opening a six pack of whup-ass, kicking back and fiddling with pandora's box :nuts:
 
I have heard an opinion once that the 24-70 and 70-200 are the real classic L lenses...

Obviously among the "regular" walkabout lenses.

Or is it because they simply offered a fair range of focal length in the film days?:shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top