# Sigma HSM vs non HSM 24-70 f/2.8



## Michiyo-Fir (Mar 3, 2011)

Is there a significant difference in sharpness or bokeh between the two?  I've been trying to research these 2 lenses for my friend but there seems to be contrary information.  Some people say the HSM version is the one to go for, it's much sharper, some people say the other way around?!?


----------



## gsgary (Mar 3, 2011)

I only buy Canon lenses so i bought the 24-70F2.8L


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Mar 3, 2011)

I have the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and it's awesome but my friend can't afford that lens, that's why he wants the sigma.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 3, 2011)

Sigma created the newer HSM version to try and raise its retail price out of the "ghetto zone". If you ask me, the new, retail price on their HSM model is ridiculous...a 3-way test done of the Sigma HSm, the Nikkor 24-70, and the Canon 24-70 shows the Sigma to be the worst lens, followed by the Canon in the middle, with the Nikon on top, all tested on the SAME EOS 1DS 16.7 MP full-frame lens,at the same time.

I would never pay Sigma's asking price for their new HSM lens...Tamron 28-75 makes more sense as a 3rd party lens.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 3, 2011)

How did i know Nikon would come out on top, i can't see it being sharper than my Canon copy


----------



## Derrel (Mar 3, 2011)

gsgary said:


> How did i know Nikon would come out on top, i can't see it being sharper than my Canon copy



How did you know the Nikon would come out on top? Maybe because the Nikkor lens has Nano-Crystal coating, which the Canon lacks? Maybe because the Nikkor is a newer design, and Nikon new exactly what they had to do to design a better lens? I'm not surprised. Nikon is a great lensmaker.

Sigma, Nikon, Canon: 24-70mm 2.8 compared « Mike Kobal

[video=vimeo;5009249]http://vimeo.com/5009249[/video]

ALL three lenses, tested on the SAME, Canon 5D Mark II d-slr body, on the same date and weather conditions.


----------



## Offhand (Mar 3, 2011)

Didn't sound like the Nikon was hugely better than the Sigma or Canon in that video. Probably any advantage is not even noticeable on a print, and seemingly only visible in the corners when pixel peeping. The guy even said they were all pretty close.


----------



## flea77 (Mar 3, 2011)

Offhand said:


> Didn't sound like the Nikon was hugely better than the Sigma or Canon in that video. Probably any advantage is not even noticeable on a print, and seemingly only visible in the corners when pixel peeping. The guy even said they were all pretty close.


 
Following that logic, why in the world would you pay the $1400 for the Canon when you can get the same thing from Sigma for $900? Did you just like the name better?

Allan


----------



## Offhand (Mar 4, 2011)

Not sure what you mean. I don't even any of the 24-70's mentioned. I actually own the older 28-70mm, which I find to be a fine lens.



flea77 said:


> Offhand said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't sound like the Nikon was hugely better than the Sigma or Canon in that video. Probably any advantage is not even noticeable on a print, and seemingly only visible in the corners when pixel peeping. The guy even said they were all pretty close.
> ...


----------



## fsquare (Mar 4, 2011)

I own the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 non HSM version. Great lens for the money but it is big and rather heavy. I believe the HSM version is much smaller.


----------



## flea77 (Mar 4, 2011)

Offhand said:


> Not sure what you mean. I don't even any of the 24-70's mentioned. I actually own the older 28-70mm, which I find to be a fine lens.


 
What I mean is so simple I can not believe you can't see it, let me spell it out for you:

One(me) should not post comments like this right before bedtime because they are lible to make a fool of themselves by quoting the wrong person(DOH!).

Clear enough?  

Allan


----------

