# Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM vs. Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG



## musicaleCA (Jul 20, 2009)

Okay, so I'm a little torn. I'm trying to weigh the pros and cons of these lenses realistically, to decide if I really should just chalk-up the cash and get the L glass (that is just of so purdy; yep, I'm biased), or take a chance with Sigma. The major issue for me is that I don't want to be Sigma's quality control guy by buying their lens; one of the local camera stores here has stopped carrying Sigmas altogether because of inconsistencies in quality. That was a huge red flag for me.

What I want is a lens that will give me coverage from wide into the tele range, hence the 24-70. I also need it fast, as I work in low-light often enough to warrant it. I've read that the Sigma in this case is rather soft at f/2.8 (that is, uselessly soft in the centre). In such a situation, I won't have the realistic option of just closing-down the aperture, because of the performance of the camera body I'm using.

Perhaps I'm just asking to know that I'm not losing my marbles by really, really wanting the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L USM. Or perhaps you guys might have some other suggestions? (I won't buy an EF-S lens; I want a lens that'll last.)

(And yes, I've done my research and know both lenses pretty intimately now. Just tell me I'm not crazy for being such a stickler for IQ now.)


----------



## rufus5150 (Jul 20, 2009)

If you want a lens that will work on a FF camera (I'm assuming you mean that by 'last'  ), go with the L glass. My guess is sigma's 24-70 is just like its 70-200 and 10-20: they vignette on FF sensors.

I have 2 sigmas and both are wonderful (the two above), and I've thought about the 24-70, but I'm going with the canon when I can afford it.


----------



## Samanax (Jul 20, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> What I want is a lens that will give me coverage from wide into the tele range, hence the 24-70.


24mm on a crop body isn't really that wide...closer to being normal than wide on a crop body.





musicaleCA said:


> Perhaps I'm just asking to know that I'm not losing my marbles by really, really wanting the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L USM. (And yes, I've done my research and know both lenses pretty intimately now. Just tell me I'm not crazy for being such a stickler for IQ now.)


One of my shooting buddies is really, really disappointed in the IQ of his Brick and I noticed that many of my other shooting buddies have sold their Bricks or are in the process of selling them. They have given me various reasons for this...it's too heavy...softer than they were expecting...the reverse zoom is weird...was expecting better performance...need a faster lens...moving to primes...etc...

I was thinking of getting a Brick but I'm not as excited about it anymore. Lately I've been looking at primes for the better low light performance, better bokeh and better overall IQ. Just gotta use the foot-zoom more.


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 20, 2009)

Yeah...*sigh* I would like to get a decent wide-angle soonish. Maybe I should just consider fleshing things-out with two more primes? The only thing is that when shooting events (protests, rallies, gatherings, parties, whatever), a prime can't beat the flexibility of a zoom, in my opinion. (And I kinda like the idea of the reverse zoom; it's like the lens hides in the hood when you're zoomed-in.)


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 20, 2009)

I think this is one of those cases where the Sigma (if you get a good one) is a great lens...but once you get your hands on the L glass...you know why you spent that extra money...it's just that good.  
I know one or two people who have had that Sigma lens (or a previous version) and they loved it...but they eventually did upgrade to the Canon (or Nikon equivalent).  

About the EF 24-70mm F2.8 L.
Yes, I also think it's an odd focal length on a crop camera.  24mm just isn't wide enough for me.  
I've also heard from a few pro shooters who just aren't enamored with this lens.  I know one guy who's owned six of them...looking for one that focus as accurately as it should.  Of course, he's a real stickler.


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 21, 2009)

Evidently. O.O In my case, I wouldn't notice much a difference anyway. I can't shoot reasonably with my 17-85 at 17mm because of barrel distortion; I intentionally stay at 24 or above, because the distortion at 17 is just way too extreme.


----------

