# Canon L series glass vs. Sigma HSM glass



## AJ Knowles (Aug 10, 2009)

Here is my question:  I am trying to decide between the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L and the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM Lens.  So far I have not found anyone that has used both and want to know if the Canon lens is worth the extra money.  So, for wedding and all around photography should I spend the extra and go with the Canon brand glass?  I appreciate all your help and suggestions.


Canon 40D
Speedlite 430EX
Speedlite 580EX II
50mm f/1.8
Canon Kit Lens 28-135 f/3.5-5.6


----------



## icassell (Aug 10, 2009)

HSM is just Sigma's name for their ultrasonic motor (Canon calls it USM).  The Sigma EX designation is for their high-end glass.  I have several EX lenses and have been extremely happy with them (10-20mm, 50-150mm f2.8, 100-300mm f4, 1.4X TC, 2X TC) but have never owned L glass ...


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 10, 2009)

Welcome to the forum.

From what I can tell, the usual scenario is that the top end Sigma (or Tamron etc) lenses are about 90% as good as the top end Canon (or Nikon) lenses.  That's pretty good considering that they cost about half as much.  

There are some people who need or want that extra 10% in quality but there are those who don't.  

I can say for sure that I know several people who have owned Sigma lenses but then upgraded to L lenses (or top end Nikon) and I know several people who have 'gone L' and won't buy anything else.


----------



## Overread (Aug 10, 2009)

Sadly I can't give you a comparison with the canon 24-70mm, but its a good comparison review with the sigma and tamron 24-70mms (Juza didn't have the canon one to test)
Juza Nature Photography

As for the sigma vs canon part the only downside to sigma is that some of their lens range do have a lot of quality control problems in production - luckly their macro lenses don't suffer from this and I have 2 of them, both being super sharp and strong lenses - heck many shooters (inc the one who wrote the review posted above) were far happier with the sigma 180mm macro over the canon 180mm L - its a lens by lens factor though so keep hunting for those reviews


----------



## AJ Knowles (Aug 10, 2009)

Big Mike said:


> Welcome to the forum.
> 
> From what I can tell, the usual scenario is that the top end Sigma (or Tamron etc) lenses are about 90% as good as the top end Canon (or Nikon) lenses.  That's pretty good considering that they cost about half as much.
> 
> ...





Overread said:


> Sadly I can't give you a comparison with the canon 24-70mm, but its a good comparison review with the sigma and tamron 24-70mms (Juza didn't have the canon one to test)
> Juza Nature Photography
> 
> As for the sigma vs canon part the only downside to sigma is that some of their lens range do have a lot of quality control problems in production - luckly their macro lenses don't suffer from this and I have 2 of them, both being super sharp and strong lenses - heck many shooters (inc the one who wrote the review posted above) were far happier with the sigma 180mm macro over the canon 180mm L - its a lens by lens factor though so keep hunting for those reviews


Thank you Big Mike for the welcome, I have been reading the forums for a while before I posted and am happy with the replies!  Overread, I checked out that review and it answered some questions but did not get me closer to making a decision.  Thanks though!  It comes down to something Scott Kelby said, "How strong is my marriage?"  Do I spend the big money for the canon or go for less and maybe get what I want only to soon upgrade for some reason or another.  Thanks keep the replies coming and if anyone else knows of a review of these I would be grateful to read it!


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 10, 2009)

The one thing you won't get with a third party lens that you do with the manufacturer's lenses is guaranteed compatibility with future camera bodies. Because third party manufacturers reverse engineer the AF system (rather than license it, which would drive up their costs), it's possible that a third-party lens won't auto-focus with a new body sometime down the line. Sometimes the chip can be upgraded, sometimes not. If you stick to the manufacturer's lenses, you know that they'll always work, which while in the short term makes it a big expense, in the long run I've seen it as a good investment.


----------



## AJ Knowles (Aug 10, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> The one thing you won't get with a third party lens that you do with the manufacturer's lenses is guaranteed compatibility with future camera bodies. Because third party manufacturers reverse engineer the AF system (rather than license it, which would drive up their costs), it's possible that a third-party lens won't auto-focus with a new body sometime down the line. Sometimes the chip can be upgraded, sometimes not. If you stick to the manufacturer's lenses, you know that they'll always work, which while in the short term makes it a big expense, in the long run I've seen it as a good investment.



Good point, I hadn't thought about that part of it.


----------



## jic designs (Jun 5, 2010)

I know this is an old thread but wanted to chime in for anyone who Google's this stuff later on.

I agree with the poster above who said that the Sigma 24-70 ex is about 90% as good as the Canon L series lens.

I own both the Sigma and Tamron listed above, and have a friend who owns the Canon and we've played around and for most environments the Sigma and Tamron are on equal footing when compared with the Canon.

There's a dozen reviews comparing them all, but suffice to say that for half the price at 90% of the capability you won't be disappointed.  Take the money you save and put it toward the Canon 50mm 1.8 made with plastic housing, cheap, but takes brilliant pictures for a $100 lens.

As a heads up I also have the Sigma 30mm which is basically a rip off of Canon's 24mm L series lens and have to say its a brilliant lens for the price.

Now when it comes to the long length of a 70-200, gotta go with the Canon L series with IS.  Can't be beat and I've tried.  I am a penny pincher, but we got lucky and a friend was leaving for school and needed money, got ours for $700


----------

