Anyone using the Sigma 24-70 HSM?

Bicicletapc

In the market soon for a 24-70 for my "C". Sold a 17-40 L, have a 28 1.8 "S" lens that I love but will be replaced by the 24-70.

I will use a 50 1.4 for portrait work, which I do only a small amount of, and the 24-70 for the rest. I will pick up a super wide for landscape.

I own a 7d, and 450d.

The new Sigma has had good reviews, compared to the "C" L, some say its optically better???

I am looking for people whom might own the "S", or both "S" and "C".

I can pick up a new "S" for 1000 with a decent UV, with 4 year warranty. I can get a used or refurb "C" L for 1000-1100.

Unfortunately no real camera stores where I live. Was in Atlanta for the weekend and had no luck finding either lens.

Subscribed to a similar thread on POTN

Thanks!
Paul

ziggy53

Best reviews to use as a comparison:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/184-canon-ef-24-70mm-f28-usm-l-test-report--review

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/318-sigma-af-24-70mm-f28-ex-dg-macro-canon-lab-test-report--review

Pertinent threads and posts at DGrin:

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1323478&postcount=19

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=81527

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=63934

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=80247

I own the Canon EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM and I truly love it on the Canon FF and Canon crop 1.3X cameras.

For crop 1.6X I use the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM, and I love it for those cameras.

Bicicletapc

Ziggy53, Thanks for the links! Must have been how I keyed in my search, I did not produce that much info.

Some of those are for the older 24-70 non HSM, but still good info!

Paul

EarthDog

ziggy53 wrote:

I own the Canon EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM and I truly love it on the Canon FF and Canon crop 1.3X cameras.

That's my primary lens on my DS2. I find it really, really soft, though. Resolution seems to be fine, but it has NO edge contrast. The colors are really nice, though. Do you find yours to behave the same way?

On Sigmas, the thing I generally find lacking in reviews is testing of color rendition. I used to use Sigmas on my KM7D, before I discovered how much clearer, cleaner, and brighter the colors were when shooting through an old Minolta lens. The first time I used a good Minolta lens was the last time I used a Sigma.

Mine were not the highest-end Sigmas, which may have been a factor, but remembering the brownish, dull cast they lent every shot, I'm reluctant to risk that without some evidence that the problem has been addressed. Has anyone seen this for themselves, or seen anything published on it?

BTW, Ziggy, I'm constantly impressed with the depth and breadth of your knowledge of camera equipment and resources. Thanks for your great contributions to these forums.

ziggy53

EarthDog wrote:

That's my primary lens on my DS2. I find it really, really soft, though. Resolution seems to be fine, but it has NO edge contrast. The colors are really nice, though. Do you find yours to behave the same way?

...

The only issues I have with the 28-80mm "L" is the rather strong barrel distortion at the wide end and a significant vignetting on the 5D MKII, again at the wide end. Since my normal uses for the lens start around 35mm, it's more of an occasional inconvenience in post-processing.

I get very good sharpness even wide open, but it's better at f4, where I commonly shoot. Focus is very fast and sure. Best sharpness at f5.6.

When I first got the lens I was a little unsure about the f4 rating at the long end, especially in low light. There is enough micro-contrast that AF has not been a problem. As a result, I have no plans to upgrade to a more current lens until this one breaks (because Canon no longer supports the 28-80mm L).

Here is a candid, right before the ceremony (2009), 1D MKII, f4:

100 percent crop from ACR 5.6, light input sharpening (before output sharpening):



The pertinent settings in ACR:



Another image from the same lens on a 5D MKII, at f4 and 52mm (2010):



Crop from above:

Bicicletapc

Update
Thanks guys. (this is copied from post on potn)

Pulled the trigger.... finally.

It was a tough decision as to what best suited my needs. I shoot mostly natural light, running and cycling events for $ and then landscapes and general fun stuff. Shoot a 7d and 450d, 70-200 Tam, Sig 28 1.8, Can 100 macro, and just sold my 17-40L for this journey. The 70-200 is whats used for the small amount of $ I make. Works fine, IQ good, AF slower than I wish at times.

I had 4 options: 1) purchase neither lens. Keep my Sigma 28 1.8, and pick up the Sigma 50 1.4 and a WA lens like the 10-20 or new 8-16 due out soon. 2) Buy the Sigma 24-70 and filters to match, for about 1k with 4 yr warranty. Still picking up 50 and WA, thats a constant. 3) buy the Canon 24-70 new, at approx 1250, 1 year warranty. 4) find a used Canon 24-70.

Went with option 4. Found a excellent condition used, from usedcamera.com. Came with 60 day money back and was able to purchase a 2 year mack extended for 34. Had a 10% off coupon for them and walked out the door for $970. Should have it before the weekend.

A bit on the decision, I still feel the "S" is a good deal on a good lens, is it equal to the C? Depends on who you talk to, more on that below. I really came close to keeping the 28 (soon for sale) which is a tack sharp lens and the 50 and WA, which will be picked up later. The primes are better IQ. I can shoot a heck of a lot with the 28, and its been my walk around since I owned it. Not great for portrait, which I do some, hence the 50 1.4, only for the speed over the 24-70 and better in IQ IMO.

Now, something I want to relay.... Cant say it played at all in my decision, but maybe it did. I have NO camera stores other than smuf-land (best buy) within several hours of Asheville. There is 1, but not sure how they stay open? I went to Atalanta with the wife for the weekend, and hoped to find both lens to look and test, no luck.

So I called the 2 most well known camera stores in I bet the world. Both in NYC, 1 of which I visited last year on a trip, B&H and Adoroma. I spun the wheel and took the opinion of who ever answered the phone in the lens department. I will not tell you which store said what.

1 said " Canon, hands down."

The other said " Well, if you got an ego to fuel get the "C", if you got more sense than money get the "S" as you cant tell the difference in a side by side.

I did receive the "C" yesterday, actually got it in 1 day which was a pleasant surprise. I am so far very happy with the quality of the lens and its condition, even more so for what I paid vs new. Only was able to shoot a few test shots late last night, hope to make some time today to check it out further.

jchin

A friend at my camera club bought this lens and allowed me to shoot a few frames with it yesterday. It is a much lighter and shorter lens compared to my other friend's Canon 24-70/2.8L.

The Sigma is sharp and focuses quickly. An added plus, this lens zoom ring also turns in the same fashion as Canon (not the reverse like older Sigma lenses).

For $900, I am considering this Sigma over the $1300 Canon 24-70/2.8.

Bicicletapc

Johnny,

Did you happen to use the hood with the sigma? or see how large the hood is for the sigma?

Reason I ask, is the hood for the "C" is HUGE and a real pita to deal with IMO. I normally store my hoods backwards on the lens until I need them. This hood is so large it almost touches the body of my 7d mounted backwards, and it prevents easy access to the zoom ring.

Mounted correctly, its fine, until you try to store it in the bag. Then it eats up a rather lot of real estate.

Now, I dont always shoot with the hood in place, I normally do NOT shoot that way. SO what to do with this hood when not in use, but still keeping it handy for the potential flares???

jchin

Bicicletapc wrote:

Johnny,

Did you happen to use the hood with the sigma? or see how large the hood is for the sigma?

Reason I ask, is the hood for the "C" is HUGE and a real pita to deal with IMO. I normally store my hoods backwards on the lens until I need them. This hood is so large it almost touches the body of my 7d mounted backwards, and it prevents easy access to the zoom ring.

Mounted correctly, its fine, until you try to store it in the bag. Then it eats up a rather lot of real estate.

Now, I dont always shoot with the hood in place, I normally do NOT shoot that way. SO what to do with this hood when not in use, but still keeping it handy for the potential flares???

My friend did not have the hood with him for the Sigma.
The Canon 24-70 hood is HUGE!
However, the Sigma is a 82mm opening, so the front of the lens is a little wider. Did not try to put it in a camera bag to see how it compares. Sorry. My gutt tells me it is not much of a different in diameter between the 2 lenses with their hoods in reverse.

EarthDog

ziggy53 wrote:

I get very good sharpness even wide open, but it's better at f4, where I commonly shoot. Focus is very fast and sure. Best sharpness at f5.6.

Thanks for the detailed response. I guess it's my expectations that are the problem. To me, both of those 100% crops look very, very soft. Nice color, correct focus, adequate resolution, but just not well defined (crisp? I may not be using the right terminology). The same as I get from mine, in other words. (I use basically the same ACR settings, although you have Detail dialed up a bit higher than I normally do.)

The full view of the group looks fine, of course, because of the compression advantage (I'm sure there's a proper term for it, but I don't know it), whereby apparent sharpness increases when images are shown smaller.

My memory may be lying to me (it does that), but I seem to recall getting much crisper transitions between hairs, for instance, or on the edges of teeth, with other equipment. I guess I'll have to spend some time researching it, by doing direct comparisons.