Lens Q?: 24-70L or Sigma 24-70 and Canon 100 Macro?

Shima

So here's a thought...

I've got my 24-105 "for sale / trade" on here in hopes of trading up roughly to a 24-70 f2.8L

What are your thoughts on the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX? Yes it's not weather sealed, the focus isn't as smooth as the canon and other things I've read... but from some reviews I read and photos I've seen the actual optics seem rather comparable.

My thought would be instead of getting the 24-70 f2.8/L... I could get the Sigma 24-70f2.8/L AND the Canon 100 f2.8 Macro (since I own no macro at present) all with the money I sell the 24-105 for eventually.

Is this wise? Would I miss selling my last L lens for the time being? (probably) I do intend to upgrade to the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS USM eventually... and likewise following that would probably the L version of the 24-70...

Would it be worth the trade for the time being while I pay off my new 40D body? I won't have extra money for lenses until after that is paid off....And this route would allow me to have a macro lens which just trading up to a 24-70L wouldn't allow monetarily.

So your thoughts would be greatly appreciated

ziggy53

I honestly think I would recommend the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm, f/2.8 XR Di LD over the Sigma 24-70mm, f2.8. Very nice lens overall.

In addition to the Canon EF 100mm, f/2.8 USM Macro, consider the Tamron SP 90mm, f/2.8 Di Macro.

I know I seem to be a Tamron salesman but these two are just really good values in lenses.

Shima

ziggy53 wrote:

I honestly think I would recommend the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm, f/2.8 XR Di LD over the Sigma 24-70mm, f2.8. Very nice lens overall.

In addition to the Canon EF 100mm, f/2.8 USM Macro, consider the Tamron SP 90mm, f/2.8 Di Macro.

I know I seem to be a Tamron salesman but these two are just really good values in lenses.

If I don't go for the Canon 24-70 and go the non-Canon route, I'd really like to not lose any range, so that would be a big reason for still leaning towards a Sigma for me.

Art Scott

I do not shoot canon nor have I ever used any Tamron lenses....I do own the 24-70 EX DG and think it is an excellent lens....mine has been the wind, rain and dust of Kansas and I see no evidence of anything inside the lens....it also seems quite fast and quiet on the focusing side.....almost all of these images after the 1st 3 were taken with the 24-70 ex dg here is the link....Ks Dgrinner shoutout 3rd Installment.......my only complaint is it is not wide enuff and I will start looking to purchase a 17-70 which is a variable f-stop 2.8-4......but feel it will be worth it for me.......If I were shooting a full frame cam then the 24-70 would be just fine for me.......

PineapplePhoto

Believe me, you will not miss those 4mm, I love my 28-75 f2.8 Tamron !

Shima

PineapplePhoto wrote:

Believe me, you will not miss those 4mm, I love my 28-75 f2.8 Tamron !

Hmm... do you have some example photos taken with it to share?

Have you ever felt that you should have gone the Canon 24-70L route instead? Or was it no looking back once you got the Tamron?

PineapplePhoto

Shima wrote:

Hmm... do you have some example photos taken with it to share?

Have you ever felt that you should have gone the Canon 24-70L route instead? Or was it no looking back once you got the Tamron?

My smugmug is messed up right now... but I still long for the canon L... I will buy it one day, a few years down the road perhaps but for now, there is no regrets. I paid $350 i think for mine and it has served me very well (specially some close behind the hoops shots in BB)

PineapplePhoto

Some samples
some samples from a trip I took recently, I used available light and the tamron at different apertures, but most of the time, wide open.

check my mac gallery here: http://gallery.mac.com/punkypunky#100008

Scott_Quier

Shima wrote:

Hmm... do you have some example photos taken with it to share?

Here's a selection that I've taken over the years:
1.


2.


3.


4.


5. As a photo, I'm not real happy with this one - the background is way too busy.

Shima wrote:

Have you ever felt that you should have gone the Canon 24-70L route instead? Or was it no looking back once you got the Tamron?

The Tammy was the first lens I bought and it does very well everything for which I bought it. I have since then moved to shooting weddings and am very happy with the combination of EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Do I ever look back? Of course I do. I love new toys. Would I buy it over the Tammy if it were my first lens and if I weren't shooting weddings? Probably not. I would probably go with what I have now.

Now then, if they ever come out with an EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS - well, then all bets are off. That would be in my bag so fast it would make your head swim.

jgoetz4

ziggy53 wrote:

I honestly think I would recommend the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm, f/2.8 XR Di LD over the Sigma 24-70mm, f2.8. Very nice lens overall.

In addition to the Canon EF 100mm, f/2.8 USM Macro, consider the Tamron SP 90mm, f/2.8 Di Macro.

I know I seem to be a Tamron salesman but these two are just really good values in lenses.

Good Morning,
Let's not fergit the Tamron 17-50 2.8
Have a good day
Jim

ps: Ziggy, we missed you at the Tamron shareholders meeting last night

GJMPhoto

A word for the Canon
I haven't owned 3rd party lenses since my first camera (an FTBn MANY MANY years ago!), so I can't compare it to anything else...but my 24-70L 2.8 is a BEAUTIFUL piece of glass.

Sharp edge to edge throughout the range, quick quick, quick focusing - even in low light, quiet...feels great. Fully integrated with the body (5D) and flash...

It's the lens that stays on the camera by default...and I love it.

I won't try to tell you not to get the other brands...I've heard their quality is much improved since my FTBn days. But if I have the money to spend, I'd go for the fully integrated, top-shelf equipment.

I'm editing this to add a couple of thoughts on this: cameras today are not just glass, they're electronics. Unlike computers, where you can swap the monitor that comes with your desktop to another with no impact, cameras are in a relatively non-standardized environment. Canon has the inside track on canon electronics...and that integration may matter. I know some of their newer lenses have electronics that help the camera's flash system by communicating focusing information from the lens...I don't think the 24-70L is one of them...but the point is, only Canon knows what Canon's doing with their electronics...and how to maximize the integration between their components.
Maybe I'm buying into brand-hype...that's definitely possible...but I haven't been disappointed by their products yet.

Lastly, when someone tells me 'X is just as good as Y' - that defines 'Y' as the target of quality...I'll take 'Y' everytime.

- Gary.

Richard

I am also a big fan of the Tamron 28-75. It's a remarkably good value. Unless I suddenly became wealthy, I don't think I would consider replacing it with the 24-70L. On the other hand, I have thought from time to time about replacing it with the 24-105 f/4L IS, which has a better range for walk-around shooting. Which brings me to the question: why replace the 24-105? If it is just so that you can add a macro lens, I would suggest waiting till you can save up for one.

Regards,

Shima

Richard wrote:

I am also a big fan of the Tamron 28-75. It's a remarkably good value. Unless I suddenly became wealthy, I don't think I would consider replacing it with the 24-70L. On the other hand, I have thought from time to time about replacing it with the 24-105 f/4L IS, which has a better range for walk-around shooting. Which brings me to the question: why replace the 24-105? If it is just so that you can add a macro lens, I would suggest waiting till you can save up for one.

Regards,

I need the 2.8 for a variety of things I am shooting lately. IS works well if the subject isn't moving... but I need the speed for where people are moving around and I need to push it to be faster. I am ok waiting for the Canon macro lens if it is a better benefit to just go for the 24-70L for now... that's what I'm trying to ascertain.

claudermilk

It seemed that going with the 3rd party lenses was fine up until that last comment. So you are needing the f2.8 to catch moving targets in low light. That kind of demand is why I took the big plunge and got the 24-70L. While the other guys may have optics to compete with Canon's, I pretty much am always reading how they all lag behind the responsiveness of Canon's USM AF motors. That made up my mind. It's challenging enough with the top dog USM motor, I know I'd be quite frustrated with a slower-responding lens. Because of that, I've taken the long view & purchased the right lens for the job, even if it meant I could only buy the one lens and start the long saving-up process anew. I'm still not done yet, and the 20D is quite long in the tooth now.

Shima

claudermilk wrote:

It seemed that going with the 3rd party lenses was fine up until that last comment. So you are needing the f2.8 to catch moving targets in low light. That kind of demand is why I took the big plunge and got the 24-70L. While the other guys may have optics to compete with Canon's, I pretty much am always reading how they all lag behind the responsiveness of Canon's USM AF motors. That made up my mind. It's challenging enough with the top dog USM motor, I know I'd be quite frustrated with a slower-responding lens. Because of that, I've taken the long view & purchased the right lens for the job, even if it meant I could only buy the one lens and start the long saving-up process anew. I'm still not done yet, and the 20D is quite long in the tooth now.

Thank you for your feedback.

To clarify, I do primarily weddings, event coverage, and sports. The main area I've found my 24-105 lacking in is speed for close up sports-- such as martial arts. I had to use my 70-200 2.8 (sigma) for a recent event, but it was too zoomed in for the range I was standing, and therefore didn't really serve me very well.

Oh how I wish they made a 24-70L with IS. That would just be amazing. But alas, I am willing to give up my 24-105 IS ability for speed. So the question is will the Sigma (or Tamron) hold up with my need for speed? Or should I just get the 24-70L and not bother w/ it?

cmason

Shima, check out this set of reviews comparing the Sigma 24-70 and Canon 24-70, with photos: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2470exl

Also, here are others of interest on the same site:

17-XX: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2470exl
comparison with 24-105L: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/1os2is
Sigma 24-70 vs Tamron 24-75: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/exvdi

ziggy53

Shima wrote:

... The main area I've found my 24-105 lacking in is speed for close up sports-- such as martial arts. I had to use my 70-200 2.8 (sigma) for a recent event, but it was too zoomed in for the range I was standing, and therefore didn't really serve me very well.

Oh how I wish they made a 24-70L with IS. ...

I know it's pricey, but the Canon 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM would be just about perfect for an indoor close-proximity sporting event. The combination of f2.8 amd IS is just wonderful and the range of 17-55mm is also perfect for many events like weddings.

Richard

Shima wrote:

So the question is will the Sigma (or Tamron) hold up with my need for speed? Or should I just get the 24-70L and not bother w/ it?

OK, now I understand. The Tamron is fairly sharp wide open, but it does not focus as quickly as my L lenses, especially in low light. Sounds like you would be better off with the Canon.

cmason

Richard wrote:

OK, now I understand. The Tamron is fairly sharp wide open, but it does not focus as quickly as my L lenses, especially in low light. Sounds like you would be better off with the Canon.

Hmm, well I compared the Tamron and Canon 24-70 (28-75) offerings, and choose the Tamron. The Tamron was far lighter and more compact, and the sharpness was as good as the Canon. Speed (light) was equivalent, though focus speed on the Tamron is slower, it is not slow enough to make an impact. And at $300ish, you can keep the 24-105 and have a low light lens as well!

Shima

ziggy53 wrote:

I know it's pricey, but the Canon 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM would be just about perfect for an indoor close-proximity sporting event. The combination of f2.8 amd IS is just wonderful and the range of 17-55mm is also perfect for many events like weddings.

I don't do *tons* of close proximity sports, just would like the ability for when I do. What is the loss here in that compared to the 24-70 it does not hold the "L" status?

I noticed on one review I read that they said for overlapping focal lengths and aperture the reviewer found the 17-55 to be sharper.

Anyhoo, your take on comparison? My main worry w/ the 17-55 is that I would then no longer have anything covering 56-69...

Shima

Hm, here's an interesting review of the 17-55 (review found on B&H)

"WOW! Thank Goodness. By photonut from NJ on 4/22/2008


I bought this and a 70-200 f/4 to replace my 24-105L. Everyone raves about the 24-70 and the 24-105 but I had both and the pictures just were not sharp enough for me. The 17-55 and 70-200 seemed like an excellent replacement combo so although hesitant I went for it. Boy am I glad I did...I can see right away that the images from both of these lenses surpass both the 24-70 and the 24-105. I am very glad I purchased this lens. For a 40D you get a greater wide angle view and can get pretty close for portraits.GREAT LENS!!!!!Its a little heavier than the 24-105 but a bit less than the 24-70 but not so heavy that its a problem."


Considering I own the 24-105 now... was looking at the 24-70, this is a very interesting review to me.

Scott_Quier

Shima wrote:

Anyhoo, your take on comparison? My main worry w/ the 17-55 is that I would then no longer have anything covering 56-69...

Ah, so you are looking for low-light applications - this was not clear to me. The Tammy does tend to hunt a bit in low-light (on the 20D and 30D - don't know about how it might perform on the 40D).

Most of the images I make are wedding related (either the wedding, the reception, engagement sessions, etc). My goto lens is the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. The EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a great compliment. Between the two, yep, there's a gap as you describe. Do I miss that coverage? Not at all.

If the "L" is too long, I pull out the other. If that's too wide, it's by much and I crop to make up the difference with out significant impact on image.

Here's a couple of recent (6 months ago) images using the 17-55: (click on the image for EXIF).

1.


2. This was taken with a IR Moded Rebel XT, but look at how sharp the image is


3. Here's one taken at a reception. If you look closely, you can clearly see his eyelashes.


BTW - all of these were hand-held and the second one was at 23mm and 1/8sec. That's got to say something about the IS on that lens - No?

Shima

Scott_Quier wrote:

Ah, so you are looking for low-light applications - this was not clear to me. The Tammy does tend to hunt a bit in low-light (on the 20D and 30D - don't know about how it might perform on the 40D).

Most of the images I make are wedding related (either the wedding, the reception, engagement sessions, etc). My goto lens is the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. The EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a great compliment. Between the two, yep, there's a gap as you describe. Do I miss that coverage? Not at all.

If the "L" is too long, I pull out the other. If that's too wide, it's by much and I crop to make up the difference with out significant impact on image.

Here's a couple of recent (6 months ago) images using the 17-55: (click on the image for EXIF).

1.


2. This was taken with a IR Moded Rebel XT, but look at how sharp the image is

3. Here's one taken at a reception. If you look closely, you can clearly see his eyelashes.

BTW - both of these were hand-held and the second one was at 23mm and 1/8sec. That's got to say something about the IS on that lens - No?

That's good to hear that it serves you well for weddings as well and you don't miss the range in between.

My goal is once I can afford it to replace the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS... I have used both and do love the Canon, but for now simply put I cannot afford it.

The IS and proven images of the 17-55 are definite draws and I'm glad this was brought up as it wasn't a lens I had originally considered before. It is definitely in my contemplations now. hmmm

And WOW you can see his eyelashes!

Manfr3d

Another vote for the Tamron 28-75mm/2.8 and the Sigma 105mm/2.8 Macro

jgoetz4

Afternoon Folks,
There's one fer sale (Tamron 28-75 2.8) at "that other place" http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/643896
Have a good day
Jim...

DrDavid

Just remember though.... The 17-55mm is an EF-S mount; and as such will only work with the 10/20/30/40D cameras (and rebels). Plus, it doesn't even come with a hood (ok, minor irritation, but, still....). It also has dust issues and is a plastic body.

The 24-70mm L is built like a tank, will work on all bodies and comes with a hood.

BUT, no IS.

In the end the decision came down to this.. I want to get a 1D eventually. So, why buy EFS mounts?

David

ziggy53

The Canon 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is an EF-S lens and it does not have the build quality of an "L" lens. By any other measure it is "L" quality. The USM is fast and sure and focus accuracy is superb. The sharpness, color and contrast are right there with any other of Canon's best lenses.

The resale value is also very strong, so if I really need to sell it I won't have lost much at all. I intend to keep crop 1.6x bodies for a number of reasons, so I have a number of EF-S and crop lenses that serve me well.

I am also one who does not miss the little bit of coverage and I found that I do not use the range of 56-69mm very much at all. I have two lenses to cover, but they are just never used on the crop bodies. (Canon EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM and Canon EF 24-85mm, f/3.5-4.5 USM)

DrDavid

ziggy53 wrote:

The Canon 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is an EF-S lens and it does not have the build quality of an "L" lens. By any other measure it is "L" quality.

The IQ is fantastic on the 17-55mm... It's just really too bad, for the price, that it didn't get the L and L's build quality. But, still... Since I want to go at some point to the 1.3x or FF cameras, for me the decision was made a bit easier..

I totally don't miss the IS, and the IQ I get is great. So, I'm thrilled!

If the 17-55mm was cheaper, or the build quality better, I might have bought it instead of the 24-70mm L.

David

Moogle Pepper

If it weren't for the fact that I want to move up to a 5D, predecesser, etc., I would have went for the 17-55 as it is slightly cheaper than the 24-70. Weight is not an issue, but as it stands I only have one EF-S lens, my ultra wide Tokina, but all others are EF.

Which ever you pick, Shima, you are bound to get great pictures.

Shima

DrDavid wrote:

The IQ is fantastic on the 17-55mm... It's just really too bad, for the price, that it didn't get the L and L's build quality. But, still... Since I want to go at some point to the 1.3x or FF cameras, for me the decision was made a bit easier..

I totally don't miss the IS, and the IQ I get is great. So, I'm thrilled!

If the 17-55mm was cheaper, or the build quality better, I might have bought it instead of the 24-70mm L.

David

I have someone interested possibly in trading me my 24-105 for their 17-55... we will see where this discussion goes....

Shima

DrDavid wrote:

It also has dust issues and is a plastic body.

Ziggy - what's your experience with dust on this lens?