# Sigma 24-70 2.8 hsm vs Canon L



## 4jphotography (Jun 28, 2011)

My trusty Canon 24-70l has finally succumbed to my abuse. Wondering if anyone has much real life experience with the Sigma HSM version? Would love to save a few $ if comparable, but can't afford to sacrifice too much IQ.


----------



## Flake (Jun 28, 2011)

A lot of us help high hopes for this lens, but alas it has failed to deliver. On the Photozone test vignetting was so bad it was even apparant at f/8! Resolution fall off at the borders & corners is also particularly bad, even the Bokeh was criticised.

The Canon version is by no means perfect, with its field curvature issues, and especially with a new one rumoured for so long.

By far the worst part of the Sigma offering is the price at Â£650 it just doesn't offer enough of a saving over the Â£1000 the Canon costs, and then there's the second user market where prices are quite a bit less.

If you can get another 6 months out of the current lens then I'd say it'd be better than trying to make a choice at the present time.


----------



## gferdinandsen (Jun 28, 2011)

Flake said:


> A lot of us help high hopes for this lens, but alas it has failed to deliver. On the Photozone test vignetting was so bad it was even apparant at f/8! Resolution fall off at the borders & corners is also particularly bad, even the Bokeh was criticised.
> 
> The Canon version is by no means perfect, with its field curvature issues, and especially with a new one rumoured for so long.
> 
> ...



1000 Pounds, I think it sells in the states for about USD $1,300


----------



## MK5GTI (Jun 28, 2011)

thats not what i see from dpreview forum, they had a link from a chinese photo site (with translation) comparing the HSM, the 24-70L and the 24-105L

The HSM perform better and out resolve both L at any F number. However, that test did not show vignetting or light fall off. (or maybe i can't find it)

my only concern is it use 82mm filter, where my ND and CPL are all 77mm, so i need to buy another set.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 28, 2011)

Sigma also has some sample to sample issues such as some lenses have been shown to be sharper on one side than the other, and CA (purple fringing) leaves some to be desired at the edges. With that said, prices especially for canon lenses have risen to the MSRP since the earthquake in japan and in some stores, there are also backorders. As flake said, if you can wait, at least until maybe the fall when the fall/winter rebates start rolling out and production gets fully up to speed for canon, that may be the best situation all around.


----------



## bvukich (Jun 28, 2011)

MK5GTI said:


> my only concern is it use 82mm filter, where my ND and CPL are all 77mm, so i need to buy another set.



That's another thing to seriously take into consideration. What does a decent 82mm CPL run these days, $200-250? And probably $50-75each for NDs.

There went any cost savings plus some.


----------



## Flake (Jun 28, 2011)

Just buy a step down ring 82 - 77mm isn't a massive difference and Â£2 finding out if 24mm vignettes (which it does anyway - lots!)


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 28, 2011)

For the best comparison of these two lenses, go to the the-digital-picture.com You can in the 12233 chart put the two lenses side by side and look at sharpness and such... the 24-70L outpreforms it, especially in the corners, on all focal lengths... center sharpness tends to be a wash/maybe even a slight edge at times with the sigma, but the corners fall apart. Lastly, on their summary of the lenses, they said if sigma was the same price as canon, NOBODY would buy the sigma, however since it's half the price, it's something to consider. It also mentioned if you get flare, even a little flare, you lose a ton of contrast in your entire image.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 28, 2011)

Flake said:


> Just buy a step down ring 82 - 77mm isn't a massive difference and Â£2 finding out if 24mm vignettes (which it does anyway - lots!)



Don't you first have to buy the 82mm filters to use a step down ring, unless you mean a step up ring?


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 28, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > Just buy a step down ring 82 - 77mm isn't a massive difference and Â£2 finding out if 24mm vignettes (which it does anyway - lots!)
> ...



I believe that's what he meant... I would be nervous on vignetting on the wide end but if it work, then great..


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 28, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Flake said:
> ...



Yes, they put that huge piece of glass there for a purpose, not just a freebe.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2011)

I'm going to guess that Flake means using a 77mm filter on the 82mm-threaded lens (whether you call that a step up or a step down is semantic, in that different manufacturers would name it differently). 

Looking at the front of the lens, it does seem that there's a bit of room to spare. That's true in many cases, for example, mounting a macro flash on the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS or the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro lenses requires a Macrolite adapter, which is essentially a 67→58mm or 72→58mm step-down ring, respectively. 

The Sigma lens already suffers from a fair bit of optical vignetting, but a loss of 5mm might not add any mechanical vignetting to that.


----------



## Flake (Jun 28, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



No it's a step down ring, the Sigma is 82mm thread and the Canon standard 77mm for which he has the filters so therefore you use an 82mm - 77mm step down ring and then you can use the filters.

As for the 'huge piece of glass' I'm afraid the diameter of a lens isn't goverened by its entry element and this one has a fair bit of redundant plastic holding the lens in place at least .5cm all round, and maybe as much as a full cm. It's certainly worth trying, regarding vignetting, the lens is pretty bad for this but I doubt the filters would make it worse.

Oh & by the way it's she! lol.


----------



## Flake (Jun 28, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm going to guess that Flake means using a 77mm filter on the 82mm-threaded lens (whether you call that a step up or a step down is semantic, in that different manufacturers would name it differently).
> 
> Looking at the front of the lens, it does seem that there's a bit of room to spare. That's true in many cases, for example, mounting a macro flash on the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS or the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro lenses requires a Macrolite adapter, which is essentially a 67→58mm or 72→58mm step-down ring, respectively.
> 
> The Sigma lens already suffers from a fair bit of optical vignetting, but a loss of 5mm might not add any mechanical vignetting to that.



Sums it up I guess! although the 5mm is a diameter loss so it means a loss of 2.5mm on each side


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 28, 2011)

Flake said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to guess that Flake means using a 77mm filter on the 82mm-threaded lens (whether you call that a step up or a step down is semantic, in that different manufacturers would name it differently).
> ...



It varies from lens to lens I suppose... for instance there are some lenses which i've heard can give vignetting just putting on a regular filter, hence why they sell low profile filters... I dont have much experience with this lens in question... while adding a step down ring may not add much to mechanical vignetting, adding a filter, or two or three (depending on what you are adding) may become a problem... Regarding the macro rings... since there is a sense of telephoto in those zooms, I think they may either add a fraction more glass so it's more consistent edge to edge but you can also easily utilize such attachments. I think (going off assumption) it may be more of a marketing and engineering factor with "macro lenses" or else they would have to utilize another style of adapter. Perhaps someone who has this sigma lens can try it out for the benefit of this forum and we will be eternally grateful.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2011)

Flake said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > unless you mean a step up ring?
> ...



Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. 

The terminology does vary, which is an unfortunate confusion. For example, even though B&H calls the B+W 72→77mm (lens-to-filter) adapter a step-up ring, Ace Photo Digital, and many other vendors, call the exact same item a step-down ring. In this case, B&H is actually mislabeling the product - the manufacturer's website (Schneider Optics, the parent company of B+W) calls it a stepdown ring, with the description, "Allows you to attach a 77mm filter to a lens with a 72mm front thread," and consistent with that, the box that mine came in was labeled "Reduzierung" (German for "reduction"). If an in ordnung German company like Schnieder Optics calls a 72→77mm 'stepdown' then 'step up' is probably the correct terminology for an adapter than allows you to put a 77mm filter on an 82mm filter thread - but as I stated, it's semantics (although it led to some confusion in this case).



awinphoto said:


> It varies from lens to lens I suppose... for instance there are some lenses which i've heard can give vignetting just putting on a regular filter, hence why they sell low profile filters...



I agree that mechanical vignetting is lens specific, and you can't predict just based on the focal length(s). For example, I'd have thought that the EF-S 10-22mm would be at risk at the wide end, since it's got an image circle designed for APS-C cameras (no sweet spot) and it already has almost 1.5 stops of optical vignetting. Accordingly, I got a slim UV filter (B+W XS-Pro mount) for the lens. However, a while back I did some testing and found that I could stack a standard mount (F-Pro) filter and a slim mount filter onto the lens, and _still_ not get any mechanical vignetting. That test showed me that I could stack a slim CPL onto an XS-Pro UV filter if I was in a hurry.

I might have to give this type of test another try with some lenses on a FF body (especially lenses like the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and 35mm f/1.4L).


----------



## infilm (Jul 15, 2011)

I say, buy the best and cry once.... The Sigma is less money for a reason, less quality. I have the 24-70L and its a great lens. Do yourself a favor, just go out and buy the Canon L....


----------



## kirillica (Jul 15, 2011)

infilm said:


> I say, buy the best and cry once.... The Sigma is less money for a reason, less quality. I have the 24-70L and its a great lens. Do yourself a favor, just go out and buy the Canon L....


+1 to your carma. Price difference is not only because Canon likes your money. Yes, they like it for sure. But they can produce an excellent stuff too.


----------



## puqq (Jul 27, 2011)

Flake said:


> A lot of us help high hopes for this lens, but alas it has failed to deliver. On the Photozone test vignetting was so bad it was even apparant at f/8! Resolution fall off at the borders & corners is also particularly bad, even the Bokeh was criticised.
> 
> The Canon version is by no means perfect, with its field curvature issues, and especially with a new one rumoured for so long.
> 
> ...



http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/527-sigma2470f28eos
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff
(both on 5D)

In short, Sigma shines in the sharpness of the centre of the frame. Everything else is quite bad. Have you given Tamron 28-75mm a thought?


----------



## infilm (Jul 28, 2011)

@puqq, 

Enough said....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=372&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

At least in this test the Canon destroys the Sigma, once again the proverb proves itself..... Buy the best, cry once.


----------



## Forceflow (Sep 12, 2011)

Normally I am a Sigma fan, but the 24-70 was disappointing. First one I tried had a misaligned focus. It wasn't that bad, but it sure wasn't great either. Microadjusting was not an option since it was too far in front at 24 and too far back at 70. I had it for roughly a week and did some real life shooting and I felt there were too many misses for my taste. Second one I tried was broken, had a serious AF issue. (Kept stuttering, the guy in the store said he had never seen anything like it)
Since the store I bought the lens at had given me the option to upgrade to Canon's 24-70 for two weeks after getting the Sigma lens I bit the bullet, paid the price difference and now own my first L lens. I did a few test shots that turned out nice (focus appears to be right on target) but sadly couldn't do a real life test shoot yet. But from what I have seen so far the Canon does outperform the Sigma. Not to mention that Canon's version has much better macro capability and also fits a 77mm filter. (Which is important for the ring flash that I use)


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 20, 2011)

I find that Sigma's HSM system is fast but less accurate that Canon's USM/FTM system. I found the lens hood to be vastly inferior to both the Canon and Nikkor versions. Flare was a major issue compared to Canon, I get big red blobs on bright sunny days (1/4 frame), where as the Canon only had a little ghosting that can look quite nice. I think that there is little optically between them in real world sharpness. There's often a colour cast with Sigma lenses that's apparent when comparing with simular shot taken with Canon glass. The Sigma has better stopped down sunstars (if that's your thing) but the Canon is weather resistant and probably one of Canon's most well engineered lens. It's called a brick for good reason and I wonder how long a Sigma would work for you when you have already broken one Canon copy. Buy cheap and you buy twice, my Sigma lenses have had a far less reliability than any of my Canon kit. My Sigma 12-24 EX DG HSM has been back to Sigma three times in 6 years due to various mechanical failures...which is scary. Most of the time this lens sits in my camera bag along with all my other Canon glass and so far I've not had any issues with the Canon lenses alongside it.
I used to like Sigma glass, but I lost faith in them about 3 years ago. They simply don't make professional grade robust gear. Nice for amatures and people who are prepared to put up with Sigma issues, while consoling themselves that they have saved a few pounds, shilling and pence.


----------



## Joseph (Oct 10, 2011)

4jphotography said:


> My trusty Canon 24-70l has finally succumbed to my abuse. Wondering if anyone has much real life experience with the Sigma HSM version? Would love to save a few $ if comparable, but can't afford to sacrifice too much IQ.



I own a Canon 24-70mm 2.8L and have lots of experience with it. A couple of my friends bought the Sigma 24-70 , and I decided to do a comparison. Zoom ring was definitely smoother on my Canon , not a big deal , but I like mine much better. Canons auto focus was noticably quicker in most standard lit situations , however , the Sigma seemed to focus just as quickly in low light. Now sharpness , one of the Sigmas I tested was very sharp , close to my Canon , but when I played with my other friends it seemed to be a hair off. The one that was sharp , had a little bit more fringing than my Canon. I noticed a little less contrast in both the Sigmas , but that can be easily fixed.

Overall I was impressed by the much cheaper Sigma model - but I will stick with my Canon since I want the best I can get for it's price range - if I could not afford another Canon , the Sigma would be my next choice though.


----------



## savale (Oct 10, 2011)

I had the cheaper tamron 28-75. It was quite good, but too soft for my taste on the 5d2. I also had the canon 24-70. It's a bit better, but still too soft. I can't believe the sigma is any better...? Now I'm into prime lenses <3


----------



## Cornershot (Oct 11, 2011)

Look at it this way. If you're already familiar with and happy with the quality of your 24-70L, you won't have any regrets buying a new one. Good IQ is the cost of running a business. But the Sigma may disappoint, and you won't save that much to boot.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Oct 16, 2011)

i was thinking of saving some $$$ and buying the sigma equivalent but now after reading what everyone else has said i think i'll just wait (a long time) for the 24-70mm II (really hoping it has IS)


----------



## necator (Oct 18, 2011)

Consider also the old Sigma 24-70 EX DG (however not produced anymore?).

I have access to both, the Canon 24-70 and the Sigma 24-70 EX DG.

Sigma has on the 5D mk I and a 1Ds mk II a better resolution and less CA. Sigma however has problems wth AF at 70mm.
Canon has the better ergonomics and faster AF, less thendency to flare.

But, fact is also: Sigma has quite a problem with sample variation.
(Oh, Canon sometimes also has: I'm just into buying a Canon 50mm 1.4, and got already two lemons (really _bad_ ones).


----------



## SpeechLess (Jan 12, 2012)

infilm said:


> @puqq,
> 
> Enough said....
> 
> ...



That's the older sigma without HSM! I really would like to see a comparison like this with this newer HSM Sigma...


----------



## kevl (Jan 27, 2012)

SpeechLess said:


> infilm said:
> 
> 
> > @puqq,
> ...



I have the new IF EX DG sigma 24-70 and I can tell you it is a very very nice lens! It is a completely different animal to the older version. 

Kev


----------



## 00Q (Jan 27, 2012)

I had a few copies of the Sigma 24-70 MACRO EX DG lens. One of them was pretty good optically. Very sharp. 

However, I hated the feel of the lens on the body. When it focuses, it pumps some air in/out of the body like an air gun. I didn't like that very much. And the zoom ring didnt feel the nice to use, as it's a bit too large diameter wise. 

In general, shooting experiece with the canon is much better. I sold them and now I shoot with the canon. 

there's an new Sigma 24-70 that is internal focusing (IF). It is much more expensive than the old sigma, but at that price, you might as well get a second hand canon instead.


----------

