Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG Macro EX

[Chickybumlooka]

Does anyone know anything about this lens? My husband just bought it for me because he knew my dream lens is the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L and he got talked into this one instead, but I'm not super impressed with the clarity of it. The depth it gives at 2.8 is much better than my EFS 17-85 macro that I was shooting with, but I was REALLY hoping for better clarity. This lens is different than Sigmas 24-70 f/2.8 I guess. This one is supposably made for digital. Hence the DG and EX. ANYONE? I have a week to decide then I have to send it back of keep it forever! Wondering if I'd be happier with the canon. I'm shooting with the DReb xti.

[Overread]

I have not used that lens and I can't say if its quality is on par with the canon edition - but remember that at f2.8 your depth of field is going to be very small - try stopping down to say f4 an see if you get more clarity

[AlexColeman]

I doubt it is very good, the money you save, is quality lost.

[samal]

Well, It really depends if you want to save 300-400 and sacrifice some sharpness at f/2.8.

I have sigma 18-50 f/2.8 DC EX Macro - it is a bit softer at f/2.8 than canon L glass as well -as any other lens will be. at f/4 - it is very sharp though. also at f/2.8 as was mentioned, you have to be careful with focus - if you miss just a little, because of shallow DOF it will look not sharp.

For me not being a pro, I could not justify spending money that I don't have on canon L glass, so I went with both Sigmas as you can see in my signature. I love them and learn to work with their not so big limitations, and at the same time I have 18-50 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 for the cost of one cheapest L lens.

Some people have a luxury to not count money and forget that they are a minority

[Garbz]

Quote: Originally Posted by AlexColeman

I doubt it is very good, the money you save, is quality lost.

That sounds like generic Sigma hatred rather than an informed post. There's nothing at all bad about this lens. Quite on the contrary it is actually a rather nice performer: Sigma AF 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG macro (Canon) Lab Test Report / Review

Compare it to the Canon L series equivalent. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L - Test Report / Review Aside from the worse CA from the canon I don't think other than the construction there is any real quality difference that would be noticeable in normal photos.

[LiveWave]

You get what you pay for and while the Sigma is quite good, Canon's is slightly better as Garbz said, CA and construction. Up to you to determine whether the extra money is worth it or not. For pros, the ability to shoot with gear that has better construction gives them the peace of mind that it can be banged around a little and not have to worry. If you don't need that then perhaps saving some money and going with the sigma would be smart.

[javig999]

I relaize this is coming a bit late, but I just purchased one while on a trip (I damaged my Tamron 28-75 the first day on this trip and it was reduced to an ineffective 42-67mm) and really like the lens. It has faster AF than the Tamron which is nice (and its not even HSM), and this copy did not seem to suffer from any of the front or back focus issues that you tend to hear about. It is rather bulky though and can be obstrusive when carrying it around (for which this focal range is intended) in a crowded area, although the Canon is pretty much the same size. the lens feels solid in hand the zoom ring and focus ring are stiff.

As I am taking glorified snapshots, and not a pro, this lens does more than fine for me. I do not pixel peep, and search for CA, and softness in corners, etc, etc. It got me out of a jam, and I have no regrets thus far.

Also, having first hand experience that accidents do happen, and stuff can break, I think I will sticking to inexpensive, yet suitable (for me) 3rd party lenses for a bit!

Best of luck...