Very intriguing review: Canon vs Sigma: 24-70mm

You get what you pay for. The sigma is fine, especially if you are on a budget.

I own the Canon version, and I can say that it is absolutely top notch in every regard.

That being said.... You are better off learning to focus on good light rather than good sharpness. In the end, the former trumps the latter every time.

Try (link) for a review of Sigma and http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens- Review.aspx for Canon. (You can also compare these two on the same site.)

There is this Drug store around my neighborhood(dont want to name any names) that not only sells generic drugs, it sells copies of hair spray, shampoo, batteries, toothpaste, paper towels, deodarant, razor blades you name it . Then places the item with the its store brand right next to the original, usually at a bargain price. When you compare the generic item and the original the ingredients are virtually the same. As outrageous as this sounds, it's all legal or they wouldn't be doing it.

A couple of weeks ago I purchased a pack of Generic razor blades. They looked exacltly like the Gillete brand I usually buy, but were much cheaper. At first I was getting a nice clean shave, but after about a week I started getting razor bumps all over my face.

The same thing happened with some Aspirin. I bought the generic brand Aspirin thinking I could save some money, and althought the ingredients were exactly the same, the generic brand was less potent than the original. What does this have to do with photography ?

Third party brands might work for some people. In the short run they are great ,especially because you are saving some money, but in the long run problems start creeping that you did not anticipate. Of course if you never had the original to make a comparison, you probably will never know the difference.

Surprising as it may be, though, sometimes the non-Canon items ARE just as good or better. The major third-party lens makers like Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina have been around a long time, and have produced some outstanding lenses in their own right.

Gawrsh, even Nikon (the N-word?), Pentax, Olympus, and the like have been known to make a lens or two that might be better than some Canon lenses. Aside from the question of modern lens coatings, the Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f/2, produced in the devastation and ruins of Dresden after WWII, was probably as good as any f/2 normal lens made today (one of Burt Keppler's last columns was a comparison of this one with some newer lenses). That lens probably sold a lot of Exaktas and Contax S cameras.

I used to work at one of those Drug stores. I was sick once and I bought their generic cough medicine. It actually worked, I got better, but man its taste was really bad. I remember my store manager once even told his employees to not buying the generic diapers for their kids.

Allright, i get it, but i'm not a medicineman :) ! And let's face it, looking at the review i mentioned the cheaper drug seem to work better than the more expensive one.

Michael, thanks for the link, this is a very nice comparison and here clearly the Canon beats the Sigma. But that makes me wonder about the other review i mentioned... Now i'm really confused :). Can somebody explain how it comes that 2 different reviews, that i expect to be neutral and objective, result in 2 very different results ?

eh, reviews can be pretty opinionated depending on a lot of different factors... one being individual tolerances. One thing to remember is that different copies of different lenses can be VERY different.... I find my Canon 24-70L to be FAR better than the one in the review at Pbase... little if any chromatic abberation at 24mm or 70... extremely sharp across the board.

However, the one I have currently replaced the first one I bought, which was complete crap. The 'soft copy' theory is about 95% nonsense. However, there is such a thing as getting a poor copy, maybe that's the case with the Pbase review.

As David points out there is such a thing as "copy variation". Having said that, I bought the Sigma 24-70 and would characterize it this way: A good... but not great... lens. In my case, I don't typically have the need for it much, so it usually sits around with little use. (I got it to shoot a wedding of an old friend and needed something fast for indoor shots)

*IF* the Canon lens was around the same price, it'd be a no-brainer. But it's not; it's a LOT more expensive. If you plan on using this lens quite a bit, I personally think it's worth it to go for the Canon. If, on the other hand, it's not one you exactly reach for first-thing, the Sigma is a very good deal. I don't like the large filters the Sigma requires and I'm not a fan of their push-pull clutch mechanism, but the glass is pretty good. I have no complaints.

I have those two and the Tamron 28-75 IF, the the Tamron I find better then the Sigma, but if I am getting paid the Canon is the one I take.

I like the canon 24 70 but my other 1/2 finds it tooo big and heavy so uses the sigma 24 70, for standard size printing you don`t see any different, the sigma slightly softer wide open, and the colour and contrast matched in PS. I know which one will last longest in time. Actually don`t mind the sigma`s MF ring but you can`t correct focus in AF :)

Better canon 24-70 L in large format print, sigma soft 24 & 70 mm f2.8 begin f 3.2 - up - very sharp in all range, sigma filter 82 mm higher cost for filter, sigma 24-70 very good lens, higly recomemded photozone.de reviews with 1/3 canon price.

The picture comparison shows the Sigma lens to be better to me?

And generic aspirin is the same 'Brand' Aspirin and equally potent because aspirin is aspirin is aspirin is aspirin? I maybe an amateur photographer but I am a professional aspirinologist so unfortunately you are talking utter nonsense. I can assure you generic drug equivalents are exactly the same the more expensive 'branded' drugs. You are paying for a fancy box and marketing.