# Canon Lens



## bob.satan

Hi,

i am new to photography and pruchased a 1000D about five months ago and have been running around taking photos with the lens that came with the camera.

Knowing that you are better to spend your money on a good lens that is portable across hardware upgrades, i am now looking for a lens that is decent and slots between the 18-55 and the 75-300 that I have.

i have narrowed it down to three based on reviews online, but if there are people that have more knowledge or can advise, jump in and make a case for or against.

the three are

ef 24-105mm f/4
ef 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6
ef 24-70mm f/2.8

two are on the higher side of a purchase and the other the lower, but am I better spending now and using for a long time?


----------



## Haf

The two pro grade zooms you listed (24-105 and 24-70) are overkill for your camera. All three lenses have been designed to offer the best results on full frame cameras like the Canon 5d series or 1ds series in respect to focal length ranges. Unless you seriously need it, any lens that starts from 24mm doesn't make much sense on an APS-C camera since 24mm gives you the equivalent angle of view that a ~38mm lens offers on a full frame camera, so this means you will probably miss the wide angle section of your kit lens. 

Unless you are planning an upgrade to a full frame camera in the near future I would try to find some other lenses more suitable to the APS-C format.

Out of the 3 lenses I would rate the 24-105mm as the best in respect to image quality, sample variation and auto focusing action. The 24-70mm f/2.8, although a good performer in the optics department, is notorious for its sample variation (some copies are ok while some are duds) and unreliable focus on the wide angle end that spoils the image quality. It's highly recommended that you test this lens before buying it. Most of my friends that shoot with it lust for an updated version of this lens that would address the shortcomings mentioned above.

The 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 is really not worth talking about, it's just a consumer zoom meant to be used on full frame cameras, sooner or later (regardless of your camera) you will want/need a zoom that offers a constant aperture on the entire focal length range or a bunch of high quality primes.


----------



## robrobin

Sounds like some good advise from Haf above. If you're going to stick with a crop camera or are unsure there are a lot of EF-S lenses from Canon and similar from Tokina, Tamron and Sigma. One of the most versatile lenses I've used on a crop camera as a walk around lens was a Sigma 18-200mm. It was the image stabilized model. On a 1.6 cc the focal length is equal to 28-320mm on a full frame, a very versatile range. Along with it I used a couple of faster (2.0 and 1.4) primes and two macro's (100mm and 60mm efs). If you eventually move to full frame the 18-200 is very easy to sell as well as the 60mm efs if you're into macro work. 

I do have the 24-105L and the 24-70L. Love the 24-105 on my 5DMII, great walk around lens. The 24-70 2.8 is more of a brick and I don't use it as much.

It's a fun hobby. Enjoy.


----------



## DragonDan

I don't believe in 'overkill' as far as lenses go. When I had my XTi (400D?) a couple years ago, I purchased a 17-40mm f/4L for it. I still have that lens today, which spends almost all its time on my 40D.

You absolutely will be happy with the 24-105. Fantastic color reproduction and a constant f-stop across zoom ranges, which is a huge benefit in my eyes.
The f/2.8 would be more versatile in low light conditions, although you pay for that in increased cost and weight (half pound more and +$300 at B&H).

The downside (which is the curse of photography) is that if you pick up L glass, you will almost immediately recognize the deficiencies of your other lenses... It is a slippery slope, leading to thin wallets and hours poring over lens specs!


----------



## dhindo

get a 50mm f1.8..


----------



## sbkurtz

Pardon me if this is a highjack, but Im a bit in the same boat. I would like to stick my big toe in the world of macro photography, but being someone who doesnt like to spend a boatload of money, can any of you photo experts let me know what your general thoughts are on this 50mm f/1.8? The only 'downside' I see is that you have to get a bit closer than if it were 100m. Thanks for any input
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1278009597&sr=8-1


----------



## waruilewi

sbkurtz said:


> Pardon me if this is a highjack, but Im a bit in the same boat. I would like to stick my big toe in the world of macro photography, but being someone who doesnt like to spend a boatload of money, can any of you photo experts let me know what your general thoughts are on this 50mm f/1.8? The only 'downside' I see is that you have to get a bit closer than if it were 100m. Thanks for any input
> http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1278009597&sr=8-1


Maybe do the 50mm and pop a close-up filter, like a +2 or +4 and stop it down?... just a suggestion.


----------



## waruilewi

DragonDan said:


> I don't believe in 'overkill' as far as lenses go. When I had my XTi (400D?) a couple years ago, I purchased a 17-40mm f/4L for it. I still have that lens today, which spends almost all its time on my 40D.
> 
> You absolutely will be happy with the 24-105. Fantastic color reproduction and a constant f-stop across zoom ranges, which is a huge benefit in my eyes.
> The f/2.8 would be more versatile in low light conditions, although you pay for that in increased cost and weight (half pound more and +$300 at B&H).
> 
> The downside (which is the curse of photography) is that if you pick up L glass, you will almost immediately recognize the deficiencies of your other lenses... It is a slippery slope, leading to thin wallets and hours poring over lens specs!


+1. You can't overkill with good glass, let's be real. I'd rather do a 1000D and the ef 24-105mm f/4 or ef 24-70mm f/2.8 than a 7D with a schlocky kit lens any day.

BTW, I had the 24-70 2.8L and still got the 24-105 4L - the contrast and saturation is better with the 24-70 2.8L but the IS and portability with the 24-105 4L made that the keeper. And you can shoot the 24-105 4L wide open, unlike the 24-70 2.8L where you have to be more careful.


----------



## dhindo

I also have Canon 1000d/XS and use a 50mm f1.8 and 24-85mm USM...The "Nifty Fifty" will be the best $100 you will spend!:-!










Jun 9, 2010
1600×1027 pixels - 195KB
Filename: IMG_6903.JPG
Camera: Canon
Model: Canon EOS 1000D
ISO: 200
Exposure: 1/25 sec
Aperture: 5.6
Focal Length: 50mm
Flash Used: No


----------



## bob.satan

Thanks.

I am going to vietnam in a couple of weeks and wanted to use it then. i will have a look and play with the lens tomorrow, but am defintiely heading towards the 24-105 after what has been said.


----------



## DragonDan

You can always rent a couple of the contenders to give them some hands-on time. That is an inexpensive way of seeing if the lens works for your particular needs.

Have fun in Vietnam! I'll be there in January.


----------



## hil

I use a 1D2n and a 5DmkII, an EOS Elan 7e (film). I have the 20mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, the 85mm f1.8, the 100mm f2.8 macro, the 135mm f2, the 200mm f2.8, the 17-40mm f4, the 24-105mm f4, the 70-200mm f.4 S, the 70-300mm variable aperture, the 300mm f4 IS, and the 400mm f5.6. I've also got the 17mm and 24mm shifters that I use occasionally for a special idea, but they aren't generally in my bag. There might be one or two more EF lenses around that don't come to mind quickly.

I use the 24-105mm more often than any of the rest, and keep it mounted to my 5D if all I want is to grab a camera and go out without a photo idea in mind.

I've sold several other EF lenses over time for one reason or another but that 24-105 was with the %D when I bought it and it's usually got a solution for me in most any situation.

So yes, as a first good lens I'd go with the Canon 24-105mm. I think the word to describe it is "versatile".

edit: I'm very interested to see the performance of the new release 70-300mm. I'm thinking that it might replace three zooms with one, and maybe, if it's sharp, the 300mm f4 IS but it'd have to be an unusually sharp zoom to do even close to what the 300mm can do.


----------



## Tim Adams

I vote with the notion that you always should buy the fastest glass you can afford. I have the 24-70 f/2.8. Saying you have to be careful shooting wide open with it is ridiculous. I use it on all three of my bodies, 50D, 7D, and 1DmkIIs. It makes a great static lens for air shows and the Reno Air Races, and for walking around the pits at auto races. It also was fantastic on the full frame mkIIs when I went to Yosemite.

Tim Adams Photography


----------



## Canon Fodder

I'm another one who believes that "overkill" isn't something to consider. I used to shoot with a 70-200mm f/2.8L on a Digital Rebel. The camera's _long_ gone, but I still have that lens.

I also have the 24-70mm f/2.8L. In all honesty, if I didn't need the constant f/2.8 for shooting concerts, I'd sell it. It's a great lens, but my Sigma 17-70mm is a great lens (does the macro thing, too), and equals the Canon in image quality.

I've never shot with the 24-105mm, but I know people who have, and they love it.

I used to have the 28-135mm IS, and sometimes wish I still did. It was a great "walkaround" lens for me. I've heard that there are bad copies out there, though, where one side of the image is always every-so-slightly soft and out of focus. I didn't suffer that, but simply sold it to fund another purchase.

The bottom line is that all three would be a good choice. It all comes down to the money you want to spend. The 28-135mm is considerably less than the other two. Perhaps some more gear with the savings?


----------



## gnuyork

dhindo said:


> get a 50mm f1.8..


I agree. the 50 1.8 is cheap and sharp. I prefer primes to zooms any day, but I do have the 70-200IS that is a fantastic zoom. I've tried the 24-70 on two different occasions and couldn't seem to like it even though I really wanted to, since it would be a practical all around lens. Never tried the 24-105, but it's an f4 lens. Don;t know if that would be important to you or not, for me it would be an issue.


----------



## waruilewi

Canon Fodder said:


> I'm another one who believes that "overkill" isn't something to consider. I used to shoot with a 70-200mm f/2.8L on a Digital Rebel. The camera's _long_ gone, but I still have that lens.
> 
> I also have the 24-70mm f/2.8L. In all honesty, if I didn't need the constant f/2.8 for shooting concerts, I'd sell it. It's a great lens, but my Sigma 17-70mm is a great lens (does the macro thing, too), and equals the Canon in image quality.
> 
> I've never shot with the 24-105mm, but I know people who have, and they love it.
> 
> I used to have the 28-135mm IS, and sometimes wish I still did. It was a great "walkaround" lens for me. I've heard that there are bad copies out there, though, where one side of the image is always every-so-slightly soft and out of focus. I didn't suffer that, but simply sold it to fund another purchase.
> 
> The bottom line is that all three would be a good choice. It all comes down to the money you want to spend. The 28-135mm is considerably less than the other two. Perhaps some more gear with the savings?


With all due respect, the Sigmas do not come close to the IQ put out by the Canon L lenses, especially the contrast differences compared to what you get with the 24-70 2.8L. I just never liked how heavy the 24-70 2.8L was but the quality taken with it was superb. At one point I also had the Sigma 70-200 2.8 Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS and the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS concurrently and can say that the Sigma comes nowhere close to the Canons on optical performance or saturation or focusing speed or durability. Only thing I like about it better was that it was lighter and had a more elegant tripod ring. That said I now got the Canon 70-200 2.8L Series II and can say that it blows the doors off its older cousins by a country mile, so I guess it's all relative. Not to nit-pick, just that I tried the glass being discussed and found the Sigmas lacking, but this is just IMO.


----------



## Canon Fodder

waruilewi said:


> With all due respect, the Sigmas do not come close to the IQ put out by the Canon L lenses, especially the contrast differences compared to what you get with the 24-70 2.8L.


Well, with all due respect, they do.

I have both the Canon 24-70mm and the Sigma 17-70mm, and they're quite comparable in all respects. If you factor in price, it could easily be argued that the Sigma is the superior lens...


----------



## gnuyork

I have a sigma 20 1.8 that is sharper than any canon lens in that range, though I haven't tried any of the new lenses, in fact i don't keep up with what's new anymore. I'm fine with what i have. The canon stuff has not been used in more than a year anyway.


----------



## Dimer

A little less conversation a little more pictures 

I vote for the 24-105. I've had it on my 5D (great combo!) and now have it on my 7D. I still love it, although it suits a full frame camera more. The 24-105 is very versatile. The 24-70 is a very good lens and 2.8 can come in handy, but it is also a very heavy lens, that's why it is nicknamed "The Brick".

Here are some shots I've taken with my 24-105 (for some reason WUS resized my pics.. but more samples can be found on my flickr/dimervansanten)

with 7D:










With 5D:










With 5D:










With 7D:










With 7D:


----------



## gnuyork

Dimer said:


> A little less conversation a little more pictures


Sounds a little like an Elvis song...

Anyway here are some taken with my Canon 1D mkII and either the 50 1.8, 70-200 2.8 IS, or the Sigma 20 1.8 (I can't remember which is which)... Disclaimer - these have been processed in PS, so I did do some sharpening.


----------



## Tim Adams

Of course they are processed in PS. Every shot I take is ran through CS4. I only shoot RAW. Most every RAW file is very flat, and ALL need sharpening. I'm not interest in seeing unsharpened crap straight out of the camera. I always have to laugh when people post that this is straight of the camera no processing. Well guess what, if it's an unprocessed RAW file it's going to look like crap.

Tim Adams Photography


----------



## flak-spammer

Photos don't need post processing to be sharp or even to look good. Often times we do post processing because at the time we shot the picture things weren't exactly the way we wanted. That being said any of those lenses should be good, I have a 28-135 and the only annoying thing is that if you leave IS on while tripod mounted it can induce random shakes it's especially annoying if you plan on doing any night time shots lume, star trails, etc. However my suggestion is to try and get a lens with a lower f number unless you don't plan on using it in the dark. Lower f numbers correspond to larger aperture and means the lens will operate better in lower light conditions. That being said the 24-70 probably offers some of the best pictures, but it's got a lower focusing range. I myself prefer shooting with primes but often times it doesn't make any practical sense. So really it's up to what you want, image quality or flexibility.


----------



## Tim Adams

If you shoot RAW, your photos will need to be sharpened, all the time, period. This is to overcome the effect of the filter that covers the sensor. This is the same for all DSLR's no matter the brand. If you shoot jpeg that is a different story. You can adjust the sharpening that the camera applies to the photo. I shoot RAW because I want total control, and I want the 16bit high rez file, not a lowly 8bit jpeg. The same goes for making them look good, color, saturation, etc. jpegs can be made to look good straight out of the camera, if you shoot RAW, open the file in Adobe Camera RAW (ACR), select camera neutral, what you get is a very very flat, and dull looking file. Convert it to a 16bit TIFF, then make it look like you want in CS4 or CS5. I know next to nothing about watch photography, but I do know what I am talking about when it comes to processing RAW files and making them look right. When I went digital in 2004, I started out shooting RAW, and never even tried jpeg.


----------



## alllexandru

I would say to replace your kit 18-55 lens with EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM it is a terrific lens and hard to beat at 2.8.
You will always miss something with 24-70 or 24-105.


----------



## flak-spammer

Tim Adams said:


> If you shoot RAW, your photos will need to be sharpened, all the time, period. This is to overcome the effect of the filter that covers the sensor.


 I disagree. In fact it totally depends on what you are shooting, but in the past I've found that quite often when shooting macro and supermacro sharpening makes all the images look unnatural. It's primarily to do with the contrast on edges. A RAW image shouldn't have to be sharpened, just re-size the image to 75% or even 50%. Sharpening also brings any noise out in the photograph so if you are shooting at a high ISO sometimes its impractical to even try and sharpen. I would agree that it's nice to have a nice sharp raw image at 100% image size, but the truth is you don't get that with much at all.



> I would say to replace your kit 18-55 lens with EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM it is a terrific lens and hard to beat at 2.8.
> You will always miss something with 24-70 or 24-105.


 This is really dependent on what is wanted, for instance EF-S lenses don't work on all bodies so if you want a lens that will work on anything it's not such a hot idea. For a general purpose lens I would agree that having the wider angle is very handy, but that lens is pretty much strictly wide angle and will be mostly useless for any macro use.


----------



## gnuyork

Tim Adams said:


> If you shoot RAW, your photos will need to be sharpened, all the time, period.


+1 - and also if you scan film - sharpening needs to happen.


----------



## gnuyork

flak-spammer said:


> A RAW image shouldn't have to be sharpened, just re-size the image to 75% or even 50%.


Huh?? - I disagree with that. If you do not sharpen your raw file, you are not getting what the camera and lens intended. I think it's easy to over do it, especially beginners that really crank on the sharpening to see the results, but you have to be subtle.

I use a plug-in called PhotoKit Sharpener that walks you through three different stages of sharpening. Capture Sharpening, which makes up for the blurring filter on your camera's sensor - Creative sharpening (use to taste if at all, I generally don;t bother with this step) then Output sharpening, depending on what your final output will be - inkjet, prepress, web etc..

Have a look at the photos I posted earlier in this thread. All shot RAW, processed in ACR and sharpened with PhotoKit.


----------



## 124Spider

alllexandru said:


> I would say to replace your kit 18-55 lens with EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM it is a terrific lens and hard to beat at 2.8.
> You will always miss something with 24-70 or 24-105.


I suspect that OP has made his decision.

But.... I believe that EF-S lenses won't work with a full frame camera, if OP ever wants to go that way. I would (and did, when I had a crop body) avoid getting lenses that won't upgrade well.

With my crop body, my 17-40 f/4L lived on the camera. I now have a full frame, and the 24-105 f/4L lives on the body. I have a wonderful 28-70 f/2.8L, but it saw very little time with the 10D, and it sees very little time with the 5D2. With OP's watch collection, I suspect he can afford L glass.


----------



## Canon Fodder

124Spider said:


> With OP's watch collection, I suspect he can afford L glass.


Or, maybe because of it, he can't...

:-d


----------



## wielingab

Before reading al the replies to this post, I have the 50D and just bought a 17-85mm. Luckily I have an good example.

I have the same 1.6x maginification as the 1000D. Of course the 50D is a better camera, but have to get the 1.6x also.

Another one is the 15-85mm, which is I think the best option, still wide angle and enough zoom to capture most of the foto's..

Bart


----------



## waruilewi

Dimer said:


> A little less conversation a little more pictures
> 
> I vote for the 24-105. I've had it on my 5D (great combo!) and now have it on my 7D. I still love it, although it suits a full frame camera more. The 24-105 is very versatile. The 24-70 is a very good lens and 2.8 can come in handy, but it is also a very heavy lens, that's why it is nicknamed "The Brick".
> 
> Here are some shots I've taken with my 24-105 (for some reason WUS resized my pics.. but more samples can be found on my flickr/dimervansanten)


I have a co-worker who kinda looks just like your kid, plus 30+ years tacked on - have to find that shot to share...

Agreed with the opinion on the 24-105. Even though I use it on the crop-sensor 50d, the lens is a frequent contributor to my normal snaps of life going by. Like this one last weekend, when I couldn't catch anything all day with the reel, but did catch a nice sunset courtesy of the lens.


----------



## waruilewi

Canon Fodder said:


> Well, with all due respect, they do.
> 
> I have both the Canon 24-70mm and the Sigma 17-70mm, and they're quite comparable in all respects. If you factor in price, it could easily be argued that the Sigma is the superior lens...


Which 17-70mm do you have? Didn't Sigma revamp that lens recently with a version having IS? I'm guessing maybe this one, found a review on line:

Sigma Lens: Zooms - Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

Looking to learn the reasoning here, because I see a spectral difference shooting Canon vs. Sigma that is clearly evident - the color reproduction is a noticeable tell. And they use different glass, different lens coatings, different production processes, and different AF systems (micromotor USM vs ring USM, where full-time manual focusing remains possible in one-shot AF mode). One is a fixed aperture design (hence the additional bulk and weight) while the other is created to utilize a variable max aperture related to its focal length to gain portability. One can be used FF while one is shackled to be used on APS-C bodies only.

I can see how the Sigma could compare very well against the Canon kit lenses but to put them against the L lenses like the 24-70 is a stretch. The Canon 24-70mm goes for ~$1300 and the Sigma 17-70 runs ~$450, for the newer IS version. The Canon is designed to handle more rugged shooting environments with weather sealing to inhibit dust and moisture from damaging the internals. The 17-70 is not even part of the designated EX line Sigma uses as designation for their pro grade lineup. Is the Canon 3x better if price were to be used as a determinant of build and IQ? No. So your point is valid - the Sigma for the price may be a better value in relation to price. But are the build quality and image quality comparable between the two factoring in sample variation? No.


----------



## booker2020

If you plan to stick with the 1.6x crop body, an EF-S 17-55 2.8 may be a good choice for the lower end of focal lenth. It gives you the wide angle, some workable range, a fixed 2.8, 4-stop IS, modern coated glass, it's practically an L-lens without the sealing and metal body. The biggest downside to the lens is a very poor magnification factor.

Otherwise, if you want a middle-range zoom, and might go full-frame in the future, I suggest the 24-70 2.8.

And you might as well get a 50 1.8 anyway, they are dirt cheap and worth having when you need the larger aperture. That is, until you decide you want the 35 1.4!

But if you're really into product shots, macro, and the like, the 60 2.8 might be a better place to put your money. It's also a great portrait lens. The 100 2.8 is even better but more expensive.


----------



## Steadyhands

Another vote for the 24-105, it lives on my camera all the time and then gets swapped out for special purpose lenses ie primes.

Although I'm just starting shooting watches I find I reach for a shorter focal length macro lens. For me this is the 50mm compact macro along with the life size converter that gets this lens to 1:1 mag. For my regular macro shooting I prefer longer macro lenses ie my 180L.


----------



## waruilewi

Steadyhands said:


> Another vote for the 24-105, it lives on my camera all the time and then gets swapped out for special purpose lenses ie primes.
> 
> Although I'm just starting shooting watches I find I reach for a shorter focal length macro lens. For me this is the 50mm compact macro along with the life size converter that gets this lens to 1:1 mag. For my regular macro shooting I prefer longer macro lenses ie my 180L.


^ Yep, another fan of the 24-105 here, great all-arounder IMO.

Here's a watch shot I took using the 70-200 2.8 IS II on a crop sensor 50D - to add that touch of compression I was looking for.


----------



## tomee

i had a 24-105 as my walk around lens before i made the switch to Nikon
couldnt fault the lens.

this was taken with the 24-105


----------



## Canon Fodder

waruilewi said:


> Which 17-70mm do you have? Didn't Sigma revamp that lens recently with a version having IS?


I don't have the optical stabilization. I've had mine for three years or so...



> Looking to learn the reasoning here, because I see a spectral difference shooting Canon vs. Sigma that is clearly evident - the color reproduction is a noticeable tell. And they use different glass, different lens coatings, different production processes, and different AF systems (micromotor USM vs ring USM, where full-time manual focusing remains possible in one-shot AF mode). One is a fixed aperture design (hence the additional bulk and weight) while the other is created to utilize a variable max aperture related to its focal length to gain portability. One can be used FF while one is shackled to be used on APS-C bodies only.
> 
> I can see how the Sigma could compare very well against the Canon kit lenses but to put them against the L lenses like the 24-70 is a stretch. The Canon 24-70mm goes for ~$1300 and the Sigma 17-70 runs ~$450, for the newer IS version. The Canon is designed to handle more rugged shooting environments with weather sealing to inhibit dust and moisture from damaging the internals. The 17-70 is not even part of the designated EX line Sigma uses as designation for their pro grade lineup. Is the Canon 3x better if price were to be used as a determinant of build and IQ? No. So your point is valid - the Sigma for the price may be a better value in relation to price. But are the build quality and image quality comparable between the two factoring in sample variation? No.


Yes, they're certainly built differently. One is a "pro quality" while the other isn't. One is designed for more rugged environments, and the other isn't. One has weather sealing, and the other doesn't. Yes, one can be used on full-frame while the other can't (as I'm not looking to change bodies anytime soon, that's not a concern for me).

But, when it comes to image quality, I could post photos here all day and would be surprised if anyone could pick out which ones were taken with the Canon and which ones were taken with the Sigma.

And, unless someone's able to do just that, I'll stand by my statement that the Sigma rivals the Canon in image quality...


----------



## Tim Adams

Sigma makes a very, very good macro lens. When you get into shooting the stuff I do however, there is a difference in image quality. If there was not, don't you think you would see less white lenses at sporting events. If they were just as good, then pros would be using more Sigma's. They are not as good, hence the reason you see all those white lenses at sporting events. This goes for Nikon also. I have not run into many Nikon pros who are shooting with Sigma long glass.


----------



## Canon Fodder

Tim Adams said:


> Sigma makes a very, very good macro lens. When you get into shooting the stuff I do however, there is a difference in image quality. If there was not, don't you think you would see less white lenses at sporting events. If they were just as good, then pros would be using more Sigma's. They are not as good, hence the reason you see all those white lenses at sporting events. This goes for Nikon also. I have not run into many Nikon pros who are shooting with Sigma long glass.


Me neither.

But, as has been mentioned, the build quality of Canon "L" lenses is far beyond what Sigma makes (and beyond what others make, as well). You're right; If I was on the sideline at The Superdome, I wouldn't want to shoot with a Sigma lens. Then again, if you were shooting macro, you wouldn't want to use a Canon 24-70mmf/2.8L, either.

My position is that, when it comes to image quality, the Sigma rivals the Canon. The results I've seen are all the proof I need...


----------



## cherylfoster

Both pro-grade zooms you entered (24-105 and 24-70) is excessive for your camera. The three lenses are designed to work best on full frame cameras like the Canon 5D or 1Ds series in relation to ranges of focal length. Unless you seriously need all the objectives that start at 24mm is not very significant at the APS-C camera, and then gives you 24mm equivalent angle of view than a 38mm lens ~ offers a full-frame camera, it means you will probably miss the part of the wide angle lens in your kit.


----------



## waruilewi

Canon Fodder said:


> But, when it comes to image quality, I could post photos here all day and would be surprised if anyone could pick out which ones were taken with the Canon and which ones were taken with the Sigma.


Thanks for the insight. Most importantly, all is well when we're pleased with the end result since the proof is in the pudding.

I'm interested in educating myself here and seeing if the differences can be discernible. Perceptions are as varied as our opinions so I wouldn't mind a bit of pixel peeping. Given a free moment, if you can grab screenshots of a RAW file from each lens shot in manual exposure and to a specific K temp of the same scene - say of a Munsell color chart or some Pantone swatches in a shaded outdoor environment that would be helpful to reinforce the thinking. I'm sorry I sold off my older Sigma and Canon glass of the same focal lengths that I can't reciprocate.


----------



## waruilewi

tomee said:


> i had a 24-105 as my walk around lens before i made the switch to Nikon
> couldnt fault the lens.
> 
> this was taken with the 24-105


^ Simply scrumptious...


----------



## matinfisher

It seems less tough mentally to take pictures with a fixed lens. I did not spend time choosing a focal length before each photo.


----------



## 124Spider

matinfisher said:


> It seems less tough mentally to take pictures with a fixed lens. I did not spend time choosing a focal length before each photo.


Wow....

If your definition of "less tough" is "no options," I would agree. A zoom lens gives you the option to frame your image as you see fit; a high quality prime is likely to have better optics at any particular focal length, but you have to change lenses to change focal length.

Every lens is a compromise. Pick your compromise. But "less tough mentally?" :roll:


----------



## Jerzee201

Prime shooter here.

Shot with a Sigma 50mm Macro

The Grail [Part 2] by MJav, on Flickr


----------



## rogerjackkson

It makes a great target static air show and Reno Air Races and walk around the pits at racing. It was also great on MKII full frame when I went to Yosemite.


----------



## dewaltwest

If you are looking at macro the 100/2.8 is great with extension tubes you can really do a lot of intricate work


----------



## dewaltwest

Canon 100/2.8 macro not the new MKII Version


----------

