Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 31, 2004, 11:46 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

Can anyone who owns or has used this lens give me an idea of what to expect in regard to autofocus speed?

I have a Canon 28-70L, Canon 18-55 Kit, Sigma 400 5.6 APO and am curios how the autofocus speed is compared to any of these lenses. Also round about image quality ? The $$ difference between the Sigma 24-70 2.8 and the Canon 24-70L is hard to resist... my only real concern is focus speed and barrel distortion.
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 3, 2004, 9:35 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 294
Default

The EX lenses I have used from Sigma seem to be VERY quick... Sometimes I even think it is more quiet then Canon can do sometimes. Sigma and Canon in my book both produce fantastic lenses, and actually would have more Sigma products if they would put that OS feature in more of their lenses (not just one).
UniSonBBS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2004, 11:04 PM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,541
Default

This Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX is an older lens with no HSM, ie it's not ultrasonic hence not that fast or quiet as other EX's! :evil:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/pages/zoom_introb.htm
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2004, 11:53 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 239
Default

I got my hands on the Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 EX DF at a Wolf Camera superstore over in Birmingham, AL about 2 months ago - mainly to prove a salesman wrong - he had told me previously back in November that NO Sigma EX lenses would work on the 300D. I had carried in my EOS-3 & tried it in the store, then he took his 300D out of the case & put the lens on, put it in automatic & said "See it won't focus". He lied. This time I took MY 300D in - left them my 20-35 Canon & case, & took the Sigma 24-70 outside, with my camera set in the TV mode (which is howI shoot it)& snapped 2 images. Not a really good way to test a lens - shooting a building across the road at 70mm & then the Wolf sign at 24mm! My main problem was it made a rather noisy grinding sound, which I find annoying. The 82mm filters are very expensive. Now I see that Sigma is going to make a 24-60mm 2.8 lens with a 77 mm filter size, but it still won't be a HSM lens. Go figure.

The images did look very good, but I would really like to "Road Test" one of them for about 3 days just to see how well they can do!
Railfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2004, 4:31 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 610
Default

UniSonBBS wrote:
Quote:
The EX lenses I have used from Sigma seem to be VERY quick... Sometimes I even think it is more quiet then Canon can do sometimes. Sigma and Canon in my book both produce fantastic lenses, and actually would have more Sigma products if they would put that OS feature in more of their lenses (not just one).

Sorry, I have to jump in here. If you're using Canon D-SLR or film -SLR, and if your budget for lenses is not a problem at all, then you may want to consider buying Canon USM lenses, nothing works better and faster on Canon camera than Canon USM lenses, especially those high speed L lenses. Sigma EX series lenses are great, but in no circumstances will compete one on one with Canon USM lenses... and how much is the different between non USM or HSM to USM? big different... folks or I can say: HUGE. The Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 is a very good lens in term of optical quality, but the optical quality on the Canon L lenses are slightly have the advatange, and the Sigma lens is a non HSM, so on AF, there is no comparision, period. Tamron, Vivitar, Sigma brands are sometimes slower than earth on Canon cameras compare to Canon USM lenses in AF . Put on the Canon EF 24-70mm F/2.8 USM, then the Sigma 24-70mm F/2.8 and compare for yourself, and you will find down exactly why it worths every extra pennies you're paying for the Canon L lens.

There is no free lunch, you're paing for what you get





Cheers


tuanokc@hotmail.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2004, 1:04 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 239
Default

On the salary I make, I cannot justify buying the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L lens. I do own 4 Canon lenses & 3 of them are USM. They DO focus fast, but in certain applications where I may be shooting a still or non-moving object here is NO need for a lens to focus fast. Now if I am trackside shooting a fast movingTrain, then that would make a difference.

Used to be back in the FD days, one could buy Canon's good glass without having to buy an 'L' lens - i.e. the 200mm 4.0, the 200mm 2.8, the 300mm 4.0 & the 400mm 4.5. I know, as I used to own the 200mm 4.0 & the 300mm 4.0 & they were tack sharp.

My question is why does Canon always have to make their fast lenses available only in the 'L' series & you pay a chunk. Only 2 'L' lenses are out there that I can afford & they are the 17-40 & the 70-200mm 4.0.
Railfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2004, 9:51 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default

I think the answer lies in the fact that Canon and its distributors and retailers cannot really afford to maintain multiple lines with similar characteristics, and identifies the "good & fast" category essentially with the "L" category as a simplification. That said, there certainly are currently-available fast prime lenses that will give some of the L zooms a run for the money. Check the lineup & MTF's, etc. on Canon's web site. The more affordable L zooms are also notably F/4, a stop slower than the next ones, which are about double the price.

Another answer is that consumers, as such, have moved away from prime lenses in a big way, and the manufacturers and retailers have followed. This is no more than simple perceived economics. People aren't as comfortable with shooting a very limited specific range of focal lengths, and the quality of the zooms has been improving to the point of rendering some of those prime lenses superflous for stancard use. Moreover, there's a bigger push towards smaller and more portable lenses as opposed to big and fast ones.

Moreover, with the onset of DSLR's, "film" speed has been improving dramatically -- shooting colour at high ISO is much more commonplace with digital than film, so arguably there is further grounds for going the smaller & slower route.

That said, there is some competition from others in this space to give Canon a second thought. E.g. here is a brief discussion of the Tamron 28-75.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=008T9j
Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2004, 8:19 AM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,541
Default

Amen!

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Zstf
... I bet some "L" diehard will come back and say something regarding USM (at a much higher cost and size/weight)! :-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:32 AM.