Canon 24-105L or Sigma 24-70?

[triptych]

Hi,

Im looking at purchasing a new lens, Im looking at either the Canon 24-105 F4L or Sigma 24-70 F2.8 EX DG

Ideally I would LOVE the Canon 24-70mm but thats out of my budget, so Im looking at these 2.

Opinions/thoughts?

Cheers
Emma

[Rats01]

Hi Emma,
Deliberated over the same question myself for several weeks and ended up buying the 24-105L. Only had it a week and I think it it is now glued to my 7D forever. I will have to prize my 450D back off my daughter to be able to use my other lenses.

[triptych]

Hi Emma,
Deliberated over the same question myself for several weeks and ended up buying the 24-105L. Only had it a week and I think it it is now glued to my 7D forever. I will have to prize my 450D back off my daughter to be able to use my other lenses.

Do you miss the extra stop the Sigma would give you? Im assuming it would be better in low light situations.

What won you over to the 24-105 in the end?

[twister]

If you need f2.8, go for the 24-70L...if you need IS, get the 24-105.

If you shoot low light, with moving subjects, f2.8 is better, because the IS can only help with camera shake, not with subject movement...

If you're using a crop camera consider the 17-55/2.8 IS also...

[Analog6]

The 24-105L is a SUPERB lens. It was my walk around lens when I had Canon bodies. I have used it on 20D, 30D, 1DMkIIN & 1DsMkII and would wholeheartedly recommend it. If you know you are going to be shooting things a bit low light take a tripod or other support.

[PH005]

I have the Sigma and am very happy with it. The only little drawback I would say is the very large front element. 82mm filter size. Expensive filters. Canon has done the right thing in making a lot of the L series 77mm so that you can interchange filters. The 2.8 is very handy for indoors. Whichever you choose will be a great asset.

[triptych]

If you need f2.8, go for the 24-70L...if you need IS, get the 24-105.

If you shoot low light, with moving subjects, f2.8 is better, because the IS can only help with camera shake, not with subject movement...

If you're using a crop camera consider the 17-55/2.8 IS also...

Unfortunately the Canon 24-70mm is out of my price range, thats why I was looking at the Sigma. Maybe I'll win lotto haha

[triptych]

I have the Sigma and am very happy with it. The only little drawback I would say is the very large front element. 82mm filter size. Expensive filters. Canon has done the right thing in making a lot of the L series 77mm so that you can interchange filters. The 2.8 is very handy for indoors. Whichever you choose will be a great asset.

Thanks Paul, im leaning towards the Sigma I think.

[Bennymiata]

I have both of these lenses.
The Sigma 24-70 is used on my Pentax and the 24-105 on my Canon 60D.

The 24-105 wins out every time and is my default lens. The lens that does almost everything well.
The IS in the 24-105 is worth around 2-3 stops, so being F4 instead of the Sigma's F2.8, in low light, you won't miss the extra stop, but you'll love the extra reach and image quality of the 24-105.

If you check the comparisons, the 24-105 is just as good as far as IQ goes as the Canon 24-70, it's just that you get extra reach and the very handy IS.

I'm not saying the Sigma 24-70 is a poor lens, far from it in fact, but I do have a few quibbles with it like it being so big that it blocks the built-in flash and the filters cost an arm and a leg.
At least with the Canon 24-105, it uses the same size filters as a lot of other Canon lenses and works so well with the camera.

[triptych]

Thanks Bennymiata,

I was just about convinced to go with the Sigma, now im considering the Canon again.

I want it for portraits, I mainly use my 50mm 1.4 for them, but sometimes I feel like I need it a bit wider for some things.

Im not worried about it blocking the flash as I never use the onboard one anyway.

[PH005]

In the end it was only the $$$s that swayed me. I read all the reviews I could find and the Quality of either is not a question. Take your time triptych.

[Scotty72]

I don't get why the 24-70L is out of your range, it is less than $50 more (not much when you're spending $1700).

For me, my 24-105L is my most used, default lens...

Don't be fooled by the extra stop of apperture in the 24-70. It lacks IS which kinda levels it back with the 24-105 (in a way). Yes, I know IS is not helpful for fast movement in low light but, neither is really that sort of lens anyway. Typically, these lenses may be for portrait, landscape or general work where stops of light aren't the biggest issue.

The IS is very helpful for hand held

Happy choosing

Scotty

[triptych]

I don't get why the 24-70L is out of your range, it is less than $50 more (not much when you're spending $1700).

Umm the 24-70L is $1600
The 24-105L is $1120
and the Sigma $849

Thats quite a difference in price.

[dulvariprestige]

I had a 24-105 for a little while, then I sold it and bought a 17-55, and while I thinks the 17-55 is a better lens, I do miss the extra reach, so I'm thinking of going the 24-70 also, and like you, I can't afford the canon, and for half the price, I think the sigma will be fine.

I should mention that I hired a canon 24-70 about a month ago, it probably needs servicing, or maybe it just wasn't a so called "good copy", but @ 24mm 2.8 this lens sucked big time, very soft.

If it's mainly for portraits, and you're using off camera flash, IS isn't really necessary

[Captured frame]

I did own both of these lenses,have now sold the Sigma - was mainly used as my general walk around lens , but since I purchased the 24-105L it was never used . I found that the quality of the shots taken with the 24-105L continually out performed the Sigma - not Knocking the Sigma because at its price I think it is quite a good lens - a downside is the price of filters to fit it. For a general purpose lens and a a good travel lens I would highly recomend the Canon.

[davearnold]

I would also reconmend the 24-105, a brilliant lens, had no problem indoors with stationarly subjects, I actaully find my 17-55 2.8 hunts more then this lens for focus in the same light.

I am missing it at the moment, as IS has died and getting the "error1" message, apparently a common problem with older versions.

[andylo]

If you already have a 50mm 1.4, I don't really see the point of Sigma 24-70.

The Canon 24-105L IS has better reach plus IS. It's a versatile lens even on a crop body.

By the way, a second hand Canon 24-70L is around $1200.

I had/am having both the 24-70L, Sigma 24-70, Sigma 24-70 with IF (internal focus) and 24-105L, and my many concern of a lens is always about difference in color,sharpness and contrast. (weight or speed of AF or noisy AF etc never worries me)

The old Sigma 24-70 is sxxx house....
The new Sigma 24-70 EX is much better lens
but the 24-105L is just slightly better with everything! Color rendering and contrast etc..... and I love the IS as a walk around.



(p.s. now if you care to read further...
BUT I do have a walk around camera Sony NEX5) so walk around is not my concern when my Canon is with me.

THE 24-70L has defeated all of above and stayed in my bag for good. I even rid of the second hand one I got, and buy a brand new one with Mac extended warranty. When the 24-70 is attached, it only do 1 thing and 1 thing only - close range portrait)

[Rats01]

I think the IS won me in the end as I'm not as steady now as I used to be and really preferred the extra range. A large percentage or my handheld shots I take are with my Canon 10-22. Above these any walk-around shots I normally use a monopod for stability.

[Scotty72]

Umm the 24-70L is $1600
The 24-105L is $1120
and the Sigma $849

Thats quite a difference in price.

You said the canon 24-70 L was out of your price range, but you were considering the canon 24-105 L.

These two are about the same price, so that is what did not make sense.

Perhaps you are talking of the grey market. Good luck with that Heard too many horror stories there... Remember, there are often good and bad copies of lenses, I'll let you guess where the bad ones are more likely to go... also, you can more easily return your bad copy to a real shop.

Even so, the grey market for both canons bring them both down to about $1100-1200.

Buying from legit stores or grey market: If you can afford the Canon 24-105L then, you can afford the Canon 24-70L

Anyway...

From my experience, the sigmas are good at mid range appertures... where they fall over is wide open. Therefore, I think that getting a Sigma where you are intending to use it at f:2.8 is sort of defeating the purpose. If you intend to use it for tripod work, f:8 shooting landscapes - it will likely be great but, it is a bit silly to spend all the extra $$$ to get a lens that can do 2.8. If you are wanting to use the siggy for indoor, low light where you may need f:2.8 - you WILL be disapointed and would therefore get either of the Canons.

[JM Tran]

Perhaps you are talking of the grey market. Good luck with that Heard too many horror stories there... Remember, there are often good and bad copies of lenses, I'll let you guess where the bad ones are more likely to go... also, you can more easily return your bad copy to a real shop.

is it just me or u seem to make assumptions or opinions and pass it off as fact???

so bad or defect lenses go straight to grey importers and the good ones go to local retailers in AUS or US and around the world? Last time I checked, they all came from the same factories and from the same batches and date coded. You dont think lenses from a store in Aus can and sometimes is tainted by some defect too? Pleaseeeeeeeeee

Also, the 24-105 is $1117 from D-D-Photographics, can pick up in stores in Melb, Syd and Brissy. The 24-70 L there is $1595, bit of a price difference. The cool thing about it, you can walk in to exchange it if its a defected lens, YAY! Grey imports have never brought the 24-70 L below $1500 new, ever.