Dria Loc: Ohio

We "talked" about the Canon 24-70mm f 2.8L... I see there is a "Sigma" lens that has these parameters without the "L" of course (that stands L=luxury edition)
Anyone using the Sigma one-- they have it for Canon AND Nikon--
it is about $450.00 less expensive than the Canon.

flyingcrown1 Loc: Moravian Falls

I've owned one for about a year and love it!

Dria Loc: Ohio

The Sigma or the canon?
I know the Canon is great.

pigpen

I know this will upset people, but here it goes. I will never buy anything other than a Canon again. I've had terrible luck with third party lenses, especially Sigma. The one exception, I have a 9 year old Tamron 17-34 2.8/4, they don't even make it anymore. This lens is on my camera 80% of the time. I would roll the dice with another Tamron before I will even look at a Sigma again. I have found that I don't "save" money because I end up selling the lens for half of what I paid for it, then buy the more exspensive lens anyway. This has just been my experience, so don't send me any hate mail.

Dria Loc: Ohio

Pigpen--no hate mail from me!
I have been looking at the reviews for the Sigma f2.8 and they aren't very good-- and since I want a really GOOD lens I will save my $$s for that Canon "L"

pigpen

Dria

That Canon lens is deffinately on my list to get!

bcphotos

I really don't know what the L actually stands for but any Canon L is tremendously sharper than any other lens in that focal length than ANY other lens of same focal length made by anybody for a Canon. My 70-200 L which is over 10 years old will make the smallest decals on a raacecar traveling well over 100 mph as crisp as though the car was stansing still. If you look along the sidelines of any major sporting event you will see an army of white lenses. Canon L series lenses are the only ones wich are white.

bcphotos

I forgot to mention I had a Sigma f 2.8 of about the same focal length you mentioned about 5 years aago & sold it on e-bay because I found that I never used it. It did seem to give good images but again NOTHING for Canon made by anybody including Canon can comapre to L lenses. After using Canon since going digital in 2004 I have had a number of lenses. The only lens I now have other than Canon is a Tamron 28-200 that I keep on an old body for use if I am going to be shooting in very bad weather or in places where extreme detail is not critical.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

I had this Sigma lens (for Canon), and it was just okay. I wasn't over the top excited about it, nor was I overly disappointed with it. It was just another lens to me---kind of like the one kit lens I have.

Anyway, I sold it on Craigslist and turned around and bought the Canon 17-40mm f/4L lens. It certainly didn't have the reach of 70mm and the speed of f/2.8, but it made up for it in the quality of my pics. This lens is now on my camera most of the time. The chromatic aberrations on the Canon L lens was noticeably lower than on the Sigma. I think cost-wise both lenses are about the same---can't remember.

I don't have anything against Sigma. I base most of my lens purchase decisions on quality and performance. I skimp on a lot of things, but when it comes to glass, I usually opt to pay the premium. Having said this, just because it cost more doesn't mean it's better. Read the reviews and ask around. I have even rented a lens before purchasing. Good luck.

alann Loc: Virginia

+1 from me!