[monkeyleader]

So I just can't justify it at the moment (24-70) but realise I need a faster lens as I'm taking quite a lot of indoor / low light stuff at the moment. Are there suitable alternatives that people have experience / views on. I'm still trying to decide zoom / prime but just looking for alterantive ideas. I looked at the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 over here in Houston (around £200) Budge wise - well Im trying to keep it at low as possible - around £400 I guess.

Any thoughts ?

Nige

[Peakoverload]

Well I own the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX and think that it is a very very good lens. Optical quality is easily as good as the Canon L, where the Sigma isn't quite as good is:

Build quality - The Sigma IS built well but the Canon is just built better. If you don't compare it against the Canon then you would never think the Sigma was badly built.

Auto Focus - The Sigma IS very fast at focusing and accurate but the Canon does have the slight edge but in my opinion it is very slight, like a few hundreths of a second faster.

Manual focusing - The Canon is a joy to use manually as the focusing ring is incredibly smooth, the Sigma has just a little more resistance to the focusing ring that some would say is an advantage but for me just slows things down a fraction but once you are used to it, it's no great problem

So all in all, although the Canon is a bit better I personally don't think the difference is anywhere near justified by the price difference which is why I opted for the Sigma and certainly do not regret it.

Failing that the nifty 50 deserves to be in every camera bag. Personally I wouldnt fork out on the f/1.4 version as the f/1.8 is virtually as fast and stupidly cheap.

If you are going to shoot indoors in low light than you definitely want to stick with shorter focal lengths as the dof at f/2.8 is shallow enough without having to factor in the further reduction due to longer focal lengths.

Another belter of a lens is the Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX DC HSM. This lens is stupidly sharp and I know of many wedding photographers who swear by it especially when they don't want to or can't use flash.

Then of course you have the new Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC (the non macro version) which seems to be getting a lot of good things said about it although I've never seen or used one so can't comment.

HTH

[monkeyleader]

Originally Posted by Peakoverload

Well I own the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX and think that it is a very very good lens. Optical quality is easily as good as the Canon L, where the Sigma isn't quite as good is:

Build quality - The Sigma IS built well but the Canon is just built better. If you don't compare it against the Canon then you would never think the Sigma was badly built.

Auto Focus - The Sigma IS very fast at focusing and accurate but the Canon does have the slight edge but in my opinion it is very slight, like a few hundreths of a second faster.

Manual focusing - The Canon is a joy to use manually as the focusing ring is incredibly smooth, the Sigma has just a little more resistance to the focusing ring that some would say is an advantage but for me just slows things down a fraction but once you are used to it, it's no great problem

So all in all, although the Canon is a bit better I personally don't think the difference is anywhere near justified by the price difference which is why I opted for the Sigma and certainly do not regret it.

Failing that the nifty 50 deserves to be in every camera bag. Personally I wouldnt fork out on the f/1.4 version as the f/1.8 is virtually as fast and stupidly cheap.

If you are going to shoot indoors in low light than you definitely want to stick with shorter focal lengths as the dof at f/2.8 is shallow enough without having to factor in the further reduction due to longer focal lengths.

Another belter of a lens is the Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX DC HSM. This lens is stupidly sharp and I know of many wedding photographers who swear by it especially when they don't want to or can't use flash.

Then of course you have the new Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC (the non macro version) which seems to be getting a lot of good things said about it although I've never seen or used one so can't comment.

HTH

Thanks for your thoughts .. couple of comments

- re: manual focus on the Sigma 24-70 - yes I commented on this in the shop, but the guy didnt seem to respond and in fact said it would become looser thru time. It wasnt a real issue tho just something I had noticed

- re: Nifty 50 - you mean EF 50mm f/1.8 II - it's like £70 .. my old mam said never look a gift horse in the mouth and I looked at this before and thought - gees for £70 can it really be any good - so perhaps I was wrong ?

I check out your other two recommendations - but again thanks

[h4rri]

Originally Posted by monkeyleader

- re: Nifty 50 - you mean EF 50mm f/1.8 II - it's like £70 .. my old mam said never look a gift horse in the mouth and I looked at this before and thought - gees for £70 can it really be any good - so perhaps I was wrong ?
:

Super little lense, looks a bit crappy but once you get over that it's all good

Haven't used mine much but when I have I get some lovely results.

[tomson]

I've had trouble with the 50/1.8 - both copies I've owned were a bit hit and miss when focussing in low light. In better conditions it was usually spot on.

[petrolhead]

If you could afford it then the 50mm f/1.4 is a very good lens and better than the f/1.8

You don't say what camera you have but if you have a 350D, 400D, 20D or 30D these all have 1.6 crop.

This will mean that your 50mm lens will look like an 80mm lens due to the crop

You may also concider the 35mm f/2 whci although is old technology is not a bad lens for the price £160 approx

Obviously the above will be faster than a 2f/2.8 and may siut your needs for indoor/low light shots

[dood]

also consider tamron 28-75 2.8. Not quite as wide but many say that it's even sharper than the sigma. It's also the lightest of the 2.8 lenses with that focal range. Haven't used one though so no personal experience.

[petrolhead]

Originally Posted by dood

also consider tamron 28-75 2.8. Not quite as wide but many say that it's even sharper than the sigma. It's also the lightest of the 2.8 lenses with that focal range. Haven't used one though so no personal experience.

Reviews from FM - http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=43&page=1

[grantsteve]

Originally Posted by Peakoverload

Well I own the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX and think that it is a very very good lens. Optical quality is easily as good as the Canon L, where the Sigma isn't quite as good is:

Build quality - The Sigma IS built well but the Canon is just built better. If you don't compare it against the Canon then you would never think the Sigma was badly built.

Auto Focus - The Sigma IS very fast at focusing and accurate but the Canon does have the slight edge but in my opinion it is very slight, like a few hundreths of a second faster.

Manual focusing - The Canon is a joy to use manually as the focusing ring is incredibly smooth, the Sigma has just a little more resistance to the focusing ring that some would say is an advantage but for me just slows things down a fraction but once you are used to it, it's no great problem

So all in all, although the Canon is a bit better I personally don't think the difference is anywhere near justified by the price difference which is why I opted for the Sigma and certainly do not regret it.

...

Then of course you have the new Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC (the non macro version) which seems to be getting a lot of good things said about it although I've never seen or used one so can't comment.

HTH

I'm pleased this has come up again (albeit in a Canon context! ) as I am seriously considering the 24-70 as a replacement for my D50 kit lens. I have only read good things about the 24-70. The 18-50 would seem like a closer match in focal lengths to the 18-55 kit lens so I'll get hunting for reviews ... any pointers?

[onefivenine]

Maybe if we shout loud enough Canon will announce a 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS or a 24-105mm f/2.8 L IS for their upcoming anniverary! Or one can keep praying I suppose.

[spanna]

If your getting the sigma 24-70 to put on a Canon 20d make sure the first thing you test is the focusing. I had read alot about Sigmas poor quality control so it was the first thing i did when i got mine out the box and the focusing was miles out.
Sent it back and got a replacement. Its still a touch out .. but hardly anything and only at f2.8 at 24mm. So it does me.
I really like the lens too, the colours look good to me and its sharp too. Great for the price.
The petal hood thing could be better tho, its tiny.

[ash71]

Hi

Have a look at the Sigma 24-60mm EX F2.8. I bought this instead of the Sigma 24-70mm EX F2.8. The 24-60 lens is a little lighter and abit shorter in over all lenght compared to the 24-70 but feels very solid in use. I pretty much have it on my camera all the time. I like the way it fells in use and am pleased with the results it tuns in - no USM/HSM so is a little noisey at times, certainly compared to the 10-20mm HSM lens.

Unusual focal lenght - 60mm instead of the more common 70mm but I never felt that it was a handy cap. Its a nice lense when you dont want to lug around anything else.

[RobDickinson]

Everyone should own the 50mm f1.8

Its plasticky, and focuses slow, and iffy in low light. But its cheap and (from f2.2 on) very very sharp.

Inrtresting your saying the sigma 24-70f2.8 is as sharp as the canon L (I own a 10-20 sigma), comparisons I've seen dont suggest that to be true, especialy at f2.8, if so I may have to get one.

I've been thinking about the 24-105f4LIS but its so much cash and I'm not inpressed with its sharpness (in comparison to primes at least).