I am looking for a 24-70mm f2.8 lens for general use and low light gig/concert photography.

The 2 I am looking at are:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens

Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM Zoom Lens

The Canon is almost twice the price of the Sigma. Is it worth paying for for the Canon? Which lens is best

  • \$\begingroup\$ This post is very much informative in context. I like to admire the way you explain the topic about <a href="electronicbazaar.com.au/camera-lens/sigma/…"> Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Lens </a>.I would like to thank the author for his marvelous efforts. \$\endgroup\$
    – user9482
    Apr 20, 2012 at 11:59

4 Answers 4


Absolutely. With most lenses, the old saying 'you get what you pay for' applies. If you want to buy a good Sigma lens (they have some excellent ones), you'll have to buy an expensive one.

Between these particular models, the Sigma is much softer near the wide-angle end and has stronger fall-off as well. At the long end, it diminishes but you have to stop it down a few more stops than on the Canon.

The Canon unit is also weather-sealed against the elements, dust, moisture, rain and snow, when used on a weather-sealed DSLR.


Take a look at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx and judge for yourself. The short answer is 'yes, the Canon really is far superior'.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Excellent site. Thank you for reminding me about it. I should use it more often :) \$\endgroup\$
    – AJ Finch
    Jan 13, 2011 at 15:34

I have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 which is an excellent lens, optically probably on par with the Canon in terms of sharpness etc. though the Canon is built better, is a bit wider at the wide end and has an ultrasonic motor compared to the regular focus motor in the Tamron.

I wouldn't consider using mine for gigs though as the aperture is too slow...

  • \$\begingroup\$ Not sure how this answers the posters question. Just sayin'... ;-) \$\endgroup\$ Jan 12, 2011 at 22:10
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Jay The poster appears to be trying to choose between two lenses, I was offering a third alternative for an f/2.8 zoom he might not have considered \$\endgroup\$
    – Matt Grum
    Jan 12, 2011 at 23:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ The Tamron 28-75 is fine on a crop camera (Although the 17-50 is more generally useful and a bit lighter) but on full frame it's not great. Neither is the Sigma 24-70. The Canon in this case really is the daddy, although that's not always the case despite what brand snobs might say. \$\endgroup\$
    – Max Sang
    Jan 13, 2011 at 15:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ This comparison quite clearly shows the difference between the Canon and the Tamron: the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/… \$\endgroup\$
    – eflorico
    Apr 20, 2011 at 15:21

Compare the results.

Sigma: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/24_70_28_if_ex_dg_hsm

vs Canon: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_2470_28u

Yes, you may have different postprocessing, subjects, composition, etc, but these images are representative of what people can produce with the lens.

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Difficult to judge a lens from random images downsized for the web though, especially in terms of sharpness! \$\endgroup\$
    – Matt Grum
    Jan 12, 2011 at 19:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's tricky to wade through, but sometimes people post full-sized images on the site. For me, this kind of comparison is helpful because it lets me see what kinds of shots people can get with the lens. Doing this showed me that the tamrom 180mm macro is definitely comparable to the nikon 200mm macro, but that the sigma (priced between the other two) was far inferior. \$\endgroup\$
    – mmr
    Jan 12, 2011 at 19:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.