can't decide between 24-70 2.8L and 24-105 4L IS

[egnaro]

Pretty good value but I believe 24-70L is better in the long run.
Has sunlight flasre issues.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-24-70mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-Lens-Review.aspx

Does using filter reduce sunlight flare? some good multi coated filter help a little... I think la..

http://www.dpfwiw.com/filters.htm#types

well, end of the day, it still goes back to TS's decision. we can only share our thought not teaching or instructing TS which to purchase.

 

[bastien]

I'm officially getting crazy...

 

[chalib]

Pretty good value but I believe 24-70L is better in the long run.
Has sunlight flasre issues.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-24-70mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-Lens-Review.aspx

You are confused. This is not the new model with HSM

What egnaro mentioned is the one with HSM which has excellent performance

 

[chalib]

I'm officially getting crazy...

You don't have to

The choice is simple : Do you need f2.8? Is the weight close to 1kg ok with you? Do you need longer focal length?

Seems like you don't need both, stick to your current lens. When you are ready you know which one to choose

Our need is different from what you need

 

[Michaelavaloke2009]

pls factor in the 82mm filter for sigma....it is not cheap at all....(i'm not condemning the lens. but u need to factor in the 82mm prob) in future your cpl all 82mm.....etc..

Sorry, a bit OoT, why worry 82mm? ef16-35L too is 82mm, so when we upgrade to uwa, we can still use it.

 

[egnaro]

You are confused. This is not the new model with HSM

What egnaro mentioned is the one with HSM which has excellent performance

I almost confuse from soons reply too.. Thanks some clarification...

however I suggest anyone who is looking for this range to read up about this Lens... review are pretty good...

 

[egnaro]

pls factor in the 82mm filter for sigma....it is not cheap at all....(i'm not condemning the lens. but u need to factor in the 82mm prob) in future your cpl all 82mm.....etc..

Agreed with michael, u need all sort of filter for Canon L isnt it? Canon L is oso 77mm... 1 size down only... price diff is maybe less 50?

 

[egnaro]

You don't have to

The choice is simple : Do you need f2.8? Is the weight close to 1kg ok with you? Do you need longer focal length?

Seems like you don't need both, stick to your current lens. When you are ready you know which one to choose

Our need is different from what you need

to be honest to u, the only reason y I didnt buy canon 24-70L is it is too heavy for a walk ard lens or standard lens.

 

[Michaelavaloke2009]

You don't have to

The choice is simple : Do you need f2.8? Is the weight close to 1kg ok with you? Do you need longer focal length?

Seems like you don't need both, stick to your current lens. When you are ready you know which one to choose

Our need is different from what you need

i totally agree. Many people have e mindset that good glass such as "L" will improve their photos. It maybe true in certain extend but its not the whole truth. IMO, photographic skills, how we handle our gears, pic compo, and etc are equally important. To TS is his own choice, buy both, they are equally good. I hv a 24105 and tested the sigma2470hsm, both are good, sharp, built and etc. sigma2470hsm definitely valued for money.

 

[iMac08]

Agreed with michael, u need all sort of filter for Canon L isnt it? Canon L is oso 77mm... 1 size down only... price diff is maybe less 50?

of course if use the 1635L in future no prob...but 82 mm filters are not cheap...esp slim ones...i think the sigma no need to get those slim type or the Xs pro BW...

i did think the sigma is not too bad..but when i factor in the filter costs...to me(personally only) i will think twice first...77mm CPL and others are much cheaper than the 82 and easier to find too.

 

[iMac08]

Agreed with michael, u need all sort of filter for Canon L isnt it? Canon L is oso 77mm... 1 size down only... price diff is maybe less 50?

unless u buy from henssey..82mm uv filter BW are like 200 bucks if i never forget....

 

[engrmariano]

for 40D, get 24-70. add 10-22 & 70-200 f2.8 IS then your good to go.

 

[bastien]

the 10-22 + 24-70 + 70-200 is a setup that would make sense, but again, I need to go step by step and perfect my skills before I move on.

I understand the comments about "you'll feel when you need it", but please get off your high horses ! I'm certainly no pro photographer, but I can FEEL I need to move on with my kit lens, and simply trying to make the most informed decision. I got 2 (maybe 3 with the 17-55) options that seem to fit my general needs, they are more or less in the same price bracket, and I would simply like not to buy something to then regret it, sell it, and buy another one, simply because I didn't do my homework properly.

of course, I'll go to the canon shop and test them both, but this forum is here to get advice from users. I'm not asking you for YOUR NEEDS, I'd simply like to share your experience.

 

[Cartman2000]

Considered the Canon 28-70mm and the Tamron 28-75mm? The latter is an especially good buy considering the IQ it gives in relation to its price.

 

[soons]

I almost confuse from soons reply too.. Thanks some clarification...

however I suggest anyone who is looking for this range to read up about this Lens... review are pretty good...

lolx, peiseh, didn't realise that is a HSM verision and non-HSM version.:sweat:

Anyway, up to TS lor. If his friend has those lens, see if u can borrow the lens to test it yourself.:lovegrin:

 

[chalib]

Get off?

This is an open forum. Everyone is free to give opinion whether you like it or not as long as it doesn't violate forum T&C

It is a very clear both lens has its pros and cons. Your need is the most important consideration to decide the purchase. I have both and each lens serves me for different purpose.

 

[hetfieldpaul]

i was in the same dilema as you 3 months back, well if you need to shoot in low light conditions like me often wo flash, the choice is clear the 24-70 would be more useful, and for such a focal length IS doesnt really make a difference for me, as i used to own the 24-105, well IS is just good to have not a must, but at the end of the day, its solely up to you and your budget

 

[s3ntient]

I personally own the 24-70mm lens, and i must say that it is a spectacular lens to be shooting in. Your photos will significantly be sharper and richer in colour. The low f/stop allows you to shoot in the night even without a flash and the need to rack up your ISO to its peak.

I feel that the weight of the lens isn't a big issue, you'll just get used to it sooner or later. Might as well be sooner than later huh.

24-70mm hands down.

 

[davidtka]

If you dun mind the weight, get 24-70L, else get 24-105L. Solve your problem.

Both lens can perform as well, 24-70L low light works better compare to 24-105L. So far i only feel it's the user not the lens that's going to make the real difference. Bought my 24-70L sept'09 and went Eastern Europe with it, the lens is good, just that the user is not good enough in terms of skills.

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[icelava]

105 f/4 IS - more range, less light but assisted stabilization, broader DOF
70 f/2.8 - less range, more light but hand stabilization, narrower DOF

You decide which features you want. Otherwise get both ;-)