Canon 28-70 2.8L vs Sigma 24-70 2.8


Status
Not open for further replies.

StreetShooter

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
4,634
0
36
Katong
streetshooter.clubsnap.org
I tried out the Sigma on Sunday. Nice and sharp, a bit noisy, 24mm is nice and wide.

What I did not like was the fact that the zoom was not fixed length ie there was an inner tube that moved in and out. It was also strange that it moved out (became longer) for wide shots, and moved in for zoom shots. I honestly did not like it.

I've never handled a Canon 28-70L before, but can someone tell me whether it is built that way as well (ie variable length zoom and counter-intuitive zoom movement)?

Thanks.
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,875
64
48
45
Upper Bukit Timah
www.arkitecturalphotography.com
Originally posted by StreetShooter
I tried out the Sigma on Sunday. Nice and sharp, a bit noisy, 24mm is nice and wide.

What I did not like was the fact that the zoom was not fixed length ie there was an inner tube that moved in and out. It was also strange that it moved out (became longer) for wide shots, and moved in for zoom shots. I honestly did not like it.

I've never handled a Canon 28-70L before, but can someone tell me whether it is built that way as well (ie variable length zoom and counter-intuitive zoom movement)?

Thanks.
The Canon 28-70 behaves exactly the same. Extends at the wider end. One thing good is that the lens hood is mounted on the tip of the lens barrel itself and does move when you zoom. I think that explains the movement (extends at wide end and vice versa).
 

Kho King

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2002
2,513
0
0
44
shashinki.com
Why not consider the Tokina PRO 28-80mm? It stays as fixed length, and the built is VERY solid. Metal...crinkle finishing.
 

ckiang

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
6,405
0
36
48
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
www.ckphoto.net
Originally posted by Kho King
Why not consider the Tokina PRO 28-80mm? It stays as fixed length, and the built is VERY solid. Metal...crinkle finishing.
The Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 ATX Pro/Pro II is supposedly better. This is based on the legendary Angenieux lens of the same focal length. I tried the Sigma on Red Dawn's D30 and found it quite soft.

Regards
CK
 

Kho King

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2002
2,513
0
0
44
shashinki.com
Originally posted by ckiang


The Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 ATX Pro/Pro II is supposedly better. This is based on the legendary Angenieux lens of the same focal length. I tried the Sigma on Red Dawn's D30 and found it quite soft.

Regards
CK
I am not sure about Canon mount as I used/tested this 28-70mm with a Nikon camera. I am not sure of the optical quality as compare to the 28-80mm, but I really don't like the design of it. One have to change the AF/MF mode on the camera body AND the lens itself in order to AF or MF. Furthermore, the AF/MF ring on the lens can only be engaged and disengaged at a certain possition/angle.
 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,904
0
0
UK
Visit site
For Nikon, you can just disengage the clutch on the Tokina, to allow you to MF, but to go back you do need to return to the same specific point. Not sure about on Canon, but I don't see a reason why it should be different.
 

ckiang

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
6,405
0
36
48
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
www.ckphoto.net
Originally posted by Jed
For Nikon, you can just disengage the clutch on the Tokina, to allow you to MF, but to go back you do need to return to the same specific point. Not sure about on Canon, but I don't see a reason why it should be different.
Same, tested it at Cathay. :) Kinda awkward, but the shop assistant's tip is to go to inifnity/minimum focus distance before switching. :)

Regards
CK
 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,904
0
0
UK
Visit site
Bugger it really is late... I know the clutch control needing to be returned to the same point is a fact. What I wasn't sure about, other than on the Nikon model, is the fact that you don't need to toggle two switches to change between AF and MF. If the camera is set to AF, you can use the clutch to access both MF and AF without touching the camera. That was what I meant to say first time around...
 

YSLee

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
2,326
1
38
Visit site
On the canon model, you have to toggle 2 switches I think.
 

Red Dawn

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
2,468
1
38
Singapore
www.5stonesphoto.com
Originally posted by StreetShooter
I tried out the Sigma on Sunday. Nice and sharp, a bit noisy, 24mm is nice and wide.

What I did not like was the fact that the zoom was not fixed length ie there was an inner tube that moved in and out. It was also strange that it moved out (became longer) for wide shots, and moved in for zoom shots. I honestly did not like it.

I've never handled a Canon 28-70L before, but can someone tell me whether it is built that way as well (ie variable length zoom and counter-intuitive zoom movement)?

Thanks.
Hi

The Sigma was the first zoom lens i tried out when i got my D30. The only thing i liked about it is the 24mm wide end - something the Canon zoom lacks......it's also, undeniably visibly softer than the 28-70L wide open at f2.8 and focuses slower.....and as such, i would not recommend it over the 28-70L.....plus, the feel of the 28-70L is more polish - the zoom ring of the Sigma is pretty stiff.

Thw 28-70L extends and retracts exactly the same way the Sigma does. As Kit pointed out, the good thing is, once u put on the lens hood, the 28-70L APPEARS to be internal focus - the movement of the lens is masked effectively by the giant flower / petal shaped lens hood.

of coz the Canon version is at least 3 times the price of the Sigma.....
 

Red Dawn

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
2,468
1
38
Singapore
www.5stonesphoto.com
Originally posted by ckiang


The Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 ATX Pro/Pro II is supposedly better. This is based on the legendary Angenieux lens of the same focal length. I tried the Sigma on Red Dawn's D30 and found it quite soft.
then again, it's still not as sharp as the 28-70L wide open at f2.8, which is the main draw for such lenses anyway........

i have sold my 28-70L for some time (cos i prefer primes for this range - it's short enough to be covered with 2 feet, and perspective does not change as much too), but i can still attest to the fact it's still one hell of a super sharp lens at f2.8; some say one of the best zooms in its class.

it would be more useful on a film body than on a D30 due to the 1.6x multiplier though, IMHO.
 

ckiang

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
6,405
0
36
48
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
www.ckphoto.net
Originally posted by Red Dawn


then again, it's still not as sharp as the 28-70L wide open at f2.8, which is the main draw for such lenses anyway........

i have sold my 28-70L for some time (cos i prefer primes for this range - it's short enough to be covered with 2 feet, and perspective does not change as much too), but i can still attest to the fact it's still one hell of a super sharp lens at f2.8; some say one of the best zooms in its class.

it would be more useful on a film body than on a D30 due to the 1.6x multiplier though, IMHO.
Of course lar, the L costs like 2.5 times more! :p

Regards
CK
 

Kho King

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2002
2,513
0
0
44
shashinki.com
Originally posted by Kit
Red Dawn, when you were using the 28-70, did you notice any lens creep? Like the 28-135? Thanks.
Anyone experience lens creep with the ATX 28-80mm version? I have bought one for my friend before, and it "autozoom" from 28-50mm if I am not mistaken. The front element is sure heavy...
 

StreetShooter

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
4,634
0
36
Katong
streetshooter.clubsnap.org
Originally posted by Red Dawn


then again, it's still not as sharp as the 28-70L wide open at f2.8, which is the main draw for such lenses anyway........

i have sold my 28-70L for some time (cos i prefer primes for this range - it's short enough to be covered with 2 feet, and perspective does not change as much too)
I concur with your observations.

The main attraction for me with regard to the Sigma 24-70 was the wide angle and the f2.8. I had in fact gone to the shop with the full intention of buying the lens, based on reviews on how sharp and well built it is.

As I played with it, however, I wondered to myself what I could do with this lens, which I could not do better with the 20mm f1.8. And the answer was nothing. I really did not have any good reason for getting the lens. A few steps in any direction would serve the same zoom function (something that cannot be said of, say, a 70-200, which is indispensable). f1.8 is definitely faster than f2.8. And I really hated the zooming mechanism. Whoever said the zoom ring was stiff is right.

By the way, the perspective does not change. Only the angle of view. :devil: Which basically means that instead of zooming, you just take the picture from the same position and crop it.

Back home I took a look at the pictures taken with it in the shop. Very sharp indeed, even wide open at 2.8.
 

Red Dawn

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
2,468
1
38
Singapore
www.5stonesphoto.com
Originally posted by Kit
Red Dawn, when you were using the 28-70, did you notice any lens creep? Like the 28-135? Thanks.
nope...my lens did not suffer from the same lens creep problem as that of the 28-135. it's a very well built lens.

i know u got yours too....yours has the problem?
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,875
64
48
45
Upper Bukit Timah
www.arkitecturalphotography.com
Originally posted by Red Dawn


nope...my lens did not suffer from the same lens creep problem as that of the 28-135. it's a very well built lens.

i know u got yours too....yours has the problem?
Yeah, I've got some lens creep. I thought its only natural given the weight of this thing. I'll just bring it down to the shop afterwards for a check. I don't think its a problem. The lens quality is still good. Thanks.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.