Where exactly did you hear that?aceflibble said:
falcnr said:
Wrong thread, but I'll answer anyway.xtreme777 said:
xtreme777 said:
Thanks for all your responces, and I apologize for the off-topic! Hope others find this useful as well.Friday is an excellent day to get one of Canon's best zooms everxtreme777 said:
I went to the camera store last night and spent over an hour trying to get a feel for 24-70 F2.8, F4, Sigma 50 art 1.4 and sigma 35 art 1.4.
What I felt was that 24-70 F2.8 is by far superrior than 24-70 F4. That extra F stop did make a difference and IS on F4 wasn't of a much of a benefit. I also compared sigmas 35 and 50 and I put 50 away immediately, as at 1.4 it is not as sharp as 35mm. So, I'm down to 2 lenses now: 24-70 F2.8 and sigma 35. I love bukeh of sigma, however... considering many factors of a canon lens on a canon body...something is pushing me towards 24-70 f2.8. The only thing that bothers me about Sigma is that is has no weather sealing. I am paranoid about my gear and keep it all clean. I wouldn't want to start cleaning the sensor because sigma lets the dust in.
Some say, 24-70 covers 35mm anyway, but it's not about that. 35mm has a different style and it's 1.4.
Was looking at Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR, but I am not seeing good reviews on that lens. Tamron 35 and 45mm (coming soon) is supposed to be great, but again, I am not sure how good tamron is.
I have to make a decision by Friday to get the lens.
(24-70 2.8 II)
You won't be disappointed, that's one the best Canon lenses overal. I sold it in an urgent need for cash and now I regret it.xtreme777 said:Thank you all for making me spend an extra $1000
I'm going with 24-70 F2.8. Later, I may still get Sigma 35 Art. I like what it can do, but I think I need flexibility of a zoom lens at low light to work indoor with kids.
Thank you all again!
xtreme777 said:
I went to the camera store last night and spent over an hour trying to get a feel for 24-70 F2.8, F4, Sigma 50 art 1.4 and sigma 35 art 1.4.
What I felt was that 24-70 F2.8 is by far superrior than 24-70 F4. That extra F stop did make a difference and IS on F4 wasn't of a much of a benefit. I also compared sigmas 35 and 50 and I put 50 away immediately, as at 1.4 it is not as sharp as 35mm. So, I'm down to 2 lenses now: 24-70 F2.8 and sigma 35. I love bukeh of sigma, however... considering many factors of a canon lens on a canon body...something is pushing me towards 24-70 f2.8. The only thing that bothers me about Sigma is that is has no weather sealing. I am paranoid about my gear and keep it all clean. I wouldn't want to start cleaning the sensor because sigma lets the dust in.
Some say, 24-70 covers 35mm anyway, but it's not about that. 35mm has a different style and it's 1.4.
Was looking at Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR, but I am not seeing good reviews on that lens. Tamron 35 and 45mm (coming soon) is supposed to be great, but again, I am not sure how good tamron is.
I have to make a decision by Friday to get the lens.
+1 for both your opinion on 3rd party lenses and 50 1.8. It is my second oldest lens, first being EF35-105 f/3.5-4.5 I have kept it for sentimental reasons. Actually it was thanks to a Sigma zoom lens that I switched to Canon. OK nothing wrong about Sigma. The story is sigma 70-200 was the first addition to my first SLR a Konica Autoreflex TC with a 40mm 1.8 lens. I didn't have a camera bag by then. I had put the Sigma in its hard case in a hand bag (the supermarket type). I had the camera on my shoulder. I was harrying to get to a bus and someone told me that I had dropped a bag and an old lady had taken it (without knowing the content) and running away! Then a colleague at work suggested to switch to Canon. So I got the fresh new EOS 620 with 35-105 3.5-4.5 100-300 5.6 and 420EZ. I still have all but the 100-300 which I have sold it.GMCPhotographics said:xtreme777 said:
I went to the camera store last night and spent over an hour trying to get a feel for 24-70 F2.8, F4, Sigma 50 art 1.4 and sigma 35 art 1.4.
What I felt was that 24-70 F2.8 is by far superrior than 24-70 F4. That extra F stop did make a difference and IS on F4 wasn't of a much of a benefit. I also compared sigmas 35 and 50 and I put 50 away immediately, as at 1.4 it is not as sharp as 35mm. So, I'm down to 2 lenses now: 24-70 F2.8 and sigma 35. I love bukeh of sigma, however... considering many factors of a canon lens on a canon body...something is pushing me towards 24-70 f2.8. The only thing that bothers me about Sigma is that is has no weather sealing. I am paranoid about my gear and keep it all clean. I wouldn't want to start cleaning the sensor because sigma lets the dust in.
Some say, 24-70 covers 35mm anyway, but it's not about that. 35mm has a different style and it's 1.4.
Was looking at Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR, but I am not seeing good reviews on that lens. Tamron 35 and 45mm (coming soon) is supposed to be great, but again, I am not sure how good tamron is.
I have to make a decision by Friday to get the lens.
I would wager that you will never see the difference in sharpness between the f2.8 and f4 versions of the 24-70L in real world use. I use a stellar copy of the mkI 24-70L and it's less sharp than both the newer mkII and the f4...but I get great images out of it. In some ways I prefer the look I get from my current lens than I did with he rental mkII and f4 versions I tried. I liked them all, but the old version had a few features I really like.
But it's your money and your wants....so please buy what you really like. They are both great optics and will give you many years of hard use.
Which brings me nearly on to the Sigma and Tamron lenes. They look great in spec sheets and generally offer great features and optics...many times rivaling Canon. But be under no illusion....they are NOT the same in terms of reliability, build, AF speed, AF accuracy, coatings and finally resale price. With a well looked after L lens, you always get back most of what you paid for it (some times a bit more). I can't say that for Sigma or Tamron. Each time I've sold one of those lenses I seem to take a hefty hit.
My oldest EF lens is an original 50mm f1.8 from 1987, the first year of the EOS mount. It's no L....but it's still going strong.
