Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG Macro v. Canon 24-70 f2.8 L USM Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com

Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG Macro v. Canon 24-70 f2.8 L USM

June 23, 2005: Note regarding this particular copy of the Canon 24-70L --- This is my 3rd copy in the past 2 years. It basically performs consistent with my previous 2 copies. I've always liked its more refined build and ring USM with FTM, which is where it separates itself from the EX. This particular copy was made in October 2004 (based on its date code), so it's fairly new.

April 14, 2006: After several years of "hands-on" experience with various copies of both lenses, viewing countless crops, and after many correspondences with people from all over the world on which to get, here is my very simple answer: If you can afford the $1150 Canon L, then get it. While optically they are VERY close (with center resolution in favor of the EX), you get the benefits of guaranteed future compatibility on Canon DSLRs, ring USM with FTM, weathersealing, and more refined build quality. However, if money is a little tight, the $375 Sigma EX is the closest lens to the L in terms of overall specs (e.g., optical performance, specifications, tank-like build, AF speed, etc.) and at a fraction of the cost. The Tamron 28-75 Di is also another excellent standard zoom, so long as starting at 28mm is to your liking, although it does lack the build-feel of both the L and EX.

Sep 22, 2007: Photozone has tested the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG Macro http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_2470_28/index.htm . The copy in the PZ test used to be mine, the one tested here against the 24-70 f2.8 L. I don't cite PZ often, but I do here because that particular copy of the EX is the same copy here in this test.

[145,500 page hits]

Top-Down	Non-Extended	Focus on L	Focus on EX
Both at 70mm	Both at 24mm	SC-ext(24mm)	SC-ext-hoods
SC-non-ext(70mm)	SC-non-ext-hoods	SC-tight	SC-rear-elem
SC-top-down	20D L BG-E2	20D EX BG-E2	L Up Close
EX Up Close	L Again	EX Again	All4a
All4b	Main Test	4Tested	Compare01
Canon-Resized	Sigma-Resized	Canon-Resized	Sigma-Resized

post a comment

bwcw1		15-Jan-2008 10:49
Refer to the flower shots, please aware the difference in Exposure Time... if both have the same exposure time, difference might minimize...

lightrules		04-Sep-2007 01:42
Hello, in the flower shot, if you think a lens needs a contrast boost, you can easily do this in photoshop using levels or curves, among other ways. It's quite simple. Enjoy the light.

SilverOne		03-Sep-2007 23:49
Hello! first of hall this is a very good review, it's the most helpfull i've found arround !. in your flower comparision pictures , the sigma looks like it "pops" less color and exposure, i prefer canon collor / exposure allooot more. why does this happen ? and how do i fix it also, i wish this would pop on google more too ;).

harana		17-Apr-2006 22:00
Two questions. 1. Do you just return the Sigma lens to Sigma for repair and they repair it or send you a new copy? 2. How does Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 compare to Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8?

lightrules		10-Mar-2006 16:36
Greetings, welcome to this site. It looks like you have a nice lens set up for weddings already. I don't think a 2470f2.8 (be it Canon or Sigma) is going to do bring any significance to what you have already as the 24-105IS fills that niche nicely. However, how about a couple good primes? For your XT, I would look at the Sigma 30f1.4 and Canon 85 f1.8. Now those would really do you well IMO. Best wishes and enjoy all your photo endeavors!

adaytoremember		10-Mar-2006 09:08
Sir Fstopjojo, I have now manage to get my kit into a fairly decent combo - 350D with grip, EF-s 10-22, 24-105 f4L IS, 70-200 f4L, 550ex and a kenko 1.4x. I'm really happy with the setup so far and have been wondering if having the inclusion of the 24-70 f2.8 EX would be money well spent! I'm moving into Weddings and Event Photography and have been wondering about low light situation. I am planning to get the cheap and cheerful 50mm 1.8 mk II and also when my order book is good enough then I will invest on a 5D and decommision my trusty old friend the EOS A2E from the role of backup! Because I already got a decent L lens but f4 in the range I throught of investing in one of these to give me the help of the extra stop in very poor light situation. I would love for you give me your some pointers!

PapGaz		02-Jan-2006 20:58
I have bought the Sigma lens in December as I could not afford the Canon which I was able to borrow for a few days through the local photography association. However I have to say that I am not disappointed with the Sigma lens in any way. I have tried to re-create the same images that I took with the Canon lens (same shot, Fno, etc) and there is little or no discernable difference. The only niggle I have is the 2-step process to change from MF to AF. The focussing on mine appears to be pin sharp.

RichardG		14-Dec-2005 21:25
I have bought the Sigma lens and now I've bought the Canon lens, and, as I suspected, the Canon is better built, far superior handling, and the images are streets ahead. The Sigma is cracking value, but the Canon is the daddy no doubt about it.

JL		08-Nov-2005 14:26
Great review & tests! I bought myself a Sigma 24-70 2.8 a couple of days ago. Love every bit of it. Although it's not an L lens but hey you at $730 singapore dollars I simply can't complain. Thanks to this forum, I had a chance to see real test pics.

lwestfall		30-Oct-2005 06:22
Just wanted to let everyone here know that I was the lucky one who won the crazy eBay auction and I can confirm that this lens is VERY SHARP - much sharper than my original 24-70EX (especially wide open towards the long end of its range), and almost as sharp as the amazing 70-200/2.8L. Check out the proof here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=15640130 (or more directly here: http://www.pbase.com/lwestfall/image/51076066 ). Thanks Jojo! I hope your 18-50EX's AF ends up working out for you! Take care, buddy. --Lincoln :)

Manny Rego		20-Oct-2005 15:22
Well, my lens has been adjusted, and it's on it's way back to me (I should have it in my grubby little hands tomorrow morning). It took them a day or so to fix it, which is pretty good in my book. I had to pay $25 to get it overnighted, but at least I'll have it for my three photo shoots this weekend. All I know is that it better be fixed right or I'm driving down there personally and I'll peer over the tech's shoulder while he does it right the second time. :) Everyone keep your fingers crossed.

lightrules		16-Oct-2005 23:47
It really varies, I think, on how long it takes them. If they've got lots of repairs for a given week, probably longer. But they are generally fast, somewhere around 10-14 days. Too bad it front-focuses, but once they get it right, you'll love it.

Manny Rego		16-Oct-2005 23:20
Just bought a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro lens, and just like you fstopjojo, I'm going to have to send it in. I did a focusing test on it http://www.photo.net/learn/focustest/), and it's front focusing badly. Every photograph comes out slightly blurry when you fully open the lens at any focal length, but more so at 24mm. It doesn't start to improve until you stop down past f/5.6. How long did it take for Sigma to repair your lens?

lightrules		07-Oct-2005 22:17
I wish the Sigma had HSM but it isn't a deal-breaker for me. The EX is just too good a lens to pass on that issue alone. Of course the L has USM and that makes its AF nice and quiet, but the EX AF is fast and you get used to the noise quickly.

itai		07-Oct-2005 21:21
Thanks fstopjojo for taking the effort of sharing your results, they are valubale and can save us money!!! So, as I see the Sigma is as or even sharper than the L, what would you say about other traits, such as it's focus speed, and general feel. Can we live with it after getting used to the USM? thnx itai

lightrules		06-Oct-2005 06:16
Because after my first one I thought, "Hmmm, $1300 should be a little better than this." Then I got my second copy and thought, "Hmmm, three times a charm?"

Guest		06-Oct-2005 05:16
why do you have to buy three copies of the L lens if they perform consistently?

lightrules		06-Oct-2005 04:06
It's always a little harder to judge bokeh between to very similar lenses. IMO they are very close and I don't see one being more "harsh" than the other. To me it's not an issue between these 2 particular lenses. According to their respective MTF charts they're both "good" for standard zooms. I personally have always been pleased with the EX's bokeh, and IMO it's the best bokeh of any of Sigma's EX standard zooms (viz., 18-50, 24-60, 24-70, 28-70). Thanks for the post.

J. Vincent		06-Oct-2005 03:49
It's clear the Sigma is sharper. But the last 2 tests showing the bokeh, do you think the Canon looks better. I often find Sigma lenses have a harsh background blur, what do you think?

BCHU		21-Sep-2005 07:33
from the pictures, it seems the canon lens hood does not move when the lens is extended, while the sigma does. in this case, where does the hood attach? how is this possible?

John Maitland		08-Sep-2005 17:21
Focus issues - Found primes always seem to focus properly, but found that zooms Sigma 24-70 DG and Conon17/40 focus well at the long focal lengths but tend to focus nearer at the wide end. Just sent 20d and 17/40 for checking. Sigma 24/70 behaves the same way, so it looks like it might be best to focus by hand. Therefore, I do focus by hand a long end then zoom wide. Sometimes auto-focus effects are not consistent. It is disconcerting! Any suggestions? By the way, I thank you again for the Sigma test - I really think the 24-70 DG is superb, amazing - and the Sigma MTF do not look as good as Canon's. Only problem is that there is a shadow fom the on camera flash at 24 mm without the shade which casts shadows at longer local lengths.

Merhaba 2005		26-Aug-2005 11:54
In the foros of "photo sig" I read these lens, Sigma 24-70 f2.8, have problemes whith the Camera Canon D20, do you have detected problems, fstopjojo? Best regards from Tarragona (spain)

lightrules		18-Aug-2005 01:04
Good for you, John. It is one of the best price/performance lenses around. Enjoy your new toy.

John Maitland		18-Aug-2005 00:52
Got a great copy of the Sigma 24-70 and thanks muchly for saving me some $700.00 which I will put towards a Lumix digilux-2 or car repairs. The new Sigma 24-70 at 60 mm f9 for all intents and purpose seems as sharp as the new Canon 60mm Macro! To avoid shake and other movement problems I use a couple of Digipopper Strobes from Adorama. More tests should be done. It is a bit "stiff" right now and I have to get used to it. If you want me to you "proof" let me know. More later as they becomes more familiar...

lightrules		13-Aug-2005 19:50
John, just like any of the current manufacturers, there are always QC issues. It seems less so with primes, but with zooms there are usually a few bad apples in the bunch. That said, I'd "expect" a good copy unless shown otherwise. Best wishes to you, and enjoy both the 24-70EX and the excellent Canon 60 f2.8 Macro.

John Maitland		13-Aug-2005 19:13
PS: As you said, "Sigma 24-70 f2.8 is fantastic given a good copy." How does one go about getting a good copy? Thanks again

John Maitland		13-Aug-2005 18:40
Life is a gamble... I WAS about to get Canon 24-70 when I ran across this page. It would seem that BOTH Sigma and Canon 24-70 lenses have a few rotten reviews � the Canon especially should never have any issue whatever for the price, though I am quite pleased the 17-40 (See: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/). Your results are remarkable so I am willing to gamble on the Sigma for optical quality and get a new Canon 60mm f2.8 Macro (reproducing art work) and filters for the price difference. For economic reasons and not needing all the weatherproofing I feel more comfortable getting a less expensive and perhaps better optic with a lens 1/3 the price. (Never had a bad copy from Leica!) "You pays yer moni and gets yer cherse" Thanks for the �heads up� and help thinking this out. John Maitland

lightrules		08-Aug-2005 14:49
I'm not quite sure why the hood is so large. But it does obviously block any stray light from the glass, as well as "cover" the front element as it moves back and forth during zooming so as to not seem like it moves at all.

Daniel G		08-Aug-2005 07:10
Do you have any idea why the Canon 24-70 has such a large hood compared to the Sigma 24-70?

lightrules		25-Jul-2005 15:23
David, you're referring to "bokeh" and for many it's an important aspect of a given lens. IMO they are very close in this regard, and really, some say they like the bokeh of the EX and others the L, so it's all good. I don't think it's that big a difference as both render "acceptable" bokeh for a standard zoom. They aren't as good as the Canon 85 f1.8 USM, for example, nor as good as the Canon 70-200L IS USM, but that is to be expected. Thanks for commenting.

david figueiredo		25-Jul-2005 09:36
First of all thanks for the comparison. I have been studing lens, partly through your site, and after looking at the Canon Vs Sigma shots here; I think the Canon looks better. They look real close except for one thing. The out of focus parts of the pictures seem to have a smoother/creamier look for the Canon. My question is. . . am I looking for the wrong thing?

lightrules		17-Jul-2005 22:18
For Canon lenses and date codes, see http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx

Moumoune		17-Jul-2005 14:55
How can you tell when was the lens manufactured with its bare code ?

lightrules		16-Jul-2005 23:51
I'm glad this test was useful to you. I've owned 2 copies of the Sigma 24-70 EX and 3 copies of the Canon 24-70L, and overall they've been very close optically but my current/latest Sigma 24-70 EX is the best of them all. This said, realize that copy-to-copy variation is a reality and that any given copy of one lens can best any given copy of another. My main point is that I've found the new Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro lens to be a great lens at a fraction of the price of the L. This is meaningful and significant to many photographers as they decide which lens might suit their purposes and budget best. The 24-70L is a better lens when you consider it has USM/FTM, weathersealing, slightly better low-light focus accuracy/locking, but in terms of pure optics, it's a close call. For $370 USD, the Sigma 24-70 EX is unbeatable. Optically it's better than any 24-70L I've used (or seen), and coupled to my 70-200L IS USM, it's a combination that can't be beat for $2000 USD. Thanks for the comments, and best wishes to you.

S aiF		16-Jul-2005 21:34
Excellent tests fstopjojo, it is very apparant that the EX is sharper than the L. I even held my hands over the titles of the tests, so that my eyes would not be bias. Meaning, subconsciously, I will not "see" the L being sharper. I simply covered up the titles and made my decision on which was sherper and most if not all were the Sigma. Btw, im also a member on photography-on-the.net/forum/, found your link to here from the forum. :D CorruptedPhotographer

click on thumbnails for full image