Lens advise - Sigma 24-70 vs Canon 28-135

[Dazecoop]

Hi everyone.

I am new here, this being my first post, I've been looking at all the photography forums for a while and thought this was the best!

Anyway a quick question for you all.

I currently own a Canon 350d with a Canon 18-55 USM kit lens and a Canon 75-300 USM lens. For my use, both these lenses are ideal. They are good enough quality, they focus very fast and don't often miss.

However, I am after a new lens - a walkabout lens. My next lens needs to be better in low light I feel, since I often find myself taking indoor photos, concert photos, etc without flash or where flash is not aloud and the shutter speeds are too slow for the photos to be usable.

My budget is about £350 or less. I could stretch for £400 maybe, but not any more than that, I have cut it down to two lenses:

Sigma 24-70mm EX f2.8 constant
~or Canon 28-135 USM IS f3.5-5.6

The constant aperture appeals to me a lot, since I often also find myself using the zoom a lot, in whatever situation. I have read many reviews of both lenses, and I am finding that the Canon is a GOOD lens, and the Sigma can be excellent, although depending on how good the copy is you get.

I've had a go with the Sigma at my local Jessops, and it seemed great, although I didn't see the photos it took, I only had a go with it. When I tried it, I found the focus speed OK, the noise didn't bother me and the weight/size is also fine (the size adds to the professional look I think - that's something I like!) The things that sways me to the Canon is the IS (in low light situations?) and the extra bit of focal length.

Anyway, sorry for the lengthy first post. Any suggestions or advise very much appreciated.

[MatsP]

Welcome to Dphoto.

It's not a straight-forward choice - both lenses have positive things about them - one offers a wider focal range and IS, but smaller aperture as a negative side, the other has great aperture and slightly wider wide end, but no IS and shorter focal range.

I think it all comes down to what you see as the more important factor.

If I were in that situation, I think I'd go for the Sigma - but it's not an easy choice to make, and there's situations where one would choose that way, and other times where it would go the other way...

I personally prefer the wider wide-angle, rather than range - but I'm sort of a wide-angle type person (I'm longing for a Sigma 10-20 EX HSM and I use my 20-35 as a "general purpose lens"). The fact that the camera has a 1.6 "crop factor" means that the wider end is not very wide anyways...

--
Mats

[Dazecoop]

Hi Mats,

Thanks for the advise. I also do enjoy mega-wide-angle shots like you said, but I've figured that I've got my kit lens to do that for me. I am hoping to one day get the 10-22 (like you said) or even the 8mm, but for now 18mm is not too bad.

At the moment I am swaying toward the Sigma, simply because of the constant aperture, and the professional looking size of the thing, it just looks awesome.

The only negative so far is the many reviews I've read about how fuzzy and little quality it shows when open right up at f2.8, which of course will be one of the main reasons for me buying the lens - to shoot at f2.8 in low-light. Although, a quick sharpen on Photoshop would sort this, surely?

Thanks again, I look forward to other peoples thoughts.

[agesilaus]

I'd like to suggest a third alternative, if you really want low light capabilty and a very sharp lens in that price range then you might want to look at the Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 or the 85mm f/1.8

Both are very sharp and sell in the below $400 range in the US. For concert and low light situations they are much better than the lenses you are looking at. They are prime lenses of course.

The Canon 28-135mm is a good lens but has the reputation for being just a bit soft. I don't know anything about the Sigma, but I do own a couple of other Sigma lenses and they are excellent. There is a Tamron in that same range as the Sigma which is getting rave reviews.

<http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=43&page=1>

[Dazecoop]

Hi, thanks for the reply.

Of course prime lenses would be the perfect solution, but this needs to be a walk-about lens for me. I maybe asking too much from one lens? But I can't see myself using a prime lens for a whole day, for the way I use my camera anyway.

I have been looking at the Tamron as well, and I've read several reviews. The Tamron and Sigma are almost identical specification and features. By reading the majority of the reviews on that site, it looks like the Sigma is the preferred choice, although it is apparently not as sharp as the Tamron, it focuses correctly, unlike some of the people are saying about the Tamron.

Interesting you say that the 28-135 is soft. I think it comes down to what you compare it to, because I don't find my 18-55 or 75-300's soft at all, and they are cheapie cheap lenses, but compared to L-glass they certainly are!

Thanks anyway, and if anyone has anything further to add, or has experience with any lenses in this range, feel free?

[swartzphotography]

if i were looking at these two lenses i would have to go with the sigma 24-70 as a casual shooting lens i think you have more aperature and to me the aperature being able two stop down to 2.8 is more feasable.i dont think the wide angle end really matters much as the crop factor is 1.6 so a 28 mm lens is 44.8 and of course you have a 18-55 mm lens to get bellow 44.8 anyway if you need to get wider angle. and i also dont think the image stabilization is a good alternative to having the ability to stop down to 2.8 im not really sold on the abilities of image stabilization.

[MatsP]

To Mark: Image Stabilization on my 100-400 works GREAT - I notice clearly when I forget to turn it on (or nudge the switch to turn it off).

2.8 is great, and at shorter focal lengths, you should be able to get away with it. However, IS is "worth" at least two stops, probably three for most lenses.

I still think the 24 vs 28mm is the selling point on the 24-70 vs 28-135.

However, one other factor to consider: 18-55 is not very far from 24-70. You get another 15mm at the long end, and loose 6 at the short end... Bigger aperture is of course a great thing. But I'm not sure it's worth £350 or so...

--
Mats

[Dazecoop]

Thanks for all the advise so far guys! I've been into my local Jessops store and I've had a quick go with...

The Canon 28-135 IS USM
Sigma 24-70mm
(and for a laugh) the Canon 24-70 L

I didn't play with any of the lenses that long, but for my eyes and for what I use it for, I couldn't see all that much difference in quality between the Sigma and L-glass.

The 28-135 is on its own - its poor! I didn't like it. In the same lighting conditions, it set itself to 0.5 second exposure. I shot and held it fairly still handheld. The shot was very blurred - unusable.

I then tried the L glass, same focal distance, same shot. 1/10th second. Shot is usable, but blurred still. Finally, I tried the Sigma, 1/10th second again, actually a sharper shot than the L lens. This surely must have been me just holding it differently, considering the L glass is 3 times the price!!

Jessops offer a 30-day money back, so my plans are to buy the Sigma, then if I don't like it I can return and just swap for something else, or money back, no questions. Seems a fine deal to me!

Any other thoughts on this?

[510picker]

I have a 28-135 that I will take to the grave with me. I have heard many, many people complain about the Sigma being soft at 2.8. I would suggest you look at the Tamron 28-75 in this price range as well.

[TommyChambers]

I have the Sigma 24-70/2.8 and it works quite well. It is kinda loud when it AFs. So far the shots I've taken haven't been soft as others report.

[swartzphotography]

i have a sigma 28-80 mm macro and when i first got it i loved it. however last time i used it i had a bad problem. when i was shooting in the macro mode it would not focus at all. but when i shot it on the normal mode it had no dificulties focusing properly. any ideas what it may be causing it.

[Cathy_P]

I'd get the canon 24-300 L 2.8 IS made with aluminum alloy and new spaceage lightweight glass that cost under $500....except it doesn't exist :-(

I'd look at the Tamron 24-75 2.8 also. Guys at our local camera shop love it.

[swartzphotography]

what about the 15-300 mm 1.8 with image stabilization lens that costs under 500 dollars lol