Hi,
I'm thinking about replacing my Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS with a fast short tele lens in the 24-70mm range. I'd like to give up some range on the long end in order to gain a stop or two in aperture because shallow depth of field and fast shutter are important to me. Since my primary application is wedding photography and portraits, the IS is pretty useless because IS is more effective for static scenes and doesn't effect shutter speed.
Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone who owns any of the following three lenses can comment on the performance of the lenses, including cropped sensor image quality (which means that full frame corner performance doesn't matter, only center and cropped sensor corner), autofocus accuracy, speed, and loudness, and build quality. Cost is a very big issue, so I would prefer if comments focused on the value (i.e. performance vs. cost) rather than just saying "The Canon is the best so you should get that one". I realize that the Canon probably has the best performance, but I'd like comments from people who own these lenses to tell me if the increased performance is worth the 2.5x increase in cost over the Sigma, e.g.
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG
Canon 24-70 f/2.8L
Tamron SP AF 28-75 f/2.8
I've been trying to get information from the internet but I'm getting somewhat mixed reviews. Some sites say that the IQ from the Sigma is better than the Canon, while others who purport to using the same ISO standard test claim that the Canon is far superior. Some sites say that the Sigma's focus is very loud while others say that it's almost as quiet as the Canon's USM. Some say that the Sigma has focus accuracy problems (which would be a big problem at such a shallow DOF), while others claim that the Canon is the one with the autofocus problems. Amazon.com's user reviews are also a mixed bag, with some claiming that the IQ is absolutely flawless and others saying that the IQ was so soft as to render the lens completely unusable.
Can anyone help me out here? Thanks
I'm thinking about replacing my Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS with a fast short tele lens in the 24-70mm range. I'd like to give up some range on the long end in order to gain a stop or two in aperture because shallow depth of field and fast shutter are important to me. Since my primary application is wedding photography and portraits, the IS is pretty useless because IS is more effective for static scenes and doesn't effect shutter speed.
Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone who owns any of the following three lenses can comment on the performance of the lenses, including cropped sensor image quality (which means that full frame corner performance doesn't matter, only center and cropped sensor corner), autofocus accuracy, speed, and loudness, and build quality. Cost is a very big issue, so I would prefer if comments focused on the value (i.e. performance vs. cost) rather than just saying "The Canon is the best so you should get that one". I realize that the Canon probably has the best performance, but I'd like comments from people who own these lenses to tell me if the increased performance is worth the 2.5x increase in cost over the Sigma, e.g.
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG
Canon 24-70 f/2.8L
Tamron SP AF 28-75 f/2.8
I've been trying to get information from the internet but I'm getting somewhat mixed reviews. Some sites say that the IQ from the Sigma is better than the Canon, while others who purport to using the same ISO standard test claim that the Canon is far superior. Some sites say that the Sigma's focus is very loud while others say that it's almost as quiet as the Canon's USM. Some say that the Sigma has focus accuracy problems (which would be a big problem at such a shallow DOF), while others claim that the Canon is the one with the autofocus problems. Amazon.com's user reviews are also a mixed bag, with some claiming that the IQ is absolutely flawless and others saying that the IQ was so soft as to render the lens completely unusable.
Can anyone help me out here? Thanks
