Originally Posted by piiooo
Sigma just released new, HSM edition of this lens, supposedly much better. I think it may be worth looking into.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS is $899.00 at B&H. I'd rather spend the extra $290 and get the Canon L. The Tamron on the other hand is a measly $389.95 [:P]
i read that the sigma is not as good as the tamron, and that tokina is actually evn better than the tamron?
I would get a 24-105 mm f4 L IS USM lens which you will most probably be able to use 90% of the time.
Mr. Rag,
Which Tokina are you refering to? The Tokina AF 28-70mm f/2.8-2.6 AT-X Pro II has been discontinued.
Adorama has a used Tok 28-70 SV (the original) for $299.99.
I read on photozone.dethat most if not all Tokina lenses suffer from harsh CA pollution. I'd be intersted to see some high contrast shots with Sean's new 11-16.Pentax has rebranded some Tokina developed lenses that exhibit the same CA issues. It's the Tokina "finger print" so to say.
Just as a disclaimer, I'm not discounting a lens based on CA quality. The 11-16 produces the highest MTF figures for a lens in it's class. I have a discontinued EF 17-35 f2.8L that I really like. It produces green/red CA in high contrast situations. It does not purple fringe which is a common CA sympton with older film lenses. The green/red that is produced by my 17-35 is very easy to clean up during raw processing with SilkyPix. So, for me, it makes no difference. It's just part of the normal process.
The nicer Tamrons (28-75 f2.8 DI and 17-50 f2.8 DII) that I have used have never produced any noticeable CA. Tamron seems to do an excellent job with their coatings on this class of lens. The less expensive class like the 70-300 f4-5.6Di LD Macro can at times produced very nasty purple fringing CA. That kind of CA is the hardest and most time consuming that I have found to clean up.
This CA issue can be extremely important if you are shooting straight to Jpeg and not doing any post processing. Some people will never pay any attention to it but I've been doing this long enough (and thus gotten way too picky)to see how dramatic an effect it can have on a finished image. This issue isexacerbatedwith FF and ultra wides.
AFewMoreAbes,
Chuck
The Sigma is indeed very good according to a detailed review which I don't remember where I have seen it. It's slightly better than the Canon optically. Sigma these years seems to be very ambitious, their 50/1.4, 150/2.8 Macro, 24-70/2.8 HSM all seem to compete head to head with Canon and Nikon optics.
All I'm saying here is that I think Sigma does have a reason to sell their new 24-70 lens at such a price, but I agree with you - for that much money I'd rather get my 2nd copy of Canon 24-70L...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote