Alternative to Canon 24-70 f2.8L

Really would like one but it is way over budget.
So does anyone have any experience with the alternatives
like the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 or the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or
the Tokina 28-80 f2.8?

They all seem to get pretty good reviews. (except for the
funky manual focus procedure for the Sigma)
I would really like to get as close to 18MM as possible,
but with an f2.8 aperture.

What do you kind folks think?

T.W.

Taswolf wrote:
Really would like one but it is way over budget.
So does anyone have any experience with the alternatives
like the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 or the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or
the Tokina 28-80 f2.8?

They all seem to get pretty good reviews. (except for the
funky manual focus procedure for the Sigma)
I would really like to get as close to 18MM as possible,
but with an f2.8 aperture.

What do you kind folks think?

T.W.

The larger the F-stop, and the wider the lens the more money you are
going to pay.
If you go with one of the after market lenses it is going to cost less.
However, some of the lenses are not as good as the Canon Lenses. Some
are better. So you have to go to a store that will let you take a look
at them.

roland

"Taswolf" wrote:

Really would like one but it is way over budget.
So does anyone have any experience with the alternatives
like the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 or the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or
the Tokina 28-80 f2.8?

They all seem to get pretty good reviews. (except for the
funky manual focus procedure for the Sigma)
I would really like to get as close to 18MM as possible,
but with an f2.8 aperture.

What do you kind folks think?


I have the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG.

On an APS size digital sensor, at 24mm it is very soft wide open and
the centre doesn't get sharp until f/8. The edges are never sharp,
even at f/16. At 35mm and longer focal lengths, it gets sharp in the
centre by f/5.6 and sharp at the edges by f/8. At 28mm the
performance lies somewhere in between, with good sharpness across the
frame at f/11. I have another lens that covers the 24-28mm range so I
rarely use this one at focal lengths shorter than 28mm.

It ain't no Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, not by a long way, neither in terms
of optical performance nor in build quality - it is far too light to
be robust. But it costs a fraction of the price. Your call.

"Taswolf" wrote in message
...
Really would like one but it is way over budget.

Buy one anyway - you'll get FANTASTIC results, and it's not like it's
something that you'll have to upgrade in 18 months.

We take photos bacause we want to remember and admire things - why degrade
those images right from the start by buying compromised glass?

Really would like one but it is way over budget.

Buy one anyway - you'll get FANTASTIC results, and it's not like it's
something that you'll have to upgrade in 18 months.

We take photos bacause we want to remember and admire things - why degrade
those images right from the start by buying compromised glass?



I agree! If you have any lens at all on your camera use that and save until
you can afford the 24-70. If you just have the body, and no lens, get an
inexpensive prime or the kit lens and use that until you can afford the
24-70. If you purchase cheaper f2.8 glass you may very well upgrade to the
Canon lens later anyway which will in the end cost you more money than just
going for the Canon glass to start with.
Chuck

"piperut" wrote in message
oups.com...
However, some of the lenses are not as good as the Canon Lenses. Some
are better. So you have to go to a store that will let you take a look
at them.

roland

Sorry Roland, no such store in my town. They had to order the 50MM
prime for me from another store and they won't order lenses for me to try
out unless I intend to purchase it... Small town, small overhead you know.
T.W.

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
I have the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG.


It ain't no Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, not by a long way, neither in terms
of optical performance nor in build quality - it is far too light to
be robust. But it costs a fraction of the price. Your call.

Thanks for all the info (that I snipped out in this reply) Tony.
I would be using this lens primarily for fairly close (3-15 feet) pictures
of the grandkids, and especially for portrait type shots the sharpness
of this lens isn't terrible, is it?

T.W.

"C Wright" wrote in message
. ..

Really would like one but it is way over budget.

Buy one anyway - you'll get FANTASTIC results, and it's not like it's
something that you'll have to upgrade in 18 months.

We take photos bacause we want to remember and admire things - why
degrade
those images right from the start by buying compromised glass?

I agree! If you have any lens at all on your camera use that and save
until
you can afford the 24-70. Chuck


Ok Chuck and CJ, thanks for the input, but way over budget means just that.
I would love to have the top of the line Caddy to drive also, but have to
settle
for a Buick LeSabre. Damn fine car, but not quite a Cadillac.
You know what I mean?
I guess I am looking for a Buick priced lens with alot of the Cadillac
qualities
that everyone loves....

T.W.

I have a Canon 24-70 f2.8 L and also a Canon 17-40 f4 L. The one I use all
the time now is the 17-40, it has many advantages over the 24-70 in areas
such as weight, size and price. It goes wider than a 24-70 and at the long
end it's nothing foot zooming can't correct. The only disadvantage is it's
f4 but since it's so easy to bump up the ISO in a DSLR, it becomes a non
issue.

Jean

"Taswolf" a écrit dans le message de
...
Really would like one but it is way over budget.
So does anyone have any experience with the alternatives
like the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 or the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or
the Tokina 28-80 f2.8?

They all seem to get pretty good reviews. (except for the
funky manual focus procedure for the Sigma)
I would really like to get as close to 18MM as possible,
but with an f2.8 aperture.

What do you kind folks think?

T.W.

"Taswolf" wrote in message
...

Ok Chuck and CJ, thanks for the input, but way over budget means just
that.

What you need is my time-tested technique ...

"Buy now, justify later" - justifying it is always easier once you already
have it - it's worked like a charm for me for many years!

Seriously - and having been in the same position - I'd set yourself a goal.
In AUD it's probably only around $1850 - that's 18 $100 jobs + loose
change - setup an automatic payment from your pay for a small amount - have
a good look around home and get a few auctions going on eBay - look for ways
to earn extra money - I tend to look at it as being not a big amount - just
a small series of little amounts. Working hard for it makes it seem all the
more worthwhile when you get it.

Others might disagree, but in my opinion, if you're serious then there is no
substitute for this lens. I went from a kit lens that was nothing short of
embarrasing to the 24-70 F2.8L - the sharpness is amasing. Many have argued
the merits of kit lenses, but for me personally I was starting to wonder
just what I was doing wrong - until I got that first L glass - then all of a
sudden I can take a photo of a face - and see the individual pores in their
skin - and individual eye lashes. There's no going back once you've tried L
glass.