It's mostly here

Posts Tagged ‘фото тест sigma24-70 и canon 24-70

SIGMA 24-70, HSM F2.8 REVIEW PART 5 (Bokeh)

with one comment


This is to see which of the lenses produce a better bokeh effect. Wikipedia describes it as:-

“In photography, bokeh is the blur, or the aesthetic quality of the blur, in out-of-focus areas of an image, or “the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light.” Differences in and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting—”good” and “bad” bokeh, respectively.”

Canon Bokeh 01

Sigma Bokeh 01

Canon Bokeh 02

Sigma Bokeh 02


Canon Bokeh 03

Sigma Bokeh 03


These images are higher res for your viewing pleasure.

From what I can see, the Sigma lens gives a more rounded and far pleasing effect with the out of focus lights. I’m looking for another copy of the 24-70 Canon lens as I want to do some portraits with both lenses. At the moment I prefer the Sigma lens.

Written by jonathanjk

December 23, 2010 at 17:19

SIGMA 24-70, HSM F2.8 REVIEW PART 4 (Sharpness)

leave a comment »


None of these images have been edited other than the normal processing into jpegs from the original raw files.

What you will notice is a slight shift with what each lens can see. They are both set to 24mm but as far as I can tell, the differing lens designs capture two different amounts of space. This is because the Canon lens zooms out in order to capture the 24mm focal length and the Sigma zooms out at the 70mm. I neglected to include the 70mm for both lenses because the difference is even more pronounced. I’m sure this can be corrected but it’s probably beyond my time and patience.

Included below are some crops from the images above. From the centre and the middle showing centre sharpness and edge sharpness.

Centre Sharpness


Centre Focus Sigma 24-70 at f2.8 (24mm)

Centre focus. Sigma 24-70 at f22 (24mm)


Centre Focus. Canon 24-70 at f2.8 (24mm)

Centre Focus Canon 24-70 at f22 (24mm)

You can clearly see the Canon lens is without a doubt sharper in the centre of the lens than the Sigma at f2.8. At f22 it looks like the Sigma catches up some what but the Canon lens still bests it. You don’t even need to see it in the closeups, the thumbnails actually illustrate the differences.

Edge Sharpness


Edge Focus. Sigma 24-70 at f2.8 (24mm)

Edge Focus. Sigma 24-70 at f22 (24mm)


Edge Focus. Canon 24-70 at f2.8 (24mm)

Edge Focus. Canon 24-70 at f22 (24mm)


It’s going to be difficult here to make a true comparison because both lenses capture fractionally different  pictures (again lens design dictates this as mentioned previously). I also shouldn’t crop one lens to fit the frame of the other.  Otherwise it wouldn’t be a fair comparison since one of them won’t have been cropped from the edge of the frame.

For example, the details on the left side of the images (arched lines) for the Sigma are on the right side for the Canon crops.  Of course the area captured by Sigma looks sharper but that isn’t as near to the edge is it?  Anyway, the Canon lens I think is still sharper on all counts.  But the Vignetting is more pronounced, producing darker edges at 24mm than the Sigma.

SIGMA 24-70, HSM F2.8 REVIEW PART 3 (Depth of field)

leave a comment »

Depth of Field

Canon 24-70 L vs Canon 24 f1.4 L vs Sigma 24-70 (Quick note)

All these images are from unedited raw files. They show all these lens depicting as much of the same scene as possible for an accurate as possible comparison. I’ve organised the gallery to show the Sigma lens on one side and the Canon version on the other. At the bottom is the Canon 24mm L images just for comparisons sake.



Written by jonathanjk

December 18, 2010 at 13:43

Sigma 24-70, HSM f2.8 review part 2 (Vignetting)

leave a comment »


Canon 24-70 L vs Canon 24 f1.4 L vs Sigma 24-70 (Quick note)

Just to note, the focal plane will shift slightly between lenses due to the different designs of glass. At f2.8 and 24mm the Canon 24mm prime has less vignetting, followed by the Sigma, while to my eyes the Canon 24-70 looks sharper overall. At f2.8 the Canon has a more natural darkening of the edges.

The vignetting on the Canon prime at f1.4 is amazing in my opinion.  I love it!

Vignetting up Close

For comparison here are three crops from all the lenses, illustrating the different amount of vignetting. As you can see the Canon 24-70 is darker around the edges than the Sigma version. It also allows the Sigma to pick out more detail from the edges.  I’d say the 24mm Prime is sharper at f2.8 as well. Remember it isn’t working at its widest aperture like the other two lenses.  The vignetting with the Sigma seems more artificial, if you look at the images above, you can see the corners are well rounded unlike with the Canon lenses. The Canon has a more natural darkening of the outer edges.

Canon 24mm at f2.8

Sigma 24-70 at f2.8 (24mm)

Canon 24-70 at f2.8 (24mm)

Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM Part 1 (Introduction)

with one comment


For some photographers, only Canon glass will suffice, 3rd party lenses will never be a consideration. But Canon gears requires huge investment. Of course, there are other options for those photographers on a budget. Third party companies such as Sigma, Tokina and Tamron to name a few, offer lenses with similar features and capabilities. Though these alternatives are regularly updated and refined, some of these lenses are known for being heavier, louder and maybe not as well polished as the Canon version.

Perception of Performance

Have you heard the story about the back focusing problems with that Sigma lens, it needed to be returned three times by the photographer until he ‘had a good copy’? Yeah I heard that one as well. Maybe it is a true story, but there is a lot of noise online about quality issues with third party lenses. While I’m sure some of of these problems exist, the Internet has a habit of magnifying negative news over the positive. Canon isn’t perfect, but there isn’t the same kind of quality issues associated with buying Canon. Third Party manufactures still have a steeper hill (in terms of reliability) to climb in order to convince customers to buy their lens.

That aside, I needed a new lens and I couldn’t afford to buy Canon, I’m surrounded by other Canon shooters, it’s all too easy to stick with what you’re comfortable with. Having owned a previous version of the 24-70mm L by Canon, I was on the hunt for another and I always bought a pre-owned lens rather than paying full price. This time I couldn’t even afford second hand. Instead I bought the new Sigma HSM 24-70 f2.8. It was 25% cheaper than a second hand Canon 24-70mm L! Being a student forced me to consider the Sigma as an option, would I regret it?

In Part One. I want to introduce you to both lenses, illustrate their differences and in the following parts of the review, go over those silly old technical things such as image sharpness, bokeh, vignetting, and depth of field. I’ll also throw in Canon’s 24mm f1.4 L prime for some of the testing just for fun.

Hardware Compared

It’s use is legendary, a number of photojournalists have one in their camera bags. Christopher Morris from VII Photo, regularly uses one, as does James Nachtwey, Anne Lebowitz, Lauren Greenfield and Brent Stirton. It’s reputation is therefore well known in the pro photo world. Canon have updated this lens once before, the mark one (mk1) version use to be 28mm on the widest end. The mk2 which I’m reviewing here has better optics, updated lens coating, better weather sealing and improved autofocus mechanism. If you want a review and discussion of the first and second iterations of this lens then click here, here, here and here.

No illuminating introduction towards Sigma’s alternative because it’s so new to the market. Nobody famous can be linked to it, giving it the same sense of credibility as the Canon. Also a second version, with a review of the first one found here. I have used the previous copy myself and it is noisy, slow to focus and larger than the new version. It was about as large as the Canon 24-70 L lens I’m reviewing here.

The newer version is also improved; a complete redesign with new HSM focusing mechanism, faster, smaller, lighter. Here are comparison pictures before you read the following parts!**

Canon 24mm (left), Sigma 24-70 (centre), Canon 24-70 (right)

As you can see in this first picture, the Sigma is much smaller than the Canon version. Almost as small as Canon’s 24mm prime lens when retracted.

Sigma (left), Canon (right)

At this point it has to be mentioned that when both lenses are retracted, the Sigma is at the 24mm end while the Canon is at 70mm. The Canon differs because it’s designed (when used with the lens hood) to cover all its focal lengths in exactly the same amount from flaring. That is how I understand it so please correct me if I’m wrong. With the lens hoods attached, the lens doesn’t grow or shrink. The lens stays the same length within the Hood, the Sigma extends like any other lens would as the following pictures demonstrate. Both lenses twist in opposite ways. When twisting, (selecting the focal length) I find the Sigma has a little more resistance to it than Canon’s.

Hoods attached, lenses retracted.

Hoods attached, lenses extended.

Both lenses extended, without hoods.

Just the hoods.


Hoods attached.

The Sigma is immediately more portable, it’s lens hood is tiny compared to the Canon and the Sigma doesn’t curve outward making the whole barrel of the lens bigger than what it actually is.

Attached to a Canon Body.

Included in this introduction are some pictures which show the sizes of the lenses attached to Canon’s pro bodies, luckily I have two of them for the comparison shots.

Tidbits worth mentioning.

Focus selection button.

At this point I will say I prefer Sigma’s focus button, though not as sleek as the Canon, it does stick out more and I find I can safely switch between modes without taking my eye off the view finder to make sure it is doing as it’s told. The Sigma version sticks out a bit more and is bigger.

The slider while more refined, it is a little more difficult to operate.

Bigger, uglier but easier to operate.

Used with a Rayflash Ringflash.

I regularly use the Rayflash Ringflash, one thing I noticed is the I can fit the Rayflash over the Sigma lens with ease due to its size. Not so with the Canon because of its lens hood. In order to get it onto the camera I have to take that hood off. I’m not blaming Canon, but this has cropped up during use and I thought it might be of interest. You could say don’t use the hood but unless you want the ring flash to distort your images its required when used.  The manual focus ring is also partially obscured during use.

Ray Flash with Canon 24-70.

The Rayflash fits over and around the barrel of the lens.

You have to remove the hood to get the Rayflash off.

Ray Flash with Sigma 24-70

But everything isn’t perfect with the Sigma either, it too has a problem coupled with the Ray Flash. When retracting the lens, the hood will catch on the Ray Flash. Some adjustment is required  to get the lens back in. The manual focus ring is also partially obscured, but it is a small thing.

Sigma with Ray Flash

Lens Cap

Just one small last thing, I like how the Sigma lens cap is easier to remove because of its different design. It’s easier to get the Sigma cap off because the grips are on the front of the lens cap and it doesn’t interfere with the lens hood. Not true with the Canon, sometimes it’s quite hard to get the cap off if the hood is attached. I tend to remove the lens hood because I can’t always take the lens off with the hood attached.


A conclusion already?  Yes, just a small one, to concentrate primarily on the physical attributes of each lens.

I prefer the weight and the smaller size of the Sigma along with the little touches such as the focus selector and the lens cap. A Canon pro body with a Canon 24-70 (950g) is a heavy thing to hold for 6 hours a day. The Sigma (790g) doesn’t bother me so much. Yes, 160grams makes a difference to me. The Canon is weather sealed when coupled with a 1D series body, the Sigma won’t be.  I’m sure adding weather sealing would have upped the cost and weight of the lens. It might be a deal breaker for some. It’s also a reason why the AF mechanism is uglier than the Canon one. Canon’s is further integrated into the body so there is less chance of letting the elements in.

I’ve also little about the HSM and USM focusing systems until now. Having used the Sigma regularly I can’t say I’ve noticed a difference in speed or suffered with the focusing. I would say it’s the same as the Canon version so well done to Sigma, because not only do I feel I’m not missing the USM focusing, it is also huge improvement over the older type of focusing the previous 24-70 employed. I don’t have the means to test the speed of both focusing systems, you’ll just have to take my word for it that I’m entirely satisfied with its performance.

I had more issues with focusing on the 5D than I did with my 1Ds. I had more focusing issues when I used the 5D with the Canon 24-70. The type of body you use is important and probably why I don’t notice anything when either lens is being used with my Canon 1Ds mk2.

*At the time of writing, UK prices stand at Canon’s zoom lens being £800 and £1400 respectively while the Sigma version can be found for £600.

** The HSM stands for Hypersonic motor, much like Canon’s USM version which is uses a Ultrasonic motor.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 896 other followers