J O N A T H A N JK . C O M

Conclusions

Forgive me if you find that I’ve repeated myself, some elements from this conclusion cross over with the Introduction.  I’m trying to keep short.

Advantages

Starting with quality, the Canon lens is noticeably sharper and able to gather more detail even when wide open.  The Canon lens is an older design but still holding it’s own against the newer Sigma.

The vignetting while more pronounced at f2.8, looks more natural and pleasing.  Whether you prefer this depends on yourself.  I really liked it.  Far more attractive than the vignetting with the Sigma lens.

The design of the Canon lens allows for weatherproofing, but it’s a larger lens for it and the construction is superior; built like a tank.  The Sigma feels solid. Not to knock Sigma’s efforts but you don’t see a single screw anywhere on the Canon lens’s streamlined outer hull.  It doesn’t mean the Canon lens will survive a drop any more than the Sigma would, fragile glass is still inside!

I found a benefit of Sigma’s design; the AF switch is far more finger friendly.  The user benefits from being able to operate the AF switch via touch alone, whereas the Canon’s AF switch conforms to the body shape so as to not snag on anything, but it is harder to switch focus modes without sometimes checking to see if it switched modes.

Disadvantages

The Canon lens is far larger and far heavier (nearly a kilo in weight).  The Sigma is positively speaking; half the lens in every way.  Along with the price.

A new Canon 24-70 L retails for around £1400 in the UK and around £800 second hand if you can find one.  A NEW Sigma meanwhile is just £600.  The reverse focal length design, zooming out to 24mm annoyed me, especially when I got close to my subjects.  I don’t tend to shoot landscapes so if you are a landscape photographer this might not be a big enough issue for you.
I don’t want to sound like I have weak wrists, but the Canon 24-70 L is a heavier lens to lug around with a Canon pro body for 6-8 hours a day.  It was one of the reasons why I sold it.  I kept the Sigma because of it’s price, weight and because I believe it’s good enough for what I need it to do.  Even though it suffers slightly with image sharpness as part 4 illustrated.

The way the Sigma zooms out to 70mm instead of 24mm feels more natural to me as well.  Much more practical when in the field. I do a lot of photo documentary work and I’d rather look less intimidating as people feel you were zooming in on them with the Canon lens. I don’t necessarily go out of my way to create ‘beautiful’ images.  Beauty in an aesthetic sense isn’t at the top of my list.  Thinking about it, the quality or should I say lack of quality gives my work an unfinished appeal which I like.

I briefly mentioned the focusing abilities of the Sigma lens in the introduction. But to reiterate, I felt my work hasn’t suffered.  The HSM is just as good as the USM focus mechanism.  I can’t time the differences (if there are any) but I feel I’m getting the same performance for less money.

I’m giving up the weatherproofing by choosing Sigma.  A feature I would have liked for comfort reasons, but it isn’t a deal breaker.  It’s the only feature I miss but I’m not pining over it.  How much does that say about the satisfaction I get from the Sigma lens or how much I needed weather proofing in the first place?

When it comes to putting photo stories together and showing my work, nobody has ever questioned the gear I use, maybe the body, but never the lens unless I offer that information up.  Nobody is demanding I use Canon glass for assignment x. Even with the weddings I shoot, people are attracted to my style.  In reality they care about the insurance and the planning of the event, not my gear.

Where does this concern you?

If your concerns are not financial, but quality and weatherproofing is,(but remember you need a 1 series body to take advantage of it) then the Canon is your only choice.  The older design is the reason for its weight (find a Canon 24-105 for example, it weighs next to nothing) but as I’ve illustrated, the quality hasn’t been surpassed.  I’ve also heard that the Canon 24-70 is due for an update, who knows what that would bring with regard to the issue of weight?

If you’re on a budget, if you’re a photography student, if you’re just in love with photography and don’t want to spend a huge amount of money, if you want a lens that works at f2.8 with that 24-70 focal range you should easily choose the Sigma HSM. You’re not going to benefit in a massive way by opting for the Canon.  You definitely won’t get twice as much from paying twice as much by going Canon, except maybe a feeling of comfort.  The Sigma works, its corrects all the flaws from the previous Sigma 24-70, such as the focusing. I would never recommend  and ask other photographers to consider Sigma’s previous design against the Canon 24-70.  But with this one I would definitely ask you to consider in your purchase options.

Also…

I still can’t help but think the Sigma lens is still trying to appeal to those on a budget (though they have pushed the boundary of what ‘budget’ is).  I’ve stated so twice now in this review.  It would be something else if Sigma really threw another Pro version of this lens out there to really give Canon some competition.  Another design, with the weatherproofing and better image quality.

Instead what we have here is a lens that corrects the flaws of the previous model.  Like Apple’s product philosophy; a newer iteration which improves over the previous but nothing that is going to be a massive jump hardware wise.  It would help with changing Sigma’s perception towards solely aiming for the price conscious photographer.