21 thoughts on “Sigma, Nikon, Canon: 24-70mm 2.8 compared”

1. John March 15, 2012 at 1:46 pm

   really nice review!
2. mike.kobal Post authorJanuary 4, 2012 at 1:03 pm

   thanks Dillon

3. Pingback: Dillon Walraven

4. Pingback: Canon 24-70mm F/2.8 L USM

5. Lipjam May 9, 2010 at 7:40 pm

   Thanks Mike

   Good honest review thank you!
   Have to say I am very impressed with the Sigma but the Nikon does seem to have a distinctive edge in contrast and depth. But that is more than reflected in the price differential.

   BTW to the Neekon pedant: there is a whole world outside of the States and some of us do pronounce it Naikon

   Regards

6. Pingback: digital camera comparisons

7. mike.kobal Post authorOctober 31, 2009 at 6:18 pm

   John, if price would not be a factor i would buy both. the nikon for studio the sigma for traveling and walking around.
8. John Sturr October 31, 2009 at 4:22 pm

   Mike – thanks for the review. Would you buy this over the Nikon if price was not a consideration.

   JSturr
9. mike.kobal Post authorJuly 25, 2009 at 1:16 pm

   I will be back with my 9mm UZI!
10. Jozer July 24, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    Dude, you sound like Arnold Schwarzenegger! Can you say ‘Uzi 9mm’?
11. Tony July 18, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    Thanks for the mini-review Mike. Did you have to check out multiple copies of the Sigma 24-70? I’ve heard many complaints about Sigma lenses requiring multiple copies to test or requiring calibration when new.

    I’d love to order a 24-70 HSM but no local dealer stocks it and I don’t want to get one shipped just to find out I’ve got a dud.

12. Pingback: Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 HSM for Nikon review

13. mike.kobal Post authorJuly 14, 2009 at 11:09 pm

    thanks guys, glad to hear it is helpful. yup the sigma is half price and amazing. as far as wide angle if you are on a budget the tamron 17-35mm is really good. (full frame) otherwise again, most scientific tests are overrated when it comes to practical comparisons. but check out photozone, link under blogroll to the right, they have very useful charts at all apertures on most lenses.
14. Phil Marchand July 14, 2009 at 11:04 pm

    Hi Mike,
    Thanks for the comparsion, in the process of doing some lenses shopping.
    Just curious if the Canon lense was the newest version, I noticed the Sigma lense is half the price.
    any suggestion for a wide angle zoom lense?
15. Andy July 6, 2009 at 7:03 am

    Thanks, Mike for a very informative and efficient review.
16. Sean June 12, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    Informative review, Mike, thanks for this. Very helpful! Appreciate the time!
17. mike.kobal Post authorJune 6, 2009 at 10:58 am

    thanks guys, and yes, I know – its “neekon”
18. Rob June 5, 2009 at 7:01 pm

    Thanks Mike for your review.
    I’ve been thinking about this lens for my Nikon, cos of its size and speed so I really enjoyed your review.

    Best
    Rob
19. anon June 5, 2009 at 3:44 pm

    It’s neither “Neikon” or “Naikon”.
20. ixess June 5, 2009 at 11:17 am

    Thanks for this comparison Mike.
    Great job for other photograpers.

    ixess
21. Peter Dahms June 5, 2009 at 8:25 am

    You present a very straightforward look at the three lenses. I am predisposed to like your conclusion as I am hoping to move up toa 5d and have no Sigmafobia. Thank you Mike.

    Peter