Need to buy a new lens ASAP - Sigma or Canon?

[Steve Crawford]

I started work for a new company, and was given a budget to purchase cameras and lenses for photography and video. I have the Mark 3 body on order, and was going to try and get two multi-purpose lenses that will cover MOST of my needs. I won't be doing a lot of portrait work - mostly event.

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 L blah blah on order, but I needed a shorter range lens - and here's where I'm stuck. Ideally, I'd get the new Canon 24-70 2.8 L, but I'm not sure I have the luxury of time waiting for it to be shipped - since as best I can tell, they're all pre-order only now - with no real ETA.

So, I've currently narrowed it down to one of two lenses to cover me. The Canon 24-105 f/4 L and the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. I hate losing the low light capabilities of a 2.8, but do the low light of the Mark 3 make up for it? I would probably be shooting in decently lit places for the most part, so f/4 might be ok. And then I could back it up and use the 70 at 2.8 if I need to.

I personally own a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 from years ago that I could probably store here just in case.

I guess, what I'm asking is, what would you do?

[Chris Medico]

Why not buy the original version of the 24-70? That is a fantastic lens.

[Bill Pryor]

I agree. If you need the faster lens, the 24-70 is excellent. I have the 24-105 which I like even better. If I'm in low light situations where I don't want to boost the ISO, I can always use my much faster primes. But with the 5DII I shoot at 320 ISO all the time and 640 sometimes with no problems at all.

Another factor is that if your'e shooting video, in most cases you're going to want to be at around an f5.6 with a full frame camera to keep enough depth of field so you can follow focus without a lot of hassle. I only shoot at wider apertures than f4 when I want a super shallow DOF for some reason, or if I'm under extremely low light.

[Steve Crawford]

Originally Posted by Chris Medico

Why not buy the original version of the 24-70? That is a fantastic lens.

Is the original one still available through retailers, or only individuals? I'm fine with that, personally, just unsure as to company policy if they want warranties, or something. Something to look into, I guess.

[Chris Medico]

I just did a search and found a few in stock at reputable retailers.

B&H and Adorama are both sold out of the original version.

[Steve Crawford]

I found a good used one from B&H - not refurbished, used. It ranks at "8+," which means "Shows moderate wear or finish marks." Does that version (or either of the 24-70s, for that matter) have IS?

Or, would you opt for the new 24-105 f/4?

Roughly the same price, so that's not an issue. Leaning towards the 24-105 for IS, and factory warranty/etc. But, I've never used either lens, so I'm not sure if there's an overall preference to one - except what Bill said about preferring his 105.

[Chris Medico]

The 24-105 is also an excellent lens.

[Buba Kastorski]

depends if you shoot more offten indoor or outdoor, plus 24-105 is IS, 24-70 is not;
but both are very good lenses

[John Wiley]

Just to make things more confusing for you... I'd pass on the Simga as there's better options available now - like the new Tamron 24-70 VC.

The old Canon 24-70 is also still a great lens, but I'd hesitate to recommend it based purely on the fact that limited stock and the higher price of the new model has caused prices to skyrocket as people grab them up to avoid paying the premium or waiting for the new one.

The 24-105 is a excellent choice, but you'll probably want at least one faster prime for those times when you need to shoot in dimmer environments. The 50mm 1.4 would be a good choice, and the combo of these 2 lenses will still probably cost less than either of Canon's 24-70's.

[Brian Brown]

I have the 24-105 and just love it as a "walkabout" lens for b-roll. It has great range in a single lens, and the IS allows me to shoot handheld. With the MkIII I don't really worry about cranking the ISOs up, because it can tolerate some pretty high ISOs and still look pretty usable.

My current crop of video/stills glass is the 17-40/f4L, the aforementioned 24-105, and the 70-200/f4L IS. This gives me constant f4, and IS past 24mm all the way to 200mm.

When I interview on a tripod, I go to primes, like the EF 85/f1.8 and a range of vintage Nikkor MF primes... 50/f1.4, 105/f2.5, 135/2.8 etc.

I do lust after the EF 135mm/f2L and the TS-E 90mm, but have a local rental outfit that I can borrow those from when the urge strikes.

[Maurice Covington]

Originally Posted by Steve Crawford

I I have the Mark 3 body on order, and was going to try and get two multi-purpose lenses that will cover MOST of my needs. I won't be doing a lot of portrait work - mostly event.

If you're seeking 2 lenses, in my opinion, you go with the 70-200 II and the 24-70 I or 24-70 II. Anything wider than 24 is probably to wide unless you doing something very special and in those instances I would suggest that you go to your local camera store and rent the lens.

Don't forget a good flash or two some really good video lights, and an external sound recording device.

[Tariq Peter]

I have the 24-70 and the 70-200 I have to say that going down to 2.8 is something that I nearly always do. IS does not really bother me as I almost never shoot hand held,. My 5DMK3 is permanently attached to my monopod or tripod.