I'll be writing something up on this tonight, but I did a little back yard comparison Saturday while waiting for the wife to get home from work... I realized I own 4 lenses that have 24mm as an option (and I still have 2 more 24mm lenses I'd "like"!) so I threw them all on the tripod and shot through the range. Interesting results. I did the same with my 4 ~50mm lenses and will try to get that done tomorrow, also with similar interesting results.

This should be interesting, seeing as how I own 2 of those same lenses.

Im curious myself, I just ordered myself a 24-70L

Originally Posted by subimatt

Im curious myself, I just ordered myself a 24-70L

Careful, it's liable to never leave your camera once you put it on.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

Originally Posted by subimatt

Im curious myself, I just ordered myself a 24-70L

Careful, it's liable to never leave your camera once you put it on.

So Ive heard, Ill have to make sure the other lenses dont get neglected. Maybe ill let the play with the rebel.

OK, I put the review up:
http://www.newschoolofphotography.com/?p=59

center images compared:


corners:


all lenses are pretty good. Exposure issue aside I think it's the 17~40mm L, then 24~70mm L, then Nikon 24mm f/2.8 and then the sigma. Choosing between the first 2 comes down to which range you need and if you need f/2.8 or not. For what I shoot they both have a place in my kit and compliment each other nicely. The Sigma keeps getting beat by the 17~40mm L in every test I can throw at it, but it's still the best option in the 12~16mm range. I haven't decided yet if I'll sell it or keep it just for those situations...

So what's up with the sigma in the first series? Exposure off? It looks worse at f/16 than wide open.

it's always needed -1 or -2 EV. And nope, that's it's crappy optics mixed with diffraction. If you notice all 4 lenses are worse at f/16 than f/11... The sigma is just MUCH worse.

here's the scene btw, as shot by the nikon (everything else blew the sky out):