Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 compared to Canon 24-70 f/2.8

[hanika]

Yes, 100% understand the Canon lens is probably way better in build quality and made for a full frame body, but seeing the price of the Sigma lens I was wondering how much this lens could be an affordable replacement for the popular but super expensive Canon lens.

If I'm correct, the Sigma 18-50 will be around a 29-80mm lens on a full frame, making it a lens in the same range as the Canon 24-70.

Since I do a lt of street interview content, currently with a Canon 24-105 f/4.0, this feels like an interesting investment.

[shadowsports]

Greetings ,

I think the first question I:d like to ask is what camera you intend to pair the Sigma lens with?

These lenses are indeed in different leagues. The Sigma 18-50 f2.8 for Canon RF is an aps-c lens.  If you use it on a full frame body, example 24 megapixels the capture resolution of your images is going to be 9.3 megapixels.  Depends on what you're going to do with the output but it's not usually something I might recommend.

Video content would not be much different, it would still be capturing at a much lower resolution that your camera might be capable of.

The Sigma lens also doesn't have image stabilization.  For video, this might be a nice to have feature.  There is also a difference in optics quality between the two.  There's a reason why the Canon lens is 4x.the price 🙂

The focal length of the Sigma lens is not going to change If used on a full-frame body, but it's field of view will.  The images and video you capture will use a much smaller portion of the sensor.  While I wouldn't recommend the Sigma lens for full frame, it could work if you're okay with the capture resolution.  Again, however, my advice would be no.

I am a proponent of Sigma lenses.  I used them for many years prior to upgrading to mirrorless.  

These two lenses are on dramatically different spectrums from one another.  Each has its merits depending on the intended use.