Sigmas lives up to the hype against Canon lenses??

[Lunatique]

Some people write reviews claiming that their Sigma lenses can match the quality/performance of Canon lenses that cost double or triple. Are these people exaggerating, or does this actually happen? (I'm in the middle of shopping for new lenses, and where I live, I can't rent lenses to test, so I can only rely on online reviews...)

Anyone used/owned any of these and have compared to the canon counterpart?


Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX DG
Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX HSM (I'd [probably take the Canon IS version, since I shoot in low light a lot)
Sigma 50-500mm F4-6.3 EX APO RF HSM
2X converter
105mm f2.8 EX Macro
180mm f3.5 EX APO Macro IF HSM

[Roger_Cavanagh]

My experience with Sigma lens is that such reviewers are exaggerating. But is a 5% or 10% difference worth 2-3 times the price? I guess that depends how rich and fussy you are? :)

Canon can charge premium prices for some of their lenses because they are better, and they are designed to work with EOS cameras. Canon don't release information to third party manufacturers, like Sigma, so they have to reverse engineer. Given this fact and the likelihood that they build to a price point, the difference is not surprising.

Regards,

[Mark Kemp]

Basically I agree with Lunatique.

I have a mixed bag of Canon standard and L lenses and one Cosina (thats what they are called in the UK). I have also used the Sigma 15-30.

Basically you get what you pay for, but its not in proportion. The cheapest lenses are still pretty good these days. A middle price lense will show a little more sharpness and perhaps a little less distortion around the edges or suchlike. A really expensive lens will be that bit better still, but you basically pay 90% of the price for the last 10% of the performance.

If you take the same picture on two different lenses and scrutinise them closely you will be able to see the differences, but I wouldn't expect the differences to be obvious.

BUT....

Another important point to consider is the handling. I disliked the Sigma 15-30, not because of the picture quality, but because it was awkward to use. The two major problems are that you can't take the lens hood off and you have to use both a switch and a slide ring to change from manual to auto focus.

Sometimes the manufacturers reduce the price by using cheaper materials or simplifying the mechanism and so the handling is not so good, or perhaps the lenses are not as strong or heavier. If you buy a lens and it is awkward to use you are less likely to use it and any quality of picture is better than none at all!

In the end its a balancing act between quality, performance and handling, how much you are likely to use it and how much you can afford, but I have never come across a really bad lens.

[gyelland]

I have both sigma and canon glass,

originally I always went for canon because I love the USM silent accurate focusing

but now sigma have their own HSM which is just as good I am going more for sigma.

I have the 15-30 and the 50-500

I still use the canon for my main, every day lenses for robustness and ease of use.

I print on A3 and publish on the web. I am sure if you but two pictures side by side on the web not many (if any) could tell you which lens was which. Might be an interesting test on the forum ?

Maybe on print on A3 it is more clear, but even then difficult and only under difficult lighting conditions.

It is clear that canon make great lenses, but also at a price. It really depends on what you are producing for, if its for publish or commercial then I would tend to stick with canon, if its for personal use then why not experiment.

For me in the end its what I am happy with for an output, and not the opinion of others. If they like it too its just a bonus.

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hi,

I have a maybe rather strange look on this :D.

In the cheap/middle class I think Sigma will outperfom the Canon series.

Talking about L class, well I don't know to be honest, but I think (read THINK) that if you go up in price Sigma is also cappable of making VERY good lenses.

Example.
I started with all Canon lenses.
First my 75-300III was exchanged with a Sigma APO f2.8 70-210 which I bought second hand, this one BLOWS the Canon away, but is originaly in the 4x price range.

More exactly.
I compared a Canon 35-105 lens with a Sigma 28-105 f2.8-f4 and the Sigma was definitly sharper and more detailed.

I bought the Sigma.

Just now I did not even looked at Canon and just blindly bought my last lens (for the time) a Sigma 145-400 APO f4-5.6 I have not seen shots yet except on my display so I'm anxious to check that one out. The same specs in Canon range would have cost me 3x the money.

To be honest I'm no professional but I do want the performer lenses, the 2.8APO 70-210 although an old lens has resulted in pictures that can rival (I think) a more expensive Canon lens. Sigma is my brand of choice because on the tests it's the most talked about and my experience is VERY VERY positive.

When I'm making money or winning the lottery I will go for a xxx-400 IS L from Canon, untill that time Sigma will rule my bag.

By the way, I did buy a Canon Flash :D.

Greetings,
Frank

[CyberDyneSystems]

I am another "Mixed bag" owner,...

All the lenses I use the most are Sigma's

Of those you list I can assure you the 70-200mm f/2.8 is an incredible lens at an incredible price.

Further,. the 50-500mm is my most used lens as I focus on wildlife photography.

My Canon 50 f/1.8 is another of the best deals in lenses out there. For $70.00 evryone should own it.

Then there is the 17-40mm "L"
This is a wonderfull lens,. very well suited to the 10D and the only "L" I could justify price Vs. competitors.


I think the others are spot on.

Sigma makes some cheap lenses too,. but if you stick to the "EX" series with "HSM" motors,. they will outperform a lot of Canon's lower priced consumer lenses.

The "EX" is Sigma's "L",. and no I doubt that they are 100% as good as Canon's "L" series,. but I would not be at all surprised if they 98% as good. :)


Get that 70-200mm f/2.8 "EX" or the 50-500mm "EX" and you will see,.. these are rock solid lenses that really perform.

[Motorsports Photo]

My experience is that while the glass may be good, Sigma's engineering is poor. Tokina and Tamron seem to be better made, but do not out-perform OEM Canon lenses.

I had a Sigma 75-300 that I had let slide out to its stops, and the stops were broken. I sent it back for repair. When the same thing happened again, I took it apart myself for inspection. I found out they had super-glued the stops back to the framework. Sheesh.

-Pete

[slau]

I think there are certain Sigma lens are as good as or better than Canon lens. I myself have 3 L lens (70-200, 28-70 & 17-40), 2 non-L (20f2.8 & 50F1.8 ) and one Sigma lens (50-500), plus the Canon 1.4X & Sigma 1.4X. Canon D60 is my first DSLR (graduated from Olympus 2500L & Minolta D7). I have been shooting Hasselblad for the last 15+ years, and image quality is crucial for me.

I did test the Sigma 50-500 against the Canon 300f4 & 100-400IS a few times before deciding on the Sigma. Optically, I believe that my Sigma is a touch sharper than the 100-400 @400mm. The 300f4 is the sharpest of the three and handled beautifully. If I don't want the 500mm reach, I would have pruchased the 300f4. Eventually I think I will purchase a 300f4, probably an used one at a good price.

I have been shooting with the Sigma for about 6-7 months now. It is the most used lens on my D60. It took me quite a few hundred shots before I felt comfortable with the lens. Mind you that I haven't shot such a long and heavy lens before. When I got everything together, the image is just wonderful and I couldn't have asked for more from this lens. I am still learning the long lenms technique and I shoot mostly at the 500mm end close to wide open.

I cannot comment on the other Sigma lens as I haven't 'used' them. For the same token, I don't think I can comment on the other Canon lens I haven't used either.

[Erin]

I have used ED Nikkors and EF Canon Ls that belonged to the Newspaper I once worked for. I do some freelance editorial and sport work my kit consists of a D60 and 10D Canon a 50mm Macro, a 15-30 and a 70- 200 HSM Sigma and a 1.4 convertor. Plus flash and the other neccesary incidentals.

Both Nikon and Canon constant aperture zooms are more ergonomic to use than the Sigmas, not by much but the design is more intuitive. A good example of this is the direction the zoom turns when being operated. With the Sigma's, every time I use them, I have to tell myself "this mother turns the wrong way!" This is after a year of use.

That apart, I am happy with the performance of these lense's for editorial photography. The 15-30 is an excellent lens for enviromental photography, sharp, wide and fast enough to be very useful on a D60/IOD.

Apart from the zoom direction, the 70-200 HSM EX Sigma is as nice to use as a similar Nikon or Canon. The image quality delivered by my example is very good when it is held still, or used with very high shutter speeds. I use mine to supply action pics to a sports picture agency, and also for available light photgraphy for theatrical peformances, among many other uses. A monopod with this lens is a cheap and viable option to paying hard dollars for a fine Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS. Another Sigma advantage over the Canon IS is that your cameras batteries last longer.

Build quality is also of a high standard, and if handled carefully, such as any high quality optical device should be, EX Sigmas give me the impression that the working life should match a similar Nikon or Canon. The pro who is careless with his employers or especially his own gear("I work my gear hard and a Sigma would fall apart in 6 months.) is really just a cretin and to be totally disregarded as a credible source.

And finally, yes my 50mm 2.8 Macro is at Sigma being rechipped to work on the 10D. I hope they hurry up, I miss this useful wonderfully sharp portrait and closeup lens, an essential part of my kit.

[Lunatique]

So, it looks like the only Canon lenses that don't have competitors are the IS ones? Someone mentioned that a monopod is much cheaper, and steadier than IS, but is the monopod truly a practical option? When I shoot, I'm all over the place--lying down on the ground, hanging over balcony, standing on the furniture..etc. I can't imagine a monopod being very practical in my case. IS, however, seems much more practical/useful?

[Erin]

I was referring to using the monopod in such venues as a theatre where handheld IS would be of dubious value. Virtually all other use of my 70-200 is hand held and with publication in mind

The money is yours to spend, in the situations you have used above, I personally would just use good camera and lens technique and practical experience as to what can actually be acheived. With the money saved from buying IS I would then have half the price of a Sigma 100-300 2.8, which also does not have IS!

If you wish to find a lense that will let you handhold at 15th sec while standing on your head, all power to you! but watch for the rush of blood

[floda]

I have two Sigma lenses:

28-70mm F2.8 EX Aspherical
70-200mm f2.8 EX APO IF HSM

I am very happy with them. I do think that they are just a good as the Canon equivalent. Now I have to say that I am shooting only digital (10D). I read a lot of reviews before I decided on the purchase. I found that the only difference on the Canon lenses was the edge sharpness. Now, this you can forget if you are shooting with a D30, D60, 10D since the smaller chip size crops the image anyway. Should you be shooting 35mm there might be a bit of a difference, but in my opinion it is definitely not worse the extra money you pay.

IS is a different story. I wish I would have it sometimes. Sigma is also coming out with their version of it, but there not much to see yet!

Adolf

[clayk]

Interesting discussion. I plan to buy a 70-200 2,8 lens in the next few days. I do not need IS so that is not an issue. Looks like the difference in cost from Sigma to Canon is $450.00 or so (new).

My question is, how rugged are they. My local camera store claims the Canon is far superior in durability. I am a former news photography. WHile I tend to try to take care of my equipment, sometimes bad things happen.

Anyone care to offer their opinion on durability?

[martcol]

I've got a Sigma 15-30 and Canon 28-135 IS. Both good lenses but the Canon has it. It's not fair obviously, to compare two very different lenses but that aside there's something about the Sigma that misses it for me. It's a nice bit of kit but it lacks definition and the coulour's over saturated. I find that really wierd anyway that two lenses can be so different in the end result especially with colour/contrast. Now already that's unfair. The Sigma maybe doesn't lack definition it's just not quite up to the Canon. It may be that some would prefer the Sigma's colour. It could be regarded as a bit punchier.

I think I use my 28-135 much more and that's what I got used to. The Sigma's a bit noiser but not noticeably slower to focus and it doesn't frighten children or anything. It doesn't hunt any more or less than the Canon and when it does it's more likely to be my fault. As much as I could argue that it's awkward to use you could say that it feels more robust or chunkier than the Canon.

I agree with the sentiments also about the percent improvement in output compared to the percent different in cost. Weighing that up is a matter of budget and choice. I keep hearing that the better a lens the more you get out of the camera but I certainly don't percieve the Sigma as inferior. On top of all that, I just want L lenses now. I've been so happy since having my 10D but so jealous of all that other kit! When will it ever stop?

Martin - who realises he's sitting on the fence. 8)

Go Cannon!

[CyberDyneSystems]

clayk wrote:

My question is, how rugged are they. My local camera store claims the Canon is far superior in durability. I am a former news photography. WHile I tend to try to take care of my equipment, sometimes bad things happen.

Anyone care to offer their opinion on durability?

While I haven't had my Sigma's for a long enough time to back this up,. my impression of the two "EX" lenses I have is that they are rock solid. I also have a "non-EX" lens and the difference is dramtic,.. more dramatic than the difference between a Canon 'el cheapo and a Canon "L". The Sigma "EX" line seems to be almost "overbuilt". I suspect this lends to the feeling that they are too bulky or heavy that some complain about,. but I tend to dismiss that impression,.. heay and bulky is just a result of the switch from a plastic consumer lens to a lens with larger optics and a strudy housing.

[Marignan_1515]

I have a sigma 28-300 f/3.5-5.6. When the optical isn't at the top, it's quite good for such a large range, especially given the low price: I wasn't expecting a top-optical-perfomance lens for about $300 at that time.
However, the sharpness isn't as good as canon lenses (I'm not talking about L lenses, just regular ones around $300-$600).
I was quit happy with this Sigma lens for 2 years, and was able to make some great pictures (most of my site pictures have taken with this lens http://jweber1.free.fr/

My main concern about Sigma is the built quality:
One week after I bought it (2 years ago), I started to have aperture issues: apperture remains in the previous shot setting. (if stuck in f/11, the body started from there telling it was f/3.5... there was not way to take the next picture). I had to push the DOFview button, and turn the wheel to min aperture, then back to max aperture.
Back from my trip, the dealer gave me a new one. no more issue for the next 2 years.

Last month, aperture started again to show weird behavior during a couple of weeks, and eventually stay stuck at f/11 without any way to reset...I was again far from home with just this lens, I've taken a bunch of pictures w/o AF at f/11 fixe aperture (a prime lens from an aperture standpoint? :D )
In addition to that, when I turn the manual focus ring, I can hear a small mechanical scraping noise... no a ood sign at all...

If you add to that my older sigma lens I was using with my regular 35mm Pentax camera (this one lost AF capabilty after 3 years, and the zoom ring started to have huge mechanical play (almost 5mm after 4 years).

I can hear you saying that I may be reckless with my lenses: I'm using/used several old/new lenses from other brands (Zenith, Takumar, (some are 30 years old!) and they all look like new! So I guess I can take care of lenses... :p

I've decided to go back to Canon as well as Tokina which have a good reputation in built quality.

:( For me, that's the end of the Sigma adventure... never again...

[jeffmgr]

Slau,

Hi, I'm new to this forum....you mentioned that you used Nikkor as well as Canon lenses at work....so maybe you can give me some advice.

I'm entering the digital slr field, and have used Nikons in the past. I've heard pros & cons regarding both the Nikon 100D, and the Canon 10D. It seems that whomever I talk to has options on both. Can you give me the lowdown on your feelings, which is the better camera. I'm just using it for a personal hobby at this point, and only have 2 Nikkor AF lenses that I use with my 8008s body.
thanks,
jeffmgr

[Leigh]

My two Canon lenses, 28-135 IS, & 100-400 IS L both had manufacturing defects, and had to be sent to Canon Factory Service for repair.

My two Tamron lenses, 90mm Macro, & 28-200 have always worked flawlessly----- and the cheap 28-200 often takes sharper, less distorted, and more saturated images at 28mm, then the 28-135 IS.

Maybe that's why Canon lenses have only a one year warranty, and Tamron's have six!

Leigh

[Jack_Mioff]

My experience with Sigma comes from years of owning certain Sigma zoom lenses which at the time served their purpose. Today, I take photographs for my sales. I use Canon EF series lenses for the purpose of getting the best image to my client. Once I made the decision to try a Canon L EF lens just for example, I have not gone back.

I would suggest you join a local photohraphy club and ask your fellow members if any of them could borrow you their lenses to see if you like their quality, or if the quality is acceptable for your needs.

[Lunatique]

See, the trick is, to get lenses that you'd KEEP. Of course, if newer/better lenses are released with wider f stop, longer zoom range, and better IS technology, it'd be very very tempting to upgrade. Right now, I'm trying to come up with a shopping list that I won't regret down the line:

Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX DG - I love that it is the widest angle zoom I can get, but I don't like the fact it's not as fast as I'd like. f/4.5 at the 30mm end is pretty slow, no?

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM - Double the cost of the Sigma, lose 1mm at the wide end, but you get constant f/2.8. Is it worth it?

Canon EF 17-40 f/4L USM - I'd lose 2mm at the wide end, and that's pretty significant in the wide angle range. The cost is a lot more reasonable, and f/4 would probably be decent for most shots.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM - I've seen photo examples produced by this lense, and it's just drop-dead gorgeous. Such a practical focal range too! BUT, my reason for maybe not getting it is that I'll be using the 50mm f/1.4, and a wide-angle zoom to cover that range anyway for the most part, and I know for sure I'll be getting a 70-200 IS, so the long end is covered by that lens as well. But I tell ya, the ONLY reason I'd not get this lens is because I can't justify spending more money when I'll be getting the 70-200 IS, 15-30, and the 50mm.

Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF - This cost so little compared to the Canon. I haven't read any thing special about it though. No ravings about it's quality or anything.

Sigma 50-500mm F4-6.3 EX APO RF HSM - I'm debating whether or not to get this one. Since I'll be getting the 70-200 IS for sure, I can put a 2X TC on it. I've seen pics taken with the 2X TC, and it's nowhere as bad as people say. In fact, the samples I saw were prestine.

Sigma 180mm f3.5 EX APO Macro IF HSM - This one looks like it should be every bit as good as the Canon version, but costing less.

*sigh* I wish I had the answers.

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hi,

Try to get the 70-200 f2.8 APO, I have the 70-210 f2.8 APO and that one is simply put AMAZING, the pictures are increadible sharp and the lens has more than enough light, mate it with a 2x convertor and you will be in heaven.

Greetings,
Frank