Sigma lenses yes or no?

[Flootje]

I found on the net the Canon 300 mm f 2.8
IS USM AF lens for 3530 US dollars with a travel case and bla bla...

then somewhere else i found the Sigma 120-300 mm
f 2.8 ex APO HSM lens for 1700 US Dollars

As you can see the price difference is huge! i personally am more temped to buy the Canon lens because it's canon. (if my bank manager agrees)

I use the EOS 10 D and the EOS 3, my Sigma lens from before was not compatitible on the 10 D, so i sold it but
does it work now on digital cameras, the new lenses then!?

the Canon has the IS on it and the Sigma does not!
What do you guys think...the price difference is huge but i do need a 300mm so i can put the 2x on it and use it as a 600mm

Any ideas!?

[CyberDyneSystems]

YES!

Sigma is making some super kick @$$ lenses that are a bargain when compared in price to there Canon counterparts.

As a general rule you can epect a very high quality of lens from Sigmas that bare the "EX" moniker. (although like any series of lenses, some are better than others)

Many owners of Canon "L" glass, myself included have also been very satisfied with the better "EX" Sigma lenses.

One of the Sigmas I own is the 500mm f/4.5 EX HSM prime. It is the best lens I have ever used.

Based on this experience I have been eyeing the 300mm f/2.8 EX prime AND the 120-300mm f/2.8 EX Zoom.

Owners of the zoom love it. (I have found no negative reviews) but having exprienced the clarity of the 500mm prime I am torn...

One thing to consider is that many people will insist that a prime funcrions better with a teleconverter better than ANY zoom,.. no matter how good the zoom is.

Lastly, I have not found any side by side comparisions of the Sigma 120-300 Vs. either of the Primes,. but I have read three side by sides of the 300mm primes.. (in some cases with Tamron and Tokina 300mm primes in the round up as well.)

General consensu,. the Canon allways comes out on top... but not by a huge factor. So then it becomes cost vs. incremnetal improveent on performance. for a pro it can be easy.. get the canon. For hobbiest, artists, enthusiasts.. the savings can be huge. (My 500mm was about 1/3rd the cost of the Canon equivelent.)


Soooo you may be deciding between three lenses.. The Canon,. and the Sigma Zoomand the Sigma Prime...

[robertwgross]

Flootje, you will get better advice if you can describe what kind of photography you intend to do with the lens.

If you state "wildlife", then that might be insufficient. It takes a different lens to shoot at an elephant than it does to shoot at a deer mouse.

If I had a choice between a Canon lens and a Sigma lens, and they had the same focal length or focal length zoom range, and if the aperture and other specifications were the same, and if the price was the same, then I would choose the Canon lens. However, you will find some mismatch, like the IS feature, and that makes direct comparison thorny.

Most of my lenses are by Canon. In one case, however, Canon does not produce any lens with the focal length range of one Sigma lens. Then, the Sigma lens price was about 25% of what a Canon lens price would have been, if it existed. So, I have one Sigma lens only.

---Bob Gross---

[Canuck]

flootje wrote:
I found on the net the Canon 300 mm f 2.8
IS USM AF lens for 3530 US dollars with a travel case and bla bla...

then somewhere else i found the Sigma 120-300 mm
f 2.8 ex APO HSM lens for 1700 US Dollars

As you can see the price difference is huge! i personally am more temped to buy the Canon lens because it's canon. (if my bank manager agrees)

I use the EOS 10 D and the EOS 3, my Sigma lens from before was not compatitible on the 10 D, so i sold it but
does it work now on digital cameras, the new lenses then!?

the Canon has the IS on it and the Sigma does not!
What do you guys think...the price difference is huge but i do need a 300mm so i can put the 2x on it and use it as a 600mm

Any ideas!?

Hi!
I have the 120-300mm Sigma lens you mentioned and go see this one: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17348 and these were the first few pics taken w/ that lens mind you!
There are 2 pics I took with the aforementioned lens and note that they are JPEGs to start with. The Tenby Wales one was one of the first pics taken with that lens, and was first used in Wales. Make no mistake, it is a stunning piece of kit. But be ye warned, the UV and CPL filters will run about another $200-$300 together! What you get are 105mm filters. I've taken numerous pics of the moon, and lots of other pics (Concorde, 24 Oct 03 at LHR) plus many more and am truely stunned. The next one day was when I stopped shooting JPEG and went exclusively RAW, unless situation dictates otherwise it was another revelation! Go have a look and see. I don't know how the Canon lens shoots, but damn is this a good 'un. I also have a Canon 16-35L lens that I use a lot! One bit of advice, the 120-300mm lens weighs in at 5.75 pounds! Keep that in mind. I will be happy to share more info on it.

Also, unless they aren't EOS lenses; which they are EOS compatible, because you said that they worked with the EOS 3, you are likely getting "Err 99" a lot and that requires a free rechip from Sigma. I was looking at their site and can't find the article that relates to that. That being the case, you will need to send it to them to sort it. They are in Ronkonkoma, NY (Long Island, kinda near Medford). You can have a look at their site: http://www.sigma-photo.com and see what's up.

My reccommendation, save the $$$$ get the Sigma and telezoom if needed. It ill be about 1/3 the cost, and you get a zoom lens instead of a prime. Some may argue that the sharpness isn't the same for zooms vs primes. That shouldn't be an issue and computer monitors can't handle a 6.3MP pic and printers I don't think can either.

Just my 20 pence...

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[Canuck]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
YES!

Sigma is making some super kick @$$ lenses that are a bargain when compared in price to there Canon counterparts.

As a general rule you can epect a very high quality of lens from Sigmas that bare the "EX" moniker. (although like any series of lenses, some are better than others)

Many owners of Canon "L" glass, myself included have also been very satisfied with the better "EX" Sigma lenses.

One of the Sigmas I won is the 500mm f/4.5 EX HSM prime. It is the best lens I have ever used.

Based on this experience I have been eyeing the 300mm f/2.8 EX prime AND the 120-300mm f/2.8 EX Zoom.

Owners of the zoom love it. (I have found no negative reviews) but having exprienced the clarity of the 500mm prime I am torn...

One thing to consider is that many people will insist that a prime funcrions better with a teleconverter better than ANY zoom,.. no matter how good the zoom is.


Soooo you may be deciding between three lenses.. The cANON,. AND THE sIGMA zOOM AND THE sIGMA PRIME...

CDS,
That 500mm prime, got a question...Torn in a good way?
How's that?

Cheers,
Canuck

[CyberDyneSystems]

Canuck wrote:

CDS,
That 500mm prime, got a question...Torn in a good way?
How's that?

Cheers,
Canuck


Yes,. ton in a good way as in the 500 prime is so spectacular.. I am concerned that I will like the 300mm prime better than the 120-300mm zoom.

I KNOW the 120-300mm zoom is a spectacular lens and one of the better zooms... but what I don't know (and won't unless I can do a side by sode comparison myself) is if the qualities of the 500mm prime that I love so much will be limited to primes only.

p.s..... sorry about the caps lock earlier :) Ugh!

[Canuck]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Canuck wrote:

CDS,
That 500mm prime, got a question...Torn in a good way?
How's that?

Cheers,
Canuck


Yes,. ton in a good way as in the 500 prime is so spectacular.. I am concerned that I will like the 300mm prime better than the 120-300mm zoom.

I KNOW the 120-300mm zoom is a spectacular lens and one of the better zooms... but what I don't know (and won't unless I can do a side by sode comparison myself) is if the qualities of the 500mm prime that I love so much will be limited to primes only.

p.s..... sorry about the caps lock earlier :) Ugh!


CDS,
Oh no! He's gone to the dark side. That is a ton of primes alone :) That's cool though, it is you not me that has to lug them. LOL! I can't get enough of my 120-300mm lens! I use it at every opportunity I can. I'll e-mail you a question.

Cheers,
Canuck

[Flootje]

Hey guys,

Thanks alot for your replies...

First of all I shoot most of the time windsurfing and kiteboarding...I need a lens that focuses quickly...

I do think the IS is an extra good point on the Canon lens... i am also nerveous about getting the sigma lens and having to sent it away to get it chipped again but it's a minor point to the price!

I do work for some magazines and hope to get more shoots for manufacturers in the sport! so I am working on it to be more pro than I am now...

I sort of think that payimg more money for something will get you better quality, maybe that's a bad thing in my head but that's how it is with computers and alot of technical things...so.....

Thanks anyway...for all the advice!

[Canuck]

flootje wrote:
Hey guys,

Thanks alot for your replies...

First of all I shoot most of the time windsurfing and kiteboarding...I need a lens that focuses quickly...

I do think the IS is an extra good point on the Canon lens... i am also nerveous about getting the sigma lens and having to sent it away to get it chipped again but it's a minor point to the price!



There is only a problem with older Sigma lenses needing rechipping like the one I have from pre December, 99. I have not had a single problem with my Sigma 120-300mm beast. It is an absolute pleasure to shoot with,
other than it is a 5.75 pounder. That can get tiring, but all is good. It is stunning what you can get out of it.

I haven't played with IS but if you take the shutter speed high enough, it won't matter, and why when shooting airplane pics, I'm not bothered about what I call jiggle.

Sigma is now making OS (Optically Stabilised) lenses, to go head to head with Canon IS lenses.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[Motorsports Photo]

No

I'll be the naysayer. Although the lens I bought was sometime back, the build quality was poor and the repair to fix it when it broke was even worse. (I fixed it again a short time later with a BETTER super glue than they used!)

I had my first problem with a Canon lens this past Summer. Unfortunately the Canon weenies said it was too old and wouldnt even look at it, even though it was the problem with the error codes my body put out. (12 y.o. 100-300 4.5-5.6)

-Pete

[JMC38]

I'll also say no to the Sigma line of lenses. I bought their 28-200mm ASP f/3.5-5.56HZ Macro for my Digital Rebel.

In a word, it was crap. I did not like the photos that I got using it at all on the 200mm setting. The lower end were not any better than the stock 18-55mm lens that came with the camera.

I sent it [Sigma] back the next day and I ordered a Canon EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens.

The Canon lens came today. Outstanding is the word I would use to describe the photos that I have gotten so far today.

I'm not a professional photographer by any sense of the term and most likely not as well skilled as many here but I do know a good photo when I see one and the Canon is giving me good photos, far better than the Sigma did.

My next lens, a 100mm macro and subsequent lenses will be Canon.

[Chris Los]

JMC38 wrote:
I'll also say no to the Sigma line of lenses. I bought their 28-200mm ASP f/3.5-5.56HZ Macro for my Digital Rebel.

In a word, it was crap. I did not like the photos that I got using it at all on the 200mm setting. The lower end were not any better than the stock 18-55mm lens that came with the camera.

I sent it [Sigma] back the next day and I ordered a Canon EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens.

The Canon lens came today. Outstanding is the word I would use to describe the photos that I have gotten so far today.

I'm not a professional photographer by any sense of the term and most likely not as well skilled as many here but I do know a good photo when I see one and the Canon is giving me good photos, far better than the Sigma did.

My next lens, a 100mm macro and subsequent lenses will be Canon.

Sorry, but I do not think this is a good reason for dumping on sigma.
First of all, never expect great things out of $190 28-200mm slow zoom. Canon's EF 3.5-5.6 28-200mm USM, is $360 and I don't think is any better than the Sigma.
Tell me one reason the above canon is better @ almost twice the price. These are consumer cheapo lenses.

Your problem is you wanted everything for nothing(never happens). You should have rather go for Sigma 70-300 /f4-5.6 APO, which is much better quality and sharpness wise.

Canon 28-135 IS is a different kind of lens, not right to compare the two. 100-300 f4 EX sigma is way better in sharpness and contrast wide open @ 135mm than this one, ohh... it is also twice the price 28-135 IS.

This is not to ridicule you, it's just to point out that if you going to make above statements about how terrible Sigma is please do not compare apples and oranges.


On other hand I have both Canon and Sigma lenses, I think that Sigma is great alternative, especially with EX series lenses to Canon's "L" glass.
Sigma 100-300 F4 IF EX is an amazing lens.

Good luck to you.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well,. if you want to judge Sigma's entire line of lenses including the multi-thousand dollar primes based on the mistaken purchase of one of there $200.00 "ultra-zooms" then I guess thats one way to do it ???

But if I had purchased only a Canon 100-300 zoom would it be fair for me to dismiss the entire Canon line based on that peice of crap?

Flotje,

You will not have a chip problem with Sigma lenses unless you buy old used ones.

And I will reiterate,. all manufacturers make some low dollar low quality lenses. To judge an entire line based on that is selling your own self short by ignoring some of the fantastic products they do make.

[CyberDyneSystems]

That said,. for Windsurfing the Canon 100-400mm IS is a superb choice.

[JMC38]

Like I stated, I'm not a professional photographer but, I know what I want my photos to look like and the Canon gave me far more than the Sigma did.

Apples and oranges? I don't see it that way. What I saw and see, is a better photo for my $'s spent on the lens.

Sorry, but I do not think this is a good reason for dumping on sigma.

It wasn't meant to be a "dump" just calling it the way I found it to be.

As was pointed out to me in another thread, the Sigma is rated "sub average" [2.38 (2)] while I found the Canon to be rated "good" [3.25(5)].

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

The Canon is also a quieter lens in AF than the Sigma was.

Good shooting with the Sigmas.

I'll buy my macro lens next week and it won't be a Sigma.

[Chris Los]

JMC38 wrote:
"Apples and oranges? I don't see it that way. What I saw and see, is a better photo for my $'s spent on the lens."
"As was pointed out to me in another thread, the Sigma is rated "sub average" [2.38 (2)] while I found the Canon to be rated "good" [3.25(5)].

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

The Canon is also a quieter lens in AF than the Sigma was."



I am going to hate myself over this!

Here is a rating for comparable Canon's product(that's anyway 2x as much as Sigma):
Canon EF 3.5-5.6 28-200mm USM 2.38 (2) = sub-average !!!!!!!!

Anyway, if someone picked this lens instead of Sigma do you think they should have your type of attitude towards Canon! Your lenses suck! because 200mm reach lens for $400 SUCK!!!!! I'll never buy Canon again!!!!!!!!

Get real, it's all about consumer targeted by them!
Why did't you just get EF 70-200f4 in the first place - only about $150 MORE THAN EF 28-135 IS, fair comparison!

Sorry to everyone posting in this thread, ignorance is a desease.

[DNHayashida]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Well,. if you want to judge Sigma's entire line of lenses including the multi-thousand dollar primes based on the mistaken purchase of one of there $200.00 "ultra-zooms" then I guess thats one way to do it ???

But if I had purchased only a Canon 100-300 zoom would it be fair for me to dismiss the entire Canon line based on that peice of crap?

Flotje,

You will not have a chip problem with Sigma lenses unless you buy old used ones.

And I will reiterate,. all manufacturers make some low dollar low quality lenses. To judge an entire line based on that is selling your own self short by ignoring some of the fantastic products they do make.

Some of the low dollar ones aren't too shabby either.
About a year or two ago a guy at work was really carping on Sigma. He had bought the 28-200 compact hyperzoom and he was telling everyone in the lunchroom how bad it was. I knew from previous conversations that he had a Nikon autofocus, I have a Nikon FA (both film), and although I can't use the autofocus the lens still fit my camera. So I offered to buy it for $100. He took me up on my offer.

After running it through a few tests I found that it was very soft at 28mm wide open, and a little soft at 200mm wide open, but everywhere in between it wasn't bad. It is after all a $200 lens, not a $500 dollar lens.

My opinion of what happened? The lens was front or back focusing with his autofocus camera, and since I had to manually focus it I didn't have that problem. A couple years ago nobody I knew had even heard of front or back focusing, so at the time we didn't have a clue about what might be happening.

So the question I have in cases like this is when a lens mis-focuses is it a fault of the camera, or is it a fault of the lens? The lens just focuses where the camera tells it to. I am thinking that a lens should have an adjustment for slightly tweaking the focus and it could be locked in, like a set screw or something like that.
Darryl Hayashida

[DonCoon]

JMC38 wrote:
Apples and oranges? I don't see it that way. What I saw and see, is a better photo for my $'s spent on the lens.

As was pointed out to me in another thread, the Sigma is rated "sub average" [2.38 (2)] while I found the Canon to be rated "good" [3.25(5)].

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

The Canon is also a quieter lens in AF than the Sigma was.



Since you reference photozone, have you even looked at all the 28-200s listed there? The best 28-200 is rated 2.84 (average) - the Sigma AF 3.5-5.6 28-200mm Hyperzoom macro.

This is in no way in defense of Sigma. All 28-200s are rated low. It isn't easy making a 7X lens due to the compromises involved.

If we use your logic, we should buy nothing but Tokinas since the Tokina AF 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AT-X is rated at 3.20 -- and only .05 behind the 28-135.

[Canuck]

Hi!
I can speak to Sigma lenses from both sides of the fence, cheapies and EX series. You can't expect pro quality out of a $200 lens. True, the 10D/300D are cool by themselves, but feel off of the lens you put on it. If you are looking for a budget lens, that's what you will get, budget pics in a roundabout way; spend the cash, get a really good lens and you will be stunned. I can attest to the 120-300 F2.8 EX lenses being really good, as can CDS and his 500mm and 50-500mm EX lenses. Just ask around, we more than likely have good things to say about the EX line. Sigma EX lenses stand up to and even kick Canon's butt in some areas! That said,
please spend the money and get real high quality lenses like the Sigma EX series/Canon L glass and you will see how easy it is to shoot like a pro and get pro results. There are tons of pics in the "Share Photos" section of this site, as well as CDS' website!

The difference between pro looking pics and crap, IMHO, likes in the lens as much as the camera. That said, the 10D/300D are very capable and use them to their full advantage, and just spend the extra for it and you will not be sorry. It has so motivated me to look only at Canon L glass or Sigma EX glass anymore. I hear the Tamron XD lens is good, but that's all I have there.

Darryl Hayashida,
You said the N-word, we're gonna have to report you to the Pekka Police! You have the right to remain silent, and anything you say, especially that N-word can and will be used against you to taunt you! We will be like the knights who say "Nee!" from Monty Python and the Holy Grail! Who knows what else?

This is a CANON forum!
Cheers from England,
Canuck

[boobops]

Put simply....

When Sigma can manufacture wide-angle lenses with the quality of the Sigma EX series over 100mm and long zooms - Canon will have a real SERIOUS PROBLEM.

At present if you want a wide angle, buy the Canon "L" the canon consumer series is crap.

If you want something over 100mm buy the Sigma EX series - the difference is marginal to say the MOST.

The Sigma will be warmer - but what does that matter. Personally everything I shoot is either digital or scanned - so I control the WB in processing, along with most other parameters.

regards.

[DNHayashida]

Canuck wrote:

Darryl Hayashida,
You said the N-word, we're gonna have to report you to the Pekka Police! You have the right to remain silent, and anything you say, especially that N-word can and will be used against you to taunt you! We will be like the knights who say "Nee!" from Monty Python and the Holy Grail! Who knows what else?

This is a CANON forum!
Cheers from England,
Canuck

I went digital a couple years ago with a G2, I have a Digital Rebel now, doesn't that excuse me? I can't change my dark and sordid past, but I can try to make amends in the future.....
Darryl

[Canuck]

dnhayashida wrote:
Canuck wrote:

Darryl Hayashida,
You said the N-word, we're gonna have to report you to the Pekka Police! You have the right to remain silent, and anything you say, especially that N-word can and will be used against you to taunt you! We will be like the knights who say "Nee!" from Monty Python and the Holy Grail! Who knows what else?

This is a CANON forum!
Cheers from England,
Canuck

I went digital a couple years ago with a G2, I have a Digital Rebel now, doesn't that excuse me? I can't change my dark and sordid past, but I can try to make amends in the future.....
Darryl

I was being a fair bit on the silly side, and no you can't change the past and I was thinking you were talking about the present. I see you made the right choice and left you know who behind and went Canon! You have learned, and your dark and sordid past will always haunt you but...you are forgiven! Now that you have learned, let's invite you back!

Cheers,
Canuck

[CyberDyneSystems]

boobops wrote:
Put simply....

When Sigma can manufacture wide-angle lenses with the quality of the Sigma EX series over 100mm and long zooms - Canon will have a real SERIOUS PROBLEM.

At present if you want a wide angle, buy the Canon "L" the canon consumer series is crap.

If you want something over 100mm buy the Sigma EX series - the difference is marginal to say the MOST.

The Sigma will be warmer - but what does that matter. Personally everything I shoot is either digital or scanned - so I control the WB in processing, along with most other parameters.

regards.

I agree that Sigma's wide angle zooms are not in Canon's league (or nikons or even Tokina's :( )

But the wide angle primes are another story. The 20mm f/1.8 is a very nice lens.

And of course I totally agree that Sigma's telephotos,. prime and zoom are the best value out there.