Pro's using sigma lenses

[Broncobear]

I'm curious to know how many pros are happily using their sigma lenses to deliver services and what is their opinion of using sigma as opposed to going all out for the L lenses?

[zacker]

i dont think it matters to a pro.. if the like a certain lens and the way it works... they use it. besides some pros wont buy L's for the same reason alof of hobbiests wont $$$$$. (God i wish i was rich!)

[Broncobear]

i dont think it matters to a pro.. if the like a certain lens and the way it works... they use it. besides some pros wont buy L's for the same reason alof of hobbiests wont $$$$$. (God i wish i was rich!)

I hear you there buddy...if I ever one a lottery..the first thing I
would before anything else is get everything I wanted in gear lol...and go into business for myself right away.

Can you imagine? Still being rich froma lottery and I'd still want to work as a pro.

If that's not love, I don't know what it :-)

[picturecrazy]

I "only" have one L and I'm what some would consider "pro".

I just ordered a sigma lens too, and I use EF-S lenses.

Pros can use whatever they want just as long as they get the job done well and clients are satisfied. Only gearheads require nothing but L's.

It's funny, the gearheads I know have amazing equipment and the pros I know don't. These gearheads take lousy pictures too...

[tim]

I only have one L lens, but all my lenses are good quality Canon lenses. My Tamron 28-75 F2.8 just didn't quite measure up for focus accuracy. Either David Williams or Ian Wilkinson, great wedding photographers and photography teachers in Australia are big on Sigma lenses, I forget who though, saw them both at a seminar.

[decoyslikecurves]

I'm an architecture photographer and now branching into photojournalism and model shooting.

My most used lens's are:

Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 - Beautiful Glass. Enough said
Sigma 30mm 1.4 - Sigma build (awesome), sharp and good overall
Canon 70-200f4L - Not built quite as well as the sigmas from outside appearances but the focus is ever so slightly quicker and takes beautiful pictures.

The next few lens's I buy will be canon L's, simply because what they offer is what I like.

However, I love the sigma stuff, and if they come out with anything else of interest like the 30mm 1.4 (canon dont make an equivilent as nice) or the 10-20 (half th price of canons equivelent, built better and just as good optically) I'd be buying it.


Gav

[Skrim17]

I got a chance to talk to a pro the other day and his thing with canon was the sealing and USM, said they couldn't be beat. In the studio he shoots mamiya, PJ its canon and this guy shoots for newsweek, time, the new york times etc.

[NickSimcheck]

The reason for me buying L's is because I like to stock with Canon equipment as much as I can. It's always worked better for me.

But I'm not going to dump my Tamron 200-500 because it's not an L lens, I don't use that reach that much so it isn't very important to me. Doesn't make sense for me to get a 100-400.

[Johan Groenewald]

Canon 70-200f4L - Not built quite as well as the sigmas from outside appearances
I don't know how you came up with this. 70-200f4L is build like a canon.
I'm not a pro but I would use my sigma if I were.

[Jon, The Elder]

Canon 70-200f4L - Not built quite as well as the sigmas from outside appearances but the focus is ever so slightly quicker and takes beautiful pictures.

You obviously have not used either version of the 70/200L or you would not make such a comment. It is such a superior lens in every aspect, including build, that others are rated against it.

[zacker]

Outside appearences can mean they dont look like they are built as good as a siggie...doesnt mean its not! lets stay civil here.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I agree with this statement when read correctly;
"Not built quite as well as the sigmas from outside appearances"

Most Sigma EX's I have worked with do give the impression that they are more solid, and also often have more notable fixtures than there nearest Canon equivalent (larger smoother focus rings, larger heavier tripod feet.. ) These aspects combine to IMHO give a better 1st impression than many L's re: build quality.

But all this is mostly O.T. now,.

As to the original question, There are definitely a number of pros using Sigma's on this forum, ( hopefully some will drop in ) and some notable ones in the field working for the likes of National Geographic as well.

[picturecrazy]

Well, I just received my Sigma 30 1.4 and it's KILLER! I thought my Canon 50 1.4 was sharp and vibrant, but this Sigma is amazing even at 1.4!

A pro is someone who can use his/her equipment to it's potential to deliver the best product he/she can.

An L-snob can be defined as someone who will only use L lenses and won't even entertain the idea that a non-L could possibly deliver something just as good or better.

Don't be in the second group. The final product is all that matters.

[Broncobear]

Ok so here is my view since I started this thread

I think there are good lenses in both lines, in certain cases I like sigma and in others I like the canon...

I think now I have a better understanding, originally I wasn't sure a pro would be taken as seriously if he used sigma. In retrospect, it doesn't matter....above all else a great shot is still a great shot whether it came from a sigma or a canon lens.

Using either brand in a given situation is really at the discretion of the pro in what he prefers.

[Claire]

I doubt a client would give a damn what the pro uses, as long as he delivers.

[Vegas Poboy]

I got rid of all my off brand lenses for two reasons Canon has a faster focus in low light and they all have the same rotation when zooming. Sigmas was different and it was getting confusing during the fast events. If I was only doing portraits and weddings I would of stayed with my sigma products.

[cbr929rrerion]

Not a pro so I have no input, not sure how you draw the lines at hobbiest/Amature/Pro...

[zacker]

what if a pro used a sigma body as well?

if a pro pressed the shutter button on his sigma set up and there was no one around.... would it take a picture?

what about Tamron? why does Sigma get all the third party glory??

Stay tuned for the Ansewers to these questions and many more, on POTN channel 12 at 11

[liza]

I got rid of all my off brand lenses for two reasons Canon has a faster focus in low light and they all have the same rotation when zooming. Sigmas was different and it was getting confusing during the fast events. If I was only doing portraits and weddings I would of stayed with my sigma products.

I had the same experience when I tried the Sigma 70-200 at a ball game. Though the exposure was fine in this very well lit gym, the autofocus sucked for basketball. As you said, if my only need was for a portrait or wedding lens, the Sigma would be fine. But since I sell my sports images, I need Canon glass for the faster, more reliable autofocus.

[John Nicholas]

I got a chance to talk to a pro the other day and his thing with canon was the sealing and USM, said they couldn't be beat. In the studio he shoots mamiya, PJ its canon and this guy shoots for newsweek, time, the new york times etc.


I’d have to say USM build then sealing. I.e USM and nailing every shot even in low light vs. waiting for your lens while it’s hunting and missing the shots what’s your lens worth now?

[tlc]

a 'pro' knows what works for them, and doesnt necessarily 'go with the flow'.

i doubt a 'pro' would drop a lens simply because of the brand.

just because a 'brand' is deemed the best in retail land, doesnt necessarily mean it is so.

there are lots of 'pros' out there who have a variable of stock in their bag. not just lenses either.

[Broncobear]

a 'pro' knows what works for them, and doesnt necessarily 'go with the flow'.

i doubt a 'pro' would drop a lens simply because of the brand.

just because a 'brand' is deemed the best in retail land, doesnt necessarily mean it is so.

there are lots of 'pros' out there who have a variable of stock in their bag. not just lenses either.

I agree , all part and parcel of learning and getting to where one wants to go is learning the mentality and logic behind this way of thinking, as opposed to having something for the sake of having it.

In other words, a pro makes something work despite the brand name of his equipment.

understood :D .... and I also like that mentality

[PhotosGuy]

...and they all have the same rotation when zooming. I was talking with Jon yesterday about that. It's a BIG point when things are happening around you. Before the days of AF, another was having the focus ring for all lenses rotate the same direction when something came toward, or went away, from you. I don't want to have to think about that.

Another plus about the Ls is that they hold their resale value well, when you want to "upgrade".

[JaGWiRE]

I'm an architecture photographer and now branching into photojournalism and model shooting.

My most used lens's are:

Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 - Beautiful Glass. Enough said
Sigma 30mm 1.4 - Sigma build (awesome), sharp and good overall
Canon 70-200f4L - Not built quite as well as the sigmas from outside appearances but the focus is ever so slightly quicker and takes beautiful pictures.

The next few lens's I buy will be canon L's, simply because what they offer is what I like.

However, I love the sigma stuff, and if they come out with anything else of interest like the 30mm 1.4 (canon dont make an equivilent as nice) or the 10-20 (half th price of canons equivelent, built better and just as good optically) I'd be buying it.


Gav
Ditto that. I've used all three lenses you listed, own one, and plan on buying the other two (I own the 70-200 F/4L.)
The sigma 30 1.4 has no Canon competitor. This is really what the focal length I think a LOT of people expect when they get the 50mm, which is supose to be the normal lens, but imo, on a crop body it's more of an 80mm lens then a 50mm.
The sigma 10-20 has great build quality, and is quite sharp. For the money I wouldn't choose anything else.
The sigma 17-70 also looks extraordinarily interesting. I might pick one up. For the price, it seems as if no other lens can even compete. It is what the kit lens, probably should be.
BTW, the 10-20 and 30 1.4 both have HSM. The 30 1.4 focused fluently and perfectly for me when I tried it. I think it was easily as good focus-wise as my 85 1.8.

[Broncobear]

I was talking with Jon yesterday about that. It's a BIG point when things are happening around you. Before the days of AF, another was having the focus ring for all lenses rotate the same direction when something came toward, or went away, from you. I don't want to have to think about that.

Another plus about the Ls is that they hold their resale value well, when you want to "upgrade".

Yes, all attributes to why you should choose one over the other in regards to your equipment but I think what I was trying to get at in this thread was whether or not a pro can be taken seriously with a set of sigma lenses as opposed to a series of L lenses.

Based on the responses, I now know better.

these kinds of threads allow me to learn the mindset which is just as much apart of the business as learning about the dof.

Thanks to everyone who responded.

[rabidcow]

I use Canon L in the field, 16-35 and 70-200 (and sometimes the non-L 50 1.8....I've had a few strange looks from others when changing from the 16-35 to the 50, I know that they think that the size of my lens makes me who I am....), but in studio, or on location portrait work my Tamron 28-75 is still my weapon of choice. If I did glamor shots and had to worry about wide open for dramatic shots I would consider dropping another $1200 on Canon's 24-70, but I see no need as all of my shots are f/8-f/16.

[gdrMatt]

i use the sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX. it's one of my sharpest lenses. the only complaint i have is the focus motor noise and the focus ring. had to send it in for repairs because the focus motor died once.

[S230]

I personally used both Canon and Sigma (EQUAL lens) apples vs apples.
ie. Canon 24-70L 2.8 vs Sigma 24-70 EX 2.8 and Canon 70-200 2.8L vs Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8.

I have to honest, the Canon is slightly better in several areas especially resell value but I personally like Sigma because of it's warranty. I have 10 warranty years for my lens and so far I had my lens fixed several times which has paid for itself already. Customer service and turnaround time is amazing and is very important to me. I took my canon lens to canon for repair and my lens came back scratched. Obviously Canon denied it.

I use my Sigma lens for many rough conditions and still lived up to it. Low light is a problem but how I work around it is by mounting my flash and use the IR assist on it.

[Broncobear]

I agree , it's the warranty that Sigma offers and the reputable service that really sells me on sigma..

Canon canada..sucks , real bad. If your going to go into business and need dependable service , it's nice having that.

Worth more than the resell value imho

[JaGWiRE]

I agree , it's the warranty that Sigma offers and the reputable service that really sells me on sigma..

Canon canada..sucks , real bad. If your going to go into business and need dependable service , it's nice having that.

Worth more than the resell value imho
That too. A lot of people just send there lenses into Sigma for calibration or whatever and it's all good.
I'm curious, if the front element or something cracks (your fault or whatever) under warranty, what do they charge?

[Broncobear]

That too. A lot of people just send there lenses into Sigma for calibration or whatever and it's all good.
I'm curious, if the front element or something cracks (your fault or whatever) under warranty, what do they charge?

the charges have been pretty good and they do a lot of free upkeep, the fact is you get it back in 4-6 weeks unlike Canon where you go nuts looking for it after 3 months , only tohave it resent back to you still broken with a charge.

[tlc]

Yes, all attributes to why you should choose one over the other in regards to your equipment but I think what I was trying to get at in this thread was whether or not a pro can be taken seriously with a set of sigma lenses as opposed to a series of L lenses.

Based on the responses, I now know better.

these kinds of threads allow me to learn the mindset which is just as much apart of the business as learning about the dof.

Thanks to everyone who responded.

in this month's professinal photographer UK, a professional photographer is proudly displaying his sigma lens in the article. he is doing a high fashion shoot.

i would much rather have a product that works for me, than using something just for the sake of it and how i will look using it. i think there are a few out there who feel they are better photographers simply because their lens is white.

[JaGWiRE]

the charges have been pretty good and they do a lot of free upkeep, the fact is you get it back in 4-6 weeks unlike Canon where you go nuts looking for it after 3 months , only tohave it resent back to you still broken with a charge.

Well, to be fair, Sigma is mostly a lens company. I believe they make bodies (does anyone use them??) and stuff like flash, but I am certain the majority of their sales are from lenses. Canon on other hand makes P&S, DSLR bodies, film bodies, video cameras, printers, flash units, etc etc.

[Broncobear]

LOL actually Canon outsources a lot of their lens development/construction from Sigma, soemthing I learned a few weeks ago.

[Croasdail]

the charges have been pretty good and they do a lot of free upkeep, the fact is you get it back in 4-6 weeks unlike Canon where you go nuts looking for it after 3 months , only tohave it resent back to you still broken with a charge.

While I am Sigma supporter, love the lenses, for the value they are great, yada-yada-yada...... my experience with Canon support has been anything like this. When I send stuff in for repairs to the normal service center I have never waited longer then 2 weeks for a round trip. When using CPS, the speed is half that again. My experience with both companies service organizations has been surprisingly very nice.

[Croasdail]

I had the same experience when I tried the Sigma 70-200 at a ball game. Though the exposure was fine in this very well lit gym, the autofocus sucked for basketball. As you said, if my only need was for a portrait or wedding lens, the Sigma would be fine. But since I sell my sports images, I need Canon glass for the faster, more reliable autofocus.

Not even close to my experience, particularly on a 1d body. Reports like these make me wonder what is going on out there... if I am extremely lucky or just extremely easy.

There is a speed difference though when using Sigma lenses on 20/30D bodies. So I have to ask, is it the lens that is the issue, or is it an engineered thing that Canon is doing to create the difference. Because on 1D class bodies, there is no slow down with the same lens.

[Jon, The Elder]

It is a well known fact that Canon does not share its programming with 2nd parties. Sigmas, Tamron, etc have to "back engineer" their lenses to perform with both Canon and Nikon. When the 20D first arrived there were some comments about this being an occasional problem. It got blown out of proportion of course but it did signal a potential problem area.

[Broncobear]

While I am Sigma supporter, love the lenses, for the value they are great, yada-yada-yada...... my experience with Canon support has been anything like this. When I send stuff in for repairs to the normal service center I have never waited longer then 2 weeks for a round trip. When using CPS, the speed is half that again. My experience with both companies service organizations has been surprisingly very nice.

Remember Canon USA and Canon Canada are two differen't beasts..

CANON USA is wonderful, if I lived in the US, I would be tooting their horn.

Canon Canada service sucks

you can even look at their difference in the website.

check out canon.com and canon.ca

The service of Canon Canada has a reputation for being very very poor, worse than even what sigma was years ago.

[JaGWiRE]

Remember Canon USA and Canon Canada are two differen't beasts..

CANON USA is wonderful, if I lived in the US, I would be tooting their horn.

Canon Canada service sucks

you can even look at their difference in the website.

check out canon.com and canon.ca

The service of Canon Canada has a reputation for being very very poor, worse than even what sigma was years ago.
Once again, us Canadians get the jilt. Even with prices :(.

[Jon, The Elder]

There is a thread going on in "EF & FS lenses" that is parallel with this one. Basically it deals with 'error 99' but is traced back to the failure of some lenses and some camera models essentially the XT.

Pop on over, just another reason to stay with original brands.

[Broncobear]

thanks jon, I'll dig around to see if I can find it

[S230]

I can pretty well say that I am a regular customer for Sigma service because I am quite rough on my equipment. As for Error 99, etc., they now have new firmware instead of chip replacement for easy upgrade. All my lens have been updated including the flash.

As for performance, there is differences between canon and sigma but not much. Speed wise USM vs HSM depends on the body. On 20D and Rebel bodies are pretty much same. On the Canon 1Ds MKII body, the canon USM seems to be very fast.
the Flash (Sigma ST500 Super vs Canon 550), is almost same except refresh rate and accuracy. Canon seems a bit better becasue of extra battery and also more accurate. From time to time, my sigma flash will misfire and not get it right. As for Canon 550 is fast. The 580 is much better and seems brighter.

[S230]

the charges have been pretty good and they do a lot of free upkeep, the fact is you get it back in 4-6 weeks unlike Canon where you go nuts looking for it after 3 months , only tohave it resent back to you still broken with a charge.I totally agree becuase it took Canon forever after I had to phone them up and chase them to return my lens. While at Sigma, I had it back within a few days.

[EOSAddict]

You obviously have not used either version of the 70/200L or you would not make such a comment. It is such a superior lens in every aspect, including build, that others are rated against it.

Well, I hope YOU have used the equivalent EX to make such a statement too!

Well, to be fair, Sigma is mostly a lens company. I believe they make bodies (does anyone use them??) and stuff like flash, but I am certain the majority of their sales are from lenses. Canon on other hand makes P&S, DSLR bodies, film bodies, video cameras, printers, flash units, etc etc.

I lose track of the number of times I have posted this comment since joining POTN ;) usually to tweak the tail of the odd L-blind member!

[S230]

Not even close to my experience, particularly on a 1d body. Reports like these make me wonder what is going on out there... if I am extremely lucky or just extremely easy.

There is a speed difference though when using Sigma lenses on 20/30D bodies. So I have to ask, is it the lens that is the issue, or is it an engineered thing that Canon is doing to create the difference. Because on 1D class bodies, there is no slow down with the same lens.Both Bodies and lens DOES matter. Sigma lens does have trouble focusing in low light. I have access to both Canon and Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens so i can make fair comparison. Use the Flash IR function to help focus with Sigma. As for Body, the 1D does focus better too. Good example is try installing a 300mm f2.8 with 2x converter. The Digital Rebel takes forever to focus while the 1dsmk2 is almost instant.

[Wazza]

Nothing wrong with Sigma..

I think my Sigma 120-300, is more discreet than a white 300mm 2.8 ;)

Anyway, Sigma lens, will all do 90% quality to that of their Canon rivals.. At only 70% of the cost generally it seems.


However with that slight difference, if you have a really good photographer, using Sigma, getting 90% sharp good results, and a poor user on a L, who has money to burn, and 1DSii etc, but only getting 30-50% results ..

So yes, I do pro work
I use 20D, Sigma 10-20, Canon 17-40L, 50mm 1.8 (not that great, I know), 85 1.8, Sigma 120-300... Ever consider the Sigma 300-800 not a high quality lens? ;)

[S230]

Wazza, you brought up a good point... the white does stick out like a sore thumb and if you carry it around all day, it's quite a strain on the back.. :)

I personally like Sigma but wished they had better QC before their lens left the factory.

[JaGWiRE]

I lose track of the number of times I have posted this comment since joining POTN ;) usually to tweak the tail of the odd L-blind member!
Which part of my comment? :).

[EOSAddict]

The bit about Sigma being a lens manufacturer whereas Canon make photocopiers etc etc.

[JaGWiRE]

The bit about Sigma being a lens manufacturer whereas Canon make photocopiers etc etc.

Oh yeah. Going to there site actually, you can see a huge list of things they create. I also think the point and shoot market is a very profitable and sucessful market. They release new models even quicker then SLRS (from what I think), and who can't say they don't know atleast 10 people with a P&S?

[steve5454]

i use and have used numerous sigma lenses always been happy I use canon lenses as well
but never had a problem or negative experience with a sigma lens

rider

[Croasdail]

Ok... so I gave my personal opinion on Sigma, but not my observation on what is really used. Honestly, a pro who is earning his/her mortgage with their photography usually will not use 3rd party stuff unless there is a compelling reason to. The cost differential between Sigma and Canon (usually in the order of hundreds - not that much in businses terms) is not worth the risk of adding 3rd party products into the mix if it is not needed. You need to KNOW the stuff is going to work well together, and you need to KNOW that if it doesn't work, you only have one throat to choke to get it to work together. Absolutely nothing wrong with Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, or any other lens company as they all produce fine products. But when it is your livelihood on the line, you need to know you can send your kit into CPS and have them make it work and turn it around in a heart beat. It is all about risk mitigation, not sharpness, clarity, focus speed, yada yada yada. All those things are extremely nice and good, but as most images end up in daily or weekly publications, image quality is not a fine art here. The hobbiest can worry about resolving power of x lens on y body. A pro buys as much as he/she needs and not a cent more. Unfortunately for the 3rd party people out there, that means if paper x or rag y can standardize on a brand, it gives them more clout when things go wrong. At least that is my view from where I am at. Again, nothing wrong with Sigma, they make one of my most used lenses, but that is because Canon doesn't have anything in it's class right now. If they did, I would be using the Canon version. Cheers.

[20droger]

I can think of at least one reason to use Sigma in nature shots. A big white barrel will often startle the critters (especially skittish birds) when the camera is moved.

Several nature photographer with whom I have spoken have complained about this. Many use a wrap or sleeve over the Canon white barrel, even though they complain it often interferes with control.

Besides, the Sigma 170-500mm is one heck of a lens for the price. It's also a rotary zoom, which many like better than the EF 100-400.

[wilky95]

I use my 50-500 sigma for equine events and to be honest it is the best:D that I have tried, the boca and af is fantastic and I must get 85% of the shots that are " Whoop's where did that horse come from" and throw the camera to your eye and push the button:rolleyes: . I do find though that its better at 150 to 400mm than 50 to 150mm and at £680.00 that it cost new its a bargan.

Martin.




I can think of at least one reason to use Sigma in nature shots. A big white barrel will often startle the critters (especially skittish birds) when the camera is moved.

Several nature photographer with whom I have spoken have complained about this. Many use a wrap or sleeve over the Canon white barrel, even though they complain it often interferes with control.

Besides, the Sigma 170-500mm is one heck of a lens for the price. It's also a rotary zoom, which many like better than the EF 100-400.

[MikeMcL]

a customer will never look at an image and say "this wasn't taken with XXXXXX brand, so I don't want it"

I use high value lenses, no matter the brand. just use the gear that works for you and deliver the best pics you can. I personally have had better luck with tamron lenses than sigma, but that is just a quirk, maybe.

[tlc]

Ok... so I gave my personal opinion on Sigma, but not my observation on what is really used. Honestly, a pro who is earning his/her mortgage with their photography usually will not use 3rd party stuff unless there is a compelling reason to. .


i disagree - on the basis that i have seen a few use exactly what works for them, regardless of the brand - as i stated earlier, there is an article in the professional photographer UK latest edition with a fashion photographer using a sigma lens.

so i guess that is the compelling reason?

[budgetbus]

i am saving for a 70-200 F4L at the minute.......i use sigma a lot and love my 24-70F2.8EX the build is great so is the IQ and sharpness.....my only gripe is the slowish AF.......but for how i shoot it isnt a problem......i want the 70-200 because ive used one and find it a nice bit of kit.....BUT i certainly wouldnt get one because of some snobish fashion.......i find the blindness to other products narrow minded and pathetic as do i find equally distastfull that a manufacturer should brand a range proffessional IE giving the assumtion that a non L glass user is an amature.......like a customer gives a damn what you shoot with as long as you get the shot suitable to thier brief.......i have a list of glass i want in the future......the 70-200L,bigma,10-20 sigma ....:cool:

[S230]

i am saving for a 70-200 F4L at the minute.......i use sigma a lot and love my 24-70F2.8EX the build is great so is the IQ and sharpness.....my only gripe is the slowish AF.......but for how i shoot it isnt a problem......i want the 70-200 because ive used one and find it a nice bit of kit.....BUT i certainly wouldnt get one because of some snobish fashion.......i find the blindness to other products narrow minded and pathetic as do i find equally distastfull that a manufacturer should brand a range proffessional IE giving the assumtion that a non L glass user is an amature.......like a customer gives a damn what you shoot with as long as you get the shot suitable to thier brief.......i have a list of glass i want in the future......the 70-200L,bigma,10-20 sigma ....:cool:You should give the Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 a try because that is one of my favourite lens. It's fast, quiet and excellent for nature shots. Build and image quality I find excellent. Obviously speed and build quality is just a tad lower than Canon but still very good. Some say that the Sigma image quality is better than Canon's.
One thing for sure is price and warranty is definitely better. I personally use both Canon 70-200L 2.8 (NON IS) and Sigma 70-200EX 2.8 and I personally like the Sigma because it's lighter and it's colour not sticking out like a sore thumb.

[cdifoto]

i disagree - on the basis that i have seen a few use exactly what works for them, regardless of the brand - as i stated earlier, there is an article in the professional photographer UK latest edition with a fashion photographer using a sigma lens.

so i guess that is the compelling reason?

The compelling reason there might be sponsorship. Buy Canon, or get paid to use Sigma. I'd use Sigma if those were my choices.

[budgetbus]

The compelling reason there might be sponsorship. Buy Canon, or get paid to use Sigma. I'd use Sigma if those were my choices.

yes but thats on the assumption that that actually happened in the case.....heaven forbid anyone actually not choosing canon glass....;)

[budgetbus]

You should give the Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 a try because that is one of my favourite lens. It's fast, quiet and excellent for nature shots. Build and image quality I find excellent. Obviously speed and build quality is just a tad lower than Canon but still very good. Some say that the Sigma image quality is better than Canon's.
One thing for sure is price and warranty is definitely better. I personally use both Canon 70-200L 2.8 (NON IS) and Sigma 70-200EX 2.8 and I personally like the Sigma because it's lighter and it's colour not sticking out like a sore thumb.


might take a look at it.......ive got a choice coming up......i can either buy
70-200 F4L
70-200 F2.8EX
or the bigma:D
or a dual head elinchrom setup

[cdifoto]

yes but thats on the assumption that that actually happened in the case.....heaven forbid anyone actually not choosing canon glass....;)

Yes, it is on that assumption. But it's a scenario worth considering. When you're at the top of your game, big companies want to align themselves with you.

[budgetbus]

I said might.
;).

[KevC]

I think I'll pick up a Sigma 10-20.

I got rid of my 24-70EX cos of the crazy loud focussing. The build quality felt solid but it also felt klunky. And I couldnt' stand the finish (so easy to scratch!)

Jason loves his Sigma 15/2.8 Fishy.

[S230]

might take a look at it.......ive got a choice coming up......i can either buy
70-200 F4L
70-200 F2.8EX
or the bigma:D
or a dual head elinchrom setup
I personally recommend the 70-200 2.8 EX because it's probably I feel that this lens feels and performs close the 70-200 F2.8 L. I've tried the F4 but it's not as even close to the Sigma's build. Also, pricewise, you rather pay a little more for a better lens plus remember the excellent customer service and warranty the Sigma offers. The other option is go for the whole nine yards and get the Canon 70-200 f2.8L because it's a lens for long term investment. IS vs NON-IS is personal opinion but some argue that the NON-IS has better image quality.

The Bigma, I've only tried for a short period of time while my friend had it but it suffers image quality at the short end of the range. It's an excellent lens and great value for the focal length it offers.

[JaGWiRE]

I personally recommend the 70-200 2.8 EX because it's probably I feel that this lens feels and performs close the 70-200 F2.8 L. I've tried the F4 but it's not as even close to the Sigma's build. Also, pricewise, you rather pay a little more for a better lens plus remember the excellent customer service and warranty the Sigma offers. The other option is go for the whole nine yards and get the Canon 70-200 f2.8L because it's a lens for long term investment. IS vs NON-IS is personal opinion but some argue that the NON-IS has better image quality.

The Bigma, I've only tried for a short period of time while my friend had it but it suffers image quality at the short end of the range. It's an excellent lens and great value for the focal length it offers.

I think the F4 has an amazing build quality. You must also realize you are tossing up weight and portability if you go for any of the 2.8 lenses. The F4 is sharp, it's just not as wide wide open as the f2.8 (obviously), and it's about half the weight.

[LMP]

Like Lisa a few pages back in this thread, I had the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and got shot of it. Autofocus for me is much slower than the Canon version.

[Croasdail]

i would much rather have a product that works for me, than using something just for the sake of it and how i will look using it. i think there are a few out there who feel they are better photographers simply because their lens is white.

Were not talking hobbiest here amigo. Were talking pro photographers. If you have seen pro gear, it usually is tired, beaten, worn out, and see's little love. Lens hoods are attached by what ever works - duct tape if that is what is needed. I know no pros that worry about looking like a pro. It's the "I wish I were a pro" types that worry about if they look pro-enough. As to you other quote about some pro photographer using a sigma lens as proof that there are photographers that use Sigma, like I said, there are always times when you will use something that Canon does not make a comp. lens. The fast 1.8 wides sigma produces are some. The 12-24 full frame zoom is another. The 120-300 zoom, and 300-800 zoom are others. But it is rare that a working pro will opt. for say a Sigma 300 2.8 over the Canon 300 2.8 dispite the fact that he sigma is only 60% the price. It is just not commonly done. Sure it happens, but on an exception bases.

To Liza's comments the on the Sigma 70-200 not working for basketball, she got me thinking, and so I tried it yesturday. I am not sure why she had the results she did, but I had no problems. I shot some 380 frames, of which only 15-20 were out of focus. I have some example shots over in the sports forum if you care to take a look.

Again, I love Sigma, they produce great stuff. For the money some of the best stuff depending on the which lens you are talking about. But in the hightly competitive field of photography, your not going to take to many chances. It only takes getting burned once.

[grego]

I have the 120-300 and it works just fine. I owned(well sort of, since a friend let me keep it) the sigma 70-200 2.8 before I was able to buy my 70-200 2.8 IS.
Both of those Sigma's are fine lens. I have a few complaints, but they are very marginal. Still best value for performance.

[marian]

I have gone to a lot of conventions and seminars throughout the US. I have looked at a lot of 16x20's up to 20x30's hanging at displays. Not once, could I tell "what" lens took "what" picture, by "what" camera! ! In this day and age of digital, you can sharpen and massage a picture to the "umpth" degree!

Could anyone honestly identify an image (the exact same shot) if it was done by the top several camera vendors, with their own lenses and then "third party lenses?" You couldn't!

That's like saying, "Gee, I wonder what word processor, he used to write that novel?"

[cdifoto]

I have gone to a lot of conventions and seminars throughout the US. I have looked at a lot of 16x20's up to 20x30's hanging at displays. Not once, could I tell "what" lens took "what" picture, by "what" camera! ! In this day and age of digital, you can sharpen and massage a picture to the "umpth" degree!

Could anyone honestly identify an image (the exact same shot) if it was done by the top several camera vendors, with their own lenses and then "third party lenses?" You couldn't!

That's like saying, "Gee, I wonder what word processor, he used to write that novel?"

Optically, no. Most of the time you can't see a difference or tell what camera/lens took a shot. But there's more to a lens than just optics. If someone showed me 2 identical, or nearly so, shots in which one was focused and the other missed, I would be certain the missed focus was from a 3rd party lens and the in focus one was OEM. Original Canon gear with USM just works better. It almost always focuses where 3rd party misses, or at the very least it misses a lot less often in the same conditions.

[asabet]

I doubt a client would give a damn what the pro uses, as long as he delivers.

Agreed. To this day I have no idea what camera and lenses the photographer of my wedding used. I was too busy being happy with the wedding to pay attention to the equipment, and I was too happy with the photos to really care after the fact!

[Croasdail]

Agreed. To this day I have no idea what camera and lenses the photographer of my wedding used. I was too busy being happy with the wedding to pay attention to the equipment, and I was too happy with the photos to really care after the fact!

And I guess there in lies the problem. When you say pro - what pro are you referring to. There is not a single generic pro photographer type out there. They use the same skills, but in very different ways. A pro photojournalist may take hundred or thousands of frames a day. A wedding photographer may do that in a week. A wedding photographer has the leisure to be carefull with their equipment, a pj doesn't always. If your a fashion or product photographer where the client is spending hundred or thousands of dollars to secure studio or a location, they will pretty much expect you to show up with all the "right" equipment - and backups - because there is no reshoot.

So to a very generic question, your going to get a lot of different answers. Focus speed to a wedding or fashion photographer isn't as critical as it is to a sports photographer therefor they can pick some of the slower focusing lenses and still be productive with them. On the other hand, a slow focusing lens in sports photography is a death notice. It all just depends. But in the end, the best equipment never hurts you..... lessor equipment can kill.

[marian]

To cdi-ink.com

Optically, no. Most of the time you can't see a difference or tell what camera/lens took a shot. But there's more to a lens than just optics. If someone showed me 2 identical, or nearly so, shots in which one was focused and the other missed, I would be certain the missed focus was from a 3rd party lens and the in focus one was OEM. Original Canon gear with USM just works better. It almost always focuses where 3rd party misses, or at the very least it misses a lot less often in the same conditions.

Your comment doesn't make any sense at all!

I have been to several Monte Zucker (I'm just using him, in this case) seminars and as every pro who does the circuit, you walk into the hall and there are all his large 20x20's (and larger) prints on display. At that time period (Film) he shot with Hasselbald and in close examination, I noticed prints that were out of focus! (I thought Hasselblad lenses were tack sharp!)

Let me "fast forward" now to just a few months back! I went to WPPI in Las Vegas (Did you?) and they had every print hanging up there from competition for display, for the genenral public to look at.

You could NOT walk down the displays and say...... "Oh, that was shot with a Sigma!" ..... "Oh, this was shot with a Tamron!"...... "There's a Canon lens that shot this picture!" "Now, here's a shot that was made with a Nikon lens!"

Get my point?

[Broncobear]

And I guess there in lies the problem. When you say pro - what pro are you referring to. There is not a single generic pro photographer type out there. They use the same skills, but in very different ways. A pro photojournalist may take hundred or thousands of frames a day. A wedding photographer may do that in a week. A wedding photographer has the leisure to be carefull with their equipment, a pj doesn't always. If your a fashion or product photographer where the client is spending hundred or thousands of dollars to secure studio or a location, they will pretty much expect you to show up with all the "right" equipment - and backups - because there is no reshoot.

So to a very generic question, your going to get a lot of different answers. Focus speed to a wedding or fashion photographer isn't as critical as it is to a sports photographer therefor they can pick some of the slower focusing lenses and still be productive with them. On the other hand, a slow focusing lens in sports photography is a death notice. It all just depends. But in the end, the best equipment never hurts you..... lessor equipment can kill.

What's to say that a Canon will not fail in a dire situation? I understand the argument, if a pro is good and smart he is going to use the best equipment that is available to him...I agree with you there, but if his experience shows that he works better with a particular lens for whatever reason even if it's a third party...then it should not make him "any less of a pro" so to speak.

[mace0002]

I don't think most clients even know the difference..unless of course they images are not up to par or if they have knowledge of photography. I have a sigma macro and LOVE It, I have a canon and love it...I have a tamron 28-200-its okay, gets the job done but always needs a bit more sharpening unfortunately!

[cdifoto]

To cdi-ink.com



Your comment doesn't make any sense at all!

I have been to several Monte Zucker (I'm just using him, in this case) seminars and as every pro who does the circuit, you walk into the hall and there are all his large 20x20's (and larger) prints on display. At that time period (Film) he shot with Hasselbald and in close examination, I noticed prints that were out of focus! (I thought Hasselblad lenses were tack sharp!)

Let me "fast forward" now to just a few months back! I went to WPPI in Las Vegas (Did you?) and they had every print hanging up there from competition for display, for the genenral public to look at.

You could NOT walk down the displays and say...... "Oh, that was shot with a Sigma!" ..... "Oh, this was shot with a Tamron!"...... "There's a Canon lens that shot this picture!" "Now, here's a shot that was made with a Nikon lens!"

Get my point?

Keep reading my comment, as many times as necessary. One day you'll get it.

[JaGWiRE]

Keep reading my comment, as many times as necessary. One day you'll get it.
Do you have quantitative data that proves third party lenses miss focus more then Canons? My 30 is perfect, yet my friends 50 1.4 is in severe need of service.

[Croasdail]

Optically, no. Most of the time you can't see a difference or tell what camera/lens took a shot. But there's more to a lens than just optics. If someone showed me 2 identical, or nearly so, shots in which one was focused and the other missed, I would be certain the missed focus was from a 3rd party lens and the in focus one was OEM. Original Canon gear with USM just works better. It almost always focuses where 3rd party misses, or at the very least it misses a lot less often in the same conditions.

Man, this is one of the most silly comments I have read from someone who seems to have been around for a while. Canons consumer lenses perform just as crappy as other companies consumer lenses - even with Canon printed proudly on the side of them. There are tons of reasons to buy or not buy a lens but to make a sweeping generalization like this shows CDI that you have been drinking the juice way to long. The majority of the work I do is with Canon branded lenses - very often the little red ringed type. But I would never made such a broad sweeping statement.

[cdifoto]

Man, this is one of the most silly comments I have read from someone who seems to have been around for a while. Canons consumer lenses perform just as crappy as other companies consumer lenses - even with Canon printed proudly on the side of them. There are tons of reasons to buy or not buy a lens but to make a sweeping generalization like this shows CDI that you have been drinking the juice way to long. The majority of the work I do is with Canon branded lenses - very often the little red ringed type. But I would never made such a broad sweeping statement.

Canon USM will focus better than 3rd party without HSM/USM. Most third party does not have any kind of HSM/USM motor. If you take the time to actually read and comprehend what I said, you'll probably agree with me.

I did NOT say all Canon beats all third party. I said if you give me 2 shots in less than perfect conditions (with all else being equal), and one being out of focus with the other in focus, then the out of focus is probably the third party glass. Even in the top end long/fast glass, Canon's USM is faster than, say, Sigma HSM. That's just how it is. I also said that Canon USM will focus where 3rd party hunts, and that's true too. You will rarely ever see a 3rd party lock focus with the Canon "equivalent" hunting. And no, Canon will not ALWAYS focus when 3rd party doesn't, but it has a better chance. If it's dismal enough, nothing will focus without IR assist.

[jcw122]

Now autofocus is one thing that pisses me off when it comes to Canon cameras.

1. Supposedly the 350D, one of the most popular cameras, has 2nd generation focus algorithms, that are faulty with apertures larger than 2.8. That's not acceptable to me.

2. Why are Canon's 1D (pro) cameras faster with AF than my XT, or a 20/30D? Why should they be allowed to have faster AF, with the same lens?

3. Why does Canon keep their algorithms so secret, that 3rd party lenses can't perform the same, because they can't totally communicate properly.


I realize this is a bit OT, but stuff like this really irritates me, and makes me remember that Canon can be, and is, a big corporation that wants money.

[Broncobear]

I realize this is a bit OT, but stuff like this really irritates me, and makes me remember that Canon can be, and is, a big corporation that wants money.

Pretty much explains everything right there, but Nikon isn't any differen't

Just the nature of the beast I guess

[cdifoto]

Now autofocus is one thing that pisses me off when it comes to Canon cameras.

1. Supposedly the 350D, one of the most popular cameras, has 2nd generation focus algorithms, that are faulty with apertures larger than 2.8. That's not acceptable to me.

2. Why are Canon's 1D (pro) cameras faster with AF than my XT, or a 20/30D? Why should they be allowed to have faster AF, with the same lens?

3. Why does Canon keep their algorithms so secret, that 3rd party lenses can't perform the same, because they can't totally communicate properly.


I realize this is a bit OT, but stuff like this really irritates me, and makes me remember that Canon can be, and is, a big corporation that wants money.

If you want/need 1 series autofocus, buy a 1 series. Are they expensive? Yes, of course. But they're worth it if you need it.

What irritates me (not really because I don't truly care) is people who complain because a for-profit company doesn't give them a 5 star meal for the price of fast food.

[Croasdail]

.... except Canon's advertising campaign is very misleading. Canon keeps showing "shots" taken by mom or pop using an xt or a point and shoot that are increadably timed sports shot. And yet they dumb down those cameras with shutter lag and poor focusing speed. It is a total misrepresentation of what the cameras really can be reasonably be expected to do. Chevy doesn't run adds implying their mini van can carve up a mountain pass like a Corvette.

Back to subject though, it is well known that Canon will not share with the 3rd parties, but I think they take it a step further and overtly try to make their stuff incompatible. I know that my Sigma zoom used to focus faster with my 20D before I had a firmware update when Canon replaced the shutter box. On the 1D which has not had a firmware update in years, it performs just as well. It's one thing to not share, it is another thing to retroactively make things so that don't work as well.

I know many will say it is within their right... and thay may be true. But not many would put up with Canon having propriatary memory cards. Car owners wouldn't like it if car companies made it so you could only use their brand parts on the car - windshield wipers, oil filters, spark plugs, belts, tires, etc. I think a reasonable person would expect a cheaper part to not last as long. But that some person I think would not expect the car company to make the car sense a 3rd party product and then tune itself to run poorer.

Last stop on this ramble.... to CDI's remark that some of these 3rd party lenses may focus slower. That may be true, but it also may not matter. Lets say the Sigma 70-200 is a slower focusing lens then it's Canon counterpart. So what. I still get as many keepers and in focus shots as I do with the Canon. It just doesn't matter. Back to the car example... lets say the Canon car can pull .94 g and the Sigma car .91 g. The Canon clearly can handle better. But even on the Autobahn, neither would be coming close to need meeting that limit... you could run the road at the same speed because neither is running anywhere near it's max G limit. The same is true of the lenses and their focusing speed. If you know what your doing, you will track properly, have the right sight lines, you will never get to the point that focus speed is even an issue. Heck I have even shot indoor basketball with a Tamron 28-70, hardly a fast focusing lens, and had no problem getting shots. And I am by far not the best sports shooter out there, so others should be able to do it as well.

Focus speed is such an over hyped issue. Where I have more issues with 3rd party lenses is with color, contrast, saturation, and back ground blur shaped by blade design. That is where sometimes you can see a real difference. And yes, you can fix most of these in post production... but the canon lenses really reduce this work a lot. And to a pro who has hundreds if not thousands of shots to work per week, anything that reduces your work flow effort - is worth the extra money.

Ah.. I am done .... sorry all.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Now autofocus is one thing that pisses me off when it comes to Canon cameras.

1. Supposedly the 350D, one of the most popular cameras, has 2nd generation focus algorithms, that are faulty with apertures larger than 2.8. That's not acceptable to me.
What? Supposedly? Sounds like DPreview Bunk to me.

2. Why are Canon's 1D (pro) cameras faster with AF than my XT, or a 20/30D? Why should they be allowed to have faster AF, with the same lens?

3. Why does Canon keep their algorithms so secret, that 3rd party lenses can't perform the same, because they can't totally communicate properly.

So, a $600.00 camera should AF and have all the features and advances of a $5000.00 camera?
This makes no sense at all. I'm also not sure what "algorithms" means, the difference in AF between the $5K 1-series and the $600.00 XT is hardware, not any form of programming.
Much more involved, denser AF sensors, and more advance and more expensive processing hardware make the 1 series AF what it is. Not some arbitrary programing by Canon. If the XT had the 1 series AF system it would jack the price up by $2k



I realize this is a bit OT, but stuff like this really irritates me, and makes me remember that Canon can be, and is, a big corporation that wants money.
Again, having differing products at differing price points for different users is hardly a conspiracy plot executed by Canon, this is both business and reality based on the cost of technology.

CW, I don't mean to sound like I'm coming down hard on you, but I'm not sure what it is that you honestly expect from what you are saying. It reads to me that you would prefer that Canon not make any cameras better than the $600.00 models, and abandon the high end models all together. You can find that currently Sony is limited to one model, and Pentax line are all similar specs,. is this the preferred model?

[CyberDyneSystems]

.... except Canon's advertising campaign is very misleading. Canon keeps showing "shots" taken by mom or pop using an xt or a point and shoot that are increadably timed sports shot. And yet they dumb down those cameras with shutter lag and poor focusing speed.

Again, these cameras are not "dumbed down" or crippled in any way. They are cost effective. Faster AF and shutter speeds simply costs more.
Canon is offering a lower cost alternative, and these cameras are fully capable of taking the images that the advertisements illustrate, in fact they did take those pics. In fact the New XTI can take images in lower light than my aging 1D MkII due to the improvements in AF tech incorporated into that "dumbed down" model,. but this does not mean that Canon can incorporate the 1D 45 point AF system and all the associated dedicated processing hardware into that body and still sell it for the same low price.

C'mon guys this is basic real world economics,. if you really fell that Canon is just ripping you off then ditch your XT's for the Pentax or Sony. See if they AF a lot better.

[Croasdail]

CYber...being able to take shots at lower LUX levels hardly means you can track a fast moving object. Canon is advertising your going to get SI level shots with an xti and a kit lens. Total BS. Not going to happen - in real world conditions. No way. There is way more to it then low light focusing. There is also a little factor of shutter lag. And Canon had better have upped the low lux performance. The Canons focus faster then the Nikons, but the Nikons keep focus lock when the Canons start hunting in low light. The difference isn't even funny. Spend some time over in the sports forum and see how many unhappy peps are out there they are now surprised to know they need to drop 1500 on a 70-200 lens to realistically be able to take those shots. It's this little thing called truth in advertising.

No one is saying put the 45 point AF system into the entry camera... no one. But at the same time, I don't expect that when I send a camera in for service, that lenses that worked fine before from third parties now focus at half the speed they did before. Call me a cry baby - but I don't think that is right. I guess it is Canons right to F with my camera, but I think I also have the right to not be happy with it.

[cdifoto]

So then, Croasdail, your beef is with marketing. That has nothing to do with 3rd party vs OEM glass. And guess what....AF speed does matter to some people. It really does. Maybe not to you, but to others.

[Croasdail]

Too many people are trying to spend there way into being good photographers - rather then putting in the time to learn how to be good photographers. That's kind of where the marketing message meets the road. All the white lenses in the world will not make you good shooter if you don't first learn the basics. Once you master those, you may find you don't "need" those expensive lenses to get good results.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Too many people are trying to spend there way into being good photographers - rather then putting in the time to learn how to be good photographers. That's kind of where the marketing message meets the road. All the white lenses in the world will not make you good shooter if you don't first learn the basics. Once you master those, you may find you don't "need" those expensive lenses to get good results.

This seems to be directly in contradiction of your posts that say that Canon's ad's for the Rebel line are so wrong because no one could possibly use a rebel to get the images they use in the ads.. ???

Canon is saying (and rightly so IMHO) that you can get some great images with there low budget digital,. and you poopooed them above for this same thing. Now your mad that Canon is saying you need expensive gear and White lenses to get good photos? When and where have they said that?

Also, If AF speed does not matter to you, then why is it such a shame that Canon won't put faster AF speed into the lower priced models? ???

Hate to badger anyone in any thread, but really I can;'t follow any of what you are saying as all your posts seem to contradict the ones you just made prior.

[jcw122]

What? Supposedly? Sounds like DPreview Bunk to me.

It's not, I've heard it several times here on POTN that the Rebel XT has focusing errors/problems with apertures below 2.8. I've ALSO heard even more, that the XTi and 30D have tweaked "algorithms" that improve the AF with the XTi and 30D over the XT and 20D.




So, a $600.00 camera should AF and have all the features and advances of a $5000.00 camera?
This makes no sense at all. I'm also not sure what "algorithms" means, the difference in AF between the $5K 1-series and the $600.00 XT is hardware, not any form of programming.
Much more involved, denser AF sensors, and more advance and more expensive processing hardware make the 1 series AF what it is. Not some arbitrary programing by Canon. If the XT had the 1 series AF system it would jack the price up by $2k



Well, your more or less right about this, but I'm still very disappointed that I'd have to use a $5k camera to get the most of out high-speed AF on L glass that would still work on my 350D, but with worse ability to AF and track.



Again, having differing products at differing price points for different users is hardly a conspiracy plot executed by Canon, this is both business and reality based on the cost of technology.

CW, I don't mean to sound like I'm coming down hard on you, but I'm not sure what it is that you honestly expect from what you are saying. It reads to me that you would prefer that Canon not make any cameras better than the $600.00 models, and abandon the high end models all together. You can find that currently Sony is limited to one model, and Pentax line are all similar specs,. is this the preferred model?

Well, I do realize that Canon's 1D line is very important to them. And it does already have tons of features that the XT and x0D lines don't have.

It's just that AF is something that is very important for everyone, if you miss focus, or can't track it becuase your camera is a lower model, that's a bit too much of a loss for me. I'd be much more hesitant in investing in more expensive lenses, if their AF cannot be utilized as well as if I had a 1D.

It's just frustrating, and that adds to my half-witted remarks.

[Croasdail]

Let me summerize....

1) as a semi-pro, I try to keep to one system to minimize potential problems and resolution times where there are problems. It's the old one throat to choke approach. Most of the PJ and Sports photographers I work with share the same philosophy.

2) I do fault Canon for trying to tell people they can get pro level "sports" shots with a kit lens and an xti. The biggest issue is the kit lens. Car manufactures at least tell you the car you are seeing on screen is not the one for the low-low price. Canon isn't doing that. Consumers are buying the xti at Bestbuy with the 70-300 Canon lens, and then wonder why they can't get that "pro" looking shot. Canon isn't telling you that you need a f2.8 lens.... that happens later... here. That's where I fault them. Check out the xti brochure... page 13-14. There is no way that was taken with the lens on the oposite page, and in fact if you notice, on the image detail they left off the aperature detail. Just be honest... say optional equipment used/shown - just like the auto manufactures do.

3) As stated above the next thing that happens is people log onto sites like this, and ask how come they can't get those shots like in SI. The first thing offered is you need a white lens because that is what the pros use. Now they are buying a lens that is 2x their original kit. The truth is, as a "Hobbiest", there are plenty of solutions short going "L" that will work fine. A combination of an affordable lens and some real training will serve these people a lot more then buying white. They will not be putting 100,000 actuations on their camera a year. Just because a pro uses it, does not mean it is the right answer for a hobbiest. Quit often you will find almost pro level lenses from 3rd parties where say they do focus at 90% the speed of an L... for what the hobbiest is shooting, that should be fast enough. High School ball is a hell of a lot slower then Pro or Division 1 level sports. If you can't capture High School basketball with a Sigma, it is probably the shooters technique rather then hardware.

The truth is lenses like the 70-200 Sigma are more then capable of delivering what a hobbiest need. I would not recommend it as a solution for a daily shooter pro. Not that it can't do the job. It probably can. But I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it. On my Sigma, the outside paint is coming off. It was not built for the type of use I put stuff through. I shoot in the rain, snow, sleet.... it gets put on the ground when I change off between cameras. It gets tossed in the back seat unprotected... it's just the nature of the job. That is why I also have a 70-200 L. It isn't because the AF speed is slower.

There is a HUGE difference between what will work for hobbiest - and what a pro needs. The original question from the OP is whether pro's use non-Canon equipment. The answer is some do - depending on what they shoot. A "pro" sports photographer is 98% of the time going to use OEM lenses. A "pro" wedding photographer is less likely because the demands are different. A "pro" landscape and travel photographer may or may not... I don't know as I am not one.

I know this is another rambling response.. but hopefully it clears up the mud some. I have no issues with you all challenging what I think... I have my opinions changed often on this forum... that is why I am here. The author Bryan Peterson reports he shoots about 10,000 frames a year. He is a pro, a highly respected one. He also is not working even close to the duty cycle of L class glass or 1 class bodies. He also shoots landscapes and portraits. Again, AF speed not critical to him there either. What's the point. I don't know other then what a pro uses depends on what they shoot. There is no one right answer.

Net Net.. I wish Canon would be a wee bit more honest with their advertising. Tell people what they will really need. For pros- I recommend all OEM as much as possible when it comes to lenses. For anyone short of that - there are lots of options that shouldn't be dismissed just because pros use something else.

[cdifoto]

Let me summerize....

1) as a semi-pro, I try to keep to one system to minimize potential problems and resolution times where there are problems. It's the old one throat to choke approach. Most of the PJ and Sports photographers I work with share the same philosophy.

2) I do fault Canon for trying to tell people they can get pro level "sports" shots with a kit lens and an xti. The biggest issue is the kit lens. Car manufactures at least tell you the car you are seeing on screen is not the one for the low-low price. Canon isn't doing that. Consumers are buying the xti at Bestbuy with the 70-300 Canon lens, and then wonder why they can't get that "pro" looking shot. Canon isn't telling you that you need a f2.8 lens.... that happens later... here. That's where I fault them. Check out the xti brochure... page 13-14. There is no way that was taken with the lens on the oposite page, and in fact if you notice, on the image detail they left off the aperature detail. Just be honest... say optional equipment used/shown - just like the auto manufactures do.

3) As stated above the next thing that happens is people log onto sites like this, and ask how come they can't get those shots like in SI. The first thing offered is you need a white lens because that is what the pros use. Now they are buying a lens that is 2x their original kit. The truth is, as a "Hobbiest", there are plenty of solutions short going "L" that will work fine. A combination of an affordable lens and some real training will serve these people a lot more then buying white. They will not be putting 100,000 actuations on their camera a year. Just because a pro uses it, does not mean it is the right answer for a hobbiest. Quit often you will find almost pro level lenses from 3rd parties where say they do focus at 90% the speed of an L... for what the hobbiest is shooting, that should be fast enough. High School ball is a hell of a lot slower then Pro or Division 1 level sports. If you can't capture High School basketball with a Sigma, it is probably the shooters technique rather then hardware.

The truth is lenses like the 70-200 Sigma are more then capable of delivering what a hobbiest need. I would not recommend it as a solution for a daily shooter pro. Not that it can't do the job. It probably can. But I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it. On my Sigma, the outside paint is coming off. It was not built for the type of use I put stuff through. I shoot in the rain, snow, sleet.... it gets put on the ground when I change off between cameras. It gets tossed in the back seat unprotected... it's just the nature of the job. That is why I also have a 70-200 L. It isn't because the AF speed is slower.

There is a HUGE difference between what will work for hobbiest - and what a pro needs. The original question from the OP is whether pro's use non-Canon equipment. The answer is some do - depending on what they shoot. A "pro" sports photographer is 98% of the time going to use OEM lenses. A "pro" wedding photographer is less likely because the demands are different. A "pro" landscape and travel photographer may or may not... I don't know as I am not one.

I know this is another rambling response.. but hopefully it clears up the mud some. I have no issues with you all challenging what I think... I have my opinions changed often on this forum... that is why I am here. The author Bryan Peterson reports he shoots about 10,000 frames a year. He is a pro, a highly respected one. He also is not working even close to the duty cycle of L class glass or 1 class bodies. He also shoots landscapes and portraits. Again, AF speed not critical to him there either. What's the point. I don't know other then what a pro uses depends on what they shoot. There is no one right answer.

Net Net.. I wish Canon would be a wee bit more honest with their advertising. Tell people what they will really need. For pros- I recommend all OEM as much as possible when it comes to lenses. For anyone short of that - there are lots of options that shouldn't be dismissed just because pros use something else.

Now you're going way off topic. Look at the title of this thread. It's "Pro's using sigma lenses" not "Sigma good enough for hobbyists."

[Croasdail]

Now you're going way off topic. Look at the title of this thread. It's "Pro's using sigma lenses" not "Sigma good enough for hobbyists."

Ok... let me make it real simple.

Sigma not for Pro Sports and PJ Shooters.... possible exception is the 120-300 because Canon doesn't have one. Reason- not AF speed but long term durability.

Otherwise, it just depends on what type of Pro you are.

If you shoot less then 10,000 a year - they will likely work. If you shoot 100K a year - look to the Canon Ls.

It depends on what type of Pro you are...

Was that simple enough?

CDI - are you a pro, or a "hobbiest" who shoots for money occasionally? Just wondering what your point of reference is.

[cdifoto]

Ok... let me make it real simple.

Sigma not for Pro Sports and PJ Shooters.... possible exception is the 120-300 because Canon doesn't have one. Reason- not AF speed but long term durability.

Otherwise, it just depends on what type of Pro you are.

If you shoot less then 10,000 a year - they will likely work. If you shoot 100K a year - look to the Canon Ls.

It depends on what type of Pro you are...

Was that simple enough?

CDI - are you a pro, or a "hobbiest" who shoots for money occasionally? Just wondering what your point of reference is.

Wow this is a twisted statement. You're saying it doesn't matter WHAT you shoot, but how much you shoot. :rolleyes:

[Croasdail]

Wow this is a twisted statement. You're saying it doesn't matter WHAT you shoot, but how much you shoot. :rolleyes:

Which lends me back to what kind of shooting you do? Yes, how much you shoot makes a huge difference. There is a reason why Canon's pro lenses are made of metal not plastic. And it isn't so they feel cool in your hands.

And for crying out loud... YES... I said depends on what type of pro your talking about. Is that really that hard to understand? The needs of photojournalist are VERY different then a small town wedding photographer. When I worked for a paper in California, the average photograher would shoot more in a week then a wedding type would shoot in a year. Give me a break here CDI. Read the whole dang thing would ya. The number of shots you take can make a huge difference on what kind of equipment you pick up.

Yes.... what you do and how you will be using your equipment makes a huge difference.
Neither the 85 L mk 1 or mk II are fast focusing lenses. To a sports/pj photographer they are not optimal. Actually the non-L is better suited. On the other hand, wedding, fashion, and portrait photographers - the "l" works great for them. At that point, the fact that the normal 85 isn't built to L standards becomes a moot point, the lens becomes a consumable that you just plan on having to service or replaced more often. The same can be said of the Sigma 20 f1.8 or the full frame 12-24 zoom. They may not last as long, but they are the only ones in their class. So they might work for a pro who isn't going to crank 100k exposures through them a year. They just were not designed for that kind of work load. But to a wedding photographer who would do a couple thousand shots a year on the lens -they would likely do just fine.

Is your vision that narrowly focused that you can't see there isn't just one answer here?

You can do all the rollie eyes you want... but until you have actually done it... I would keep an open mind. Not that your opinion is wrong... but don't dismiss others who have done and actually do this stuff on a regular basis. You might just learn something.

Yes - how much you shoot make a difference too. There is much more to a 1D then it's focus speed. My 1d's have 45 focus points... but I use only one of them. Build and duty cycle are large reason why pros use them.

[cdifoto]

You don't know how much I shoot, what I shoot, or where I shoot. You're assuming I don't know what I'm talking about.

If you go back and read your own posts, you're talking in circles. As CDS pointed out, you contradict yourself with each new post. I'm not even going to continue here. You're the one being narrow minded.

[Croasdail]

I don't know, that's why I asked.... but I think your answer clears that up.

[cdifoto]

I'll leave you with your assumptions.

[liza]

Actually, Don is a professional wedding photographer who has recently added pro sports shooting to his array of services. He is not a hobbiest.

[Croasdail]

Which is fine... it just means his approach and his tools are different. That is all I was trying to get to. A landscape photographer vs. a wedding photographer vs. a pj/sports photographer vs. an artist are all going to select their tools on different criteria. There is no generic "pro" photographer. I couldn't be artistic is my life depended on it. I don't have the kit for weddings. I do go through 2 to 3 shutter boxes a year. I do have a Sigma lens I use - often. I am one of the few sports photographers that shoots for an agency that does. On the other other hand there are many youth sports photographers that use them, and very successfully.

My point was simply context is everything. What type of pro? How often do you shoot? What conditions do you shoot in? What skill level do you have. What are the expectations your customers have. It all adds up. Only knowing all that can you answer if a 3rd party lens will do the job. My opinion is they would work more often then not. My experience from the PJ/Sports side is 3rd party lenses are avoided. As part of being a freelancer, customers want to know what your kit is so they can judge if you have the right tools for the job. In the end, they don't care what you used. But it is used as a qualifier... fare or not. It is what it is. Perception often becomes reality.

Oh well....

[Broncobear]

LOL ok ok...I don't know why this topic got so complicated.

Basically I was looking for a feel if a guy can take a stab as a pro or semi pro with a mixture of sigma's and canon's and other equipment, if he/she has what works for them at the time.

that is what may be the situation for me in the comming years

I mean no one can just be a pro just cause they want to be and have all the expensive lenses all ready to go.

I personally think each case is differen't, and I've also gained more confidence since starting this thread to know that it doesn't matter what equipment the photographer uses, it what he produces is what's important.

[Croasdail]

when you say Pro... Pro what. What do you envision shooting. Short answer, based on your easing yourself into it... yeah, using a mix is a fine plan. And as you learn what your style is, then you can perfect your kit. Depending on what the end destination is going to be though will make a difference on what you buy first. For example, if you want to shoot high level college sports or the like, investing in a new or used 1D mk II or N. A really good 70-20O, a 300, plus a 24-70 would round out your starter kit. You can get good deals on all these used. On the other hand, as a wedding photographer you may want to look at a 5d to start You can skip the 300, but the rest would stay the same. If you want to go the budget route, you could easily go with a cheaper 20D or xti and the 17-50 ef-s IS plus a longer zoom like the Sigma 70-200. Landscape and stock photographer - for Microstock, image requirements aren't as exacting so a 30D plus some 3rd party lenses will get you buy. For the higher level stock images for advertising and magazine usage, then you want a much more exacting kit.

In the end, it just depends on what you want to do. I have a former photo teacher that makes a boat load of money doing high school senior pictures. L class equipment is not needed for this. Sigma and Tamron could easily handle that job. I make between 2-3 k a weekend "on the side" doing youth sports photos. These can also easily be done with good Sigma glass. If that is all I did, I could easily stay with Sigma. But I also do a lot of contract photograhy for Division 1 college teams where the images are seen in their promotional materials and given to the media for articles. I also do contract work for publications directly. As such, I have had to upgrade a lot of my hardware.

So sorry, the answer is not simple. The simple answer would be to go out and buy all L class glass. But as a business person you shouldn't spend 1 cent on something that doesn't add value to you end product. Depending on your end product, and the customers requirements, you very well may be able to get away with some of Sigma's glass.

I know I am probably not helping much, so sorry for that. I guess I could have just given the standard POTN answer - buy all and only Canon. So sorry for that. It would have made everything so much easier.

[grego]

Wow it's gotten to 7 pages.

[Croasdail]

If you up your post shown limit to 50 per page... it is only 3 pages! Bonus!

[wjohns]

The one Pro that I know of who uses Sigma lenses all the time is Lindsay Adler. I know for a fact she really puts her equipment through its' paces but then again Sigma probably hand picks her lenses for her.

[sonofjesse]

AS long as your happy and your clients who cares if your using a pinhole lens?

We got to think many of great pictures were taken 50 years ago. Now we have much sharper glass, insane quick aF, unlimited post edit options. So yes Sigma can make good pics.

[Tom Reichner]

It's funny, the gearheads I know have amazing equipment and the pros I know don't.

This is far more true than many people realize.

The top photographer for my local newspaper is still shooting with a Nikon D200, and has never had any of Nikon's "better" lenses ("nikkor", I think they call them).

The top pro in my entire county is still shooting with the first digital cameras he ever bought - a pair of Fuji DSLRs that he got back in, like, 2003. Yet he is the go-to photographer for anyone in my area wanting wedding, senior, portrait, team sports, and baby photography.

It's funny how lay people think full time pros have the latest and greatest gear. Just not true at all.

[NBEast]

Wow, 2006 - 2013 and it didn't skip a beat!

[ktan7]

I personally use all L lenses and stay away from aftermarket lenses. Don't trust anything else other than real factory lenses. But, I'm sure sigma lenses are awesome.

[NBEast]

I'm no pro, but I refer you to my prior post here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=15872818&postcount=86).

So call me a no-talent gearhead. I love my L's.

I know you're asking about what Pro's do - I'm just chiming in with a comparison from one anti-pro.

[Kronie]

This is far more true than many people realize.

The top photographer for my local newspaper is still shooting with a Nikon D200, and has never had any of Nikon's "better" lenses ("nikkor", I think they call them).

The top pro in my entire county is still shooting with the first digital cameras he ever bought - a pair of Fuji DSLRs that he got back in, like, 2003. Yet he is the go-to photographer for anyone in my area wanting wedding, senior, portrait, team sports, and baby photography.

It's funny how lay people think full time pros have the latest and greatest gear. Just not true at all.

So true...My local paper photographer shoots with a 30D and a 17-85 + 70-300 and a 430EX.

In the last two years I went to maybe 6 weddings as a guest and only one wedding where the they used top of the line gear and that was one that must have been a 250K wedding with 350 guests and fireworks and horse drawn sleighs.

It just doesn't make good business sense to buy a 85L when the 85 EF will do the job just as good a job and cost you $1,800 less. The customer wont see a difference.

Me? I am a gearhead. I also do some pro work and I use some sigma lenses. Some I wouldn't touch. Compatibility issues with Canon and the resale loss keeps me from getting anymore. I have owned the 150 macro, 70-200, 30 and the 50. I only own the 50 now but I might get the 35 and try it as some point. I always seem to grab the zooms because they are just so versatile and the two zooms I have 24-70 and 70-200 will cover just about everything you need.

[david lee]

Whoo Hoo!
I am a talentless Gear-head cos I only own L's
I love being stereotyped.. :-)

[NBEast]

Whoo Hoo!
I am a talentless Gear-head cos I only own L's
I love being stereotyped.. :-)
I was checking your pbase site. Although, for some quirky reason I really love your stuff, I can see how your L lenses are defective and hold you back. I mean; this one (http://www.pbase.com/david_arthur_lee/image/69600242) simply could not manage to get the background in focus. Here (http://www.pbase.com/david_arthur_lee/image/70683020), rather than nice pleasing dark shadows, the trees have all this annoying detail and the rich colors of the leaves are just too much to absorb. I don't understand why you would pay more when L consistently gives you these problems.

[Spiritualdrifter]

Austin Stevens is an avid sigma lens user, on a canon body or sometimes a Pentax or Samsung body , but always sigma lenses

[ktan7]

The price difference between signma and canon lenses as well are not much. I would save up a few more hundered dollars just to get the L lenses. Buy it once!