Sigma debate

[phili1]

With all the talk about how bad Sigma was and my being happy with there products fo 20 plus years, I had to find out what was going on because I have three lenses that I love. My 28 to 105 put my Canon 35 to 105 to shame. Not every body can afford an L series.

I called them gave them my lens no and they told me 2 had to be rechipped and one did not. When I asked them how much there response was no charge.

Like I said in an earlier post I have found them to be reliable and didn't think a company with there long business life could afford to p off customers.

[Jim_T]

I've got one Sigma lens (15mm-30mm). I would have gone Canon, but I rarely shoot wide angle and wasn't going to pay big for something that would live most of its life in my camera bag.. I bought the lens just to have in case I came across a situation I needed it.

As expected, I hardly use it, but I must say I'm happy with it. It worked on my 10D right out of the box without needing to be rechipped. The build quality is good and it takes nice sharp pix..

I've got no complaints with Sigma..

[chris.bailey]

Ready and willing to be flamed

BUT

from my viewpoint of having owned three Sigma lenses in my D30-D60-10D history, a 15-30 APO (Which I still have, use and like a lot), a 50mm prime (cant remember the details but it was awful and went in the bin as I recall) and a 28-200 Hyperzoom Macro (which I hated and sold with the D30) is that they are a very mixed bag. They produce some winners as many users on this board will celebrate but some absolute dogs. I never took a picture with the 28-200 that I was pleased with. That did put me off Sigma as a brand as did most articles where in head to head comparisons the Canons normally, though not always, come out on top.

Canons line up, to me, seems more certain. If you spend $500 on a lense you get $500 worth of lense, sometime more (the 28-135 for instance) but rarely less. When I bought the 10D I made a very definite decision to line this up with a set of lenses that I would be happy with for the next 5-10 years and to me that meant going Canon L (other than the 28-135 which I am happy with and will keep). Alongside that decision was the fact that Canon had put clear water between them and the competition and that my next few cameras would also be Canon. My line up is therefore a 50mm 1.4 prime, a 17-40L, a 28-135 IS USM and a 100-400L. When I want a bit wider I slap on the 15-30 sigma. I may well succumb to a bit of buying madness and add other lenses but my basic line up covers 95% of everything I ever want and I am happy that I could not do better without spending silly amounts of money on various big primes.

At the end of the day the important thing is what you think and not anyone else. If you have a lense line up you are happy with then count your blessings. Their customer service does seem to be first class.

[Belmondo]

Chris:
You raise an excellent point. Canon lenses become the benchmark against which all others are compared. When somebody brings out a lens that's numerically comparable to an existing Canon product, the comparison is inevitably made.

How many times have we heard professional reviewers make comments like, "Considering that this lens costs $XXX dollars less than the Canon version, it gives surprisingly good performance."? It is inevitable that in just about every article ever written about an EOS-compatible lens, a reference to a Canon equivalent is always made. This is especially true in the more expensive lenses.

From a slightly different perspective, think about how many times you've ever written a review of a third-party lens where the conclusion was that it was a superior lens to the Canon version. You'' find it in the cheaper consumer level lenses, but never with the professional copies.

[G3]

I have no problem with the build and image quality of the Sigma lenses that I own. For the money, they are incredible. As Belmondo and Chris have pointed out, though, the Canon "L" glass is the benchmark. It only makes sense. The quality of "L" glass is unquestionable and for the money you pay, it should be. Sigma makes two zoom lenses in the range of 500mm on the long end. Both sell for less than $1,000.00 street price. To get that sort of focal length and range in a Canon lens you would pay at least 4x that much. Do they stand up in image quality? I don't know about the 50-500, I haven't tried it. I can tell you that the 170-500 on my film bodies is excellent at all but the largest apertures, and it is certainly acceptable there. It is a rugged lens and the zoom and focus rings (for manual focus mode) are easy to operate and solid. I can't wait to get it back to use it on my 10D.

The ONLY problem I have had with Sigma was related to rechipping one of my lenses and Sigma stepped up and fixed the problem. Even though I had that problem and for a time was questioning the wisdom of that purchase, since they did make things right I would buy from them again. I think for those that simply cannot lay out the cash for a battery of all "L" glass, Sigma offers some excellent alternatives. I can afford to have one or two pieces of premium Canon glass, but I can't afford to fill every lens need I have with it. For me then, the Sigma lenses are the way to go for those other lenses. However, none of that matters if the lens won't work on the intended body and the company won't stand behind it. Had Sigma failed in that respect, I would have switched to Canon in a heartbeat. They didn't. They stood behind their product in the end and kept at least one customer.

For applications where I depend on a particular lens to make money for me, I need every edge I can get in speed, sharpness, and image quality. For those applications, I will go with Canon, they have at least a slight edge in almost every case. The lens will pay for itself anyway. For other, not so critical applications, I will go with Sigma. Usually, the difference is not something that can't be compensated in Photoshop. Sometimes the differences (at least in resolution tests) is so small, the human eye would have difficulty seeing it in a photo anyway.

Sometimes what you see in a magazine or internet test and what you actually see with the lens in practical use is two completely different things. I have a Tamron 90mm Macro lens that was inexpensive, but is an excellent lens. I don't recall the tests being all that glowing, but what I get out of it is completely different. This lens rocks. On my digital body it gives me an equivalent focal length of 144mm (1.6 crop factor) and 1:1 macro.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Canon and Sigma both make some junkers...

Canon and Sigma both make some near "perfect" lenses too...

Some of the better Sigma lenses in direct comparison to Canon lenses not only hold there own,. but often have superior functioning.. IMHO.

It is often difficult to make a direct comparison.. as the product lines are not structured the same.. (thus the TWO Sigma 500mm zooms.. can only be compared to a $5,000.00 Canon prime in focal length.. etc.)

It is almost safe to argue that the Canon Version will allways have the better image quality.... almost.

But,. there is a qulaifier, and I have to say that the "for the lower price" argument that the reviewers use is a stronger qualifier than is being accepted in this thread so far.

The price difference can be huge. The price difference can be the difference between owning a lens of those particular specs,. or not ever owning one... and that is a far more significant argument than is beeing suggested thus far in this thread

To me the Used Sigma 500mm f/4.5 I own will ALLWAYS be better than the Canon 500mm f/4 IS L

Why? Because I could afford it,. and thus I get to use it.

A Sigma lens is better than no lens. Period

That is all that matters.. it makes the Sigma superior to the Canon in every way to ME,. because there is no way I will ever have the opportunity to own the Canon.

Life is full of such compromises.

************************************************** ***********

Things get more interesting when we compare apples to oranges though...

Sigma has lenses that Canon has no reasonable competitor to.. if it is fair to say that Canon's big L primes will blow away the equivelent Sigma zoom,. than things need to be compared the other way around as well.

Lets compare any Canon 300mm zoom to any Sigma 300mm zoom

Sigma has two that will blow away any Canon 300mm zoom made.
Yes,. the Sigma's cost more too! And they should,. they are far superior.

So in this case you can "compromise" and buy the Canon at a lower cost,. but your images and low light performance,. handling , and durability will not be as good as with the Sigma...

...hmmmmmmmm interesting to hear that. :wink:

************************************************** ***********

Lastly,. if we want to compare apples to oranges,.why not to cantalopes as well?

My complete lens kit has over the last 5 months has mysteriously transformed to an All Canon "L" lens kit,. (all but one lens)
17-40mm L
28-70mm L
70-200mm L

Which do I use the most often?
Which works the best with the 10D?
Which consistently gives me the best exposure in AV,TV,or P ?
Which has the best ergonomic design?
Which has the best contrast and color?
Which consistently gives me the most "keepers"?


...it's the Sigma 500mm... every time.

I would not trade this "Cantilope" of a lens for my entire bag of "L" apples and oranges. :mrgreen:

[kahfluie]

...At the end of the day the important thing is what you think and not anyone else. If you have a lense line up you are happy with then count your blessings. Their customer service does seem to be first class.

Well said Chris.

I fall into the category of "I can't afford all Canon "L" Glass. I own two Sigma's... 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. I wish I could have the Canon Lenses, but I know that I did not go wrong "for the money I spent" on the Sigmas. Additionally, I do own two Canon Primes 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8 (which I hope to use for the first time tomorrow evening at a concert).

Will I ever go all Canon glass? Sure, hoepfully one day - but until then, Sigma continues to give me an affordable alternative. At the end of the day, I'm getting the results that I'm looking for from all of my lenses.

No regrets on sigmas purchases here!

[iwatkins]

I have four Sigmas and one Canon:

Sigma 12-24mm - No Canon example
Sigma 17-35mm - Canon example is fairly expensive
Sigma 105mm Macro - Optically similar to Canon's offering as far as I am concerned
Sigma 50-500mm - No Canon Example
Canon 50mm f1.4 - No Sigma example

Two of the Sigmas (12-24 and 50-500) simply cannot be replaced by Canon lenses. One of the Sigmas (105 Macro) is optically similar to the Canon offering and a lot cheaper. One of the Sigmas (17-35) could be replaced with a Canon at a large cost and that will probably happen this year. The one Canon couldn't be replaced by a Sigma.

I treat all the lens makers (I include Tokina, Tamron etc. here) as one big toy shop. I look at specs. reviews, costs, build etc. If it meets my requirements, I'll buy it, I don't care what name is on the front of the lens. Sure, it would be nice to have an all Canon 'L' lens bag, but that isn't going to ever happen because a) Canon don't make the lenses I want and b) I like to have a holiday, pay the mortage, have a car etc. :lol:

Cheers

Ian

[Tom W]

I have 4 Canon and 1 Sigma lens. I'm happy with all, though my older 50/1.8 is a little erratic on focus sometimes (and consequently has taken homage on the front of my Elan to protect the mirror).

The Sigma 70-200/2.8 is exceptionally nice IMHO (thanks, CDS) - I shot a good portion of a wedding with it recently, staying in the background and using available light. Results were quite good, even though I shot wide open most of the time. Of course, I'd like to have that nice white lens sitting on the end of my 10D, but I have a lens that is 95%+ as good for 1/2 the price. I'm not planning on switching soon.

[Canuck]

You are forgetting the Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX that has no Canon competition and wins this one. That said, I am waiting to see if a friend that took a pic oc a Tupolev Tu-134M makes it to www.airliners.net and if not I will submit mine. I would be shocked to no end if mine doesn't cut the mustard. Hmmm...a Fuji Finepix 3MP vs Canon EOS 10D w/ 120-300mm F2.8EX lens isn't a fair comparison so I am awaiting a response. I need to tweek a few more pics and then post them here on the forum.

Is it me or do those of us w/ a killer setup get really blasé about the pics and just expect the pics to be stunning? Am I geting ate up? I hope not! Although with $4500+ in camera/lens around your neck, I would hope you can get some decent pics, right?

[Malaxos1]

I do not have any Sigma lenses and ona Canon L series. I was looking at the Sigma 70-200 f2.8mm for weddings. I have been shooting with a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and have been incredibly happy so far, however I need to shoot from the back sometime as I hate being intrusiveSigma's 70-200 f2.8 and the Canon 70-200 f4L is very close in price. While the 2.8 would be a lot better for me than the f4 in low light situations, I passed on the Sigma. The reason is because every photo I have seen taken wide open is not the quality I want to give my clients. I have read that the Sigma has a sweet spot at around f8, I do take a lot at f8 at weddings but again I need to be able to shoot wide open. The Canon is sweet through out its focal lenght. So if the sigma isn't going to work for me at f2.8, f4, or f5.6 then it isn't the lens for me. Also I have read posts from other people on other boards when I posted my question on which lens to get that with the Sigma, there have been cases of mystery screws showing up in their bag. I have had a cheapo 28-80 for my Minolta a couple years back that I thought was alright. In the meantime I think I will stick with Canon.

[nosquare2003]

I've also got the Sigma 70-200/2.8. The Canon 2.8L versions are expensive while Sigma is definitely a choice to me. I prefer this lens over EF70-200/4L because one stop does matter. I sometimes shoot in low light condition. The quality will drop more if I boost the ISO by one stop. I didn't get the EF200/2.8L because a zoom lens will suit my wife's need more. (I prefer the prime myself though.)

[CoolToolGuy]

When I was heavy into FD gear, I had a couple of non-Canon lenses and the optical quality of them was not up to par. After spending big (for those days) dollars for them, I could not just run out and replace them with Canon glass. So I saved my nickels and dimes until I could get the Canon glass, and sold the others. I was very pleased, and vowed to stick with Canon glass exclusively. :roll:

Now I am accumulating EF gear, and I am hearing about problems with the non-Canon lenses in a different area - electronics. The tough part is that Sigma has the best assortment of focal lengths, and as some have mentioned, some lenses that have no competition from Canon (ultra-wide zooms, for example). This makes it tough to ignore Sigma, but I don't want to get burned again. :x

So I know Canon is a safe bet for compatibility, and the quality will be at least as good as the competition. 'L' glass makes it even better. :D

It seems that Sigma has committed to re-chipping the latest lenses, but if Canon makes some change that results in a change other than re-chipping, will Sigma respond in the same way? And that is my issue with reverse engineering. If Sigma would pony up the bucks for licensing fees to Canon and make the statement of compatibility it may make the difference. Instead, I might just have to swallow hard and save up for the outrageously-priced 16-35. :shock:

Or maybe go after a 1D so I can get the angle I want out of the 17-40... :?

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Malaxos1]

I've also got the Sigma 70-200/2.8. The Canon 2.8L versions are expensive while Sigma is definitely a choice to me. I prefer this lens over EF70-200/4L because one stop does matter. I sometimes shoot in low light condition. The quality will drop more if I boost the ISO by one stop. I didn't get the EF200/2.8L because a zoom lens will suit my wife's need more. (I prefer the prime myself though.)

My problem is that the Sigma doesn't seem that great wide open. Check ou www.photosig.com and do a search for photos taken by the sigma lens and you will see that it really isn't that great at wide apetures. Then do a search on photos taken with the Canon f4. Clearly the Canon is better wide open than the sigma. So for my and my business f2.8 from the Sigma is useless. So why not get a better lens for the same price?...Dean

[nosquare2003]

I've also got the Sigma 70-200/2.8. The Canon 2.8L versions are expensive while Sigma is definitely a choice to me. I prefer this lens over EF70-200/4L because one stop does matter. I sometimes shoot in low light condition. The quality will drop more if I boost the ISO by one stop. I didn't get the EF200/2.8L because a zoom lens will suit my wife's need more. (I prefer the prime myself though.)

My problem is that the Sigma doesn't seem that great wide open. Check ou www.photosig.com and do a search for photos taken by the sigma lens and you will see that it really isn't that great at wide apetures. Then do a search on photos taken with the Canon f4. Clearly the Canon is better wide open than the sigma. So for my and my business f2.8 from the Sigma is useless. So why not get a better lens for the same price?...Dean

Thanks, but I think that I've made my points clear for the lens selection. By the way, I have some experience for prime lens (including the 200/2.8L though not much) so I know what's good.

[Cadwell]

I look at specs. reviews, costs, build etc. If it meets my requirements, I'll buy it, I don't care what name is on the front of the lens.

Cheers

Ian

My approach too. I have the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 because it met my requirement for a fast telephoto zoom and seemed to have about the right length. I am very impressed by this lens.

[CyberDyneSystems]

My Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 was pretty darn sweet wide open.. It may not be "Prime-like" but I have a number of pics I am quite proud of taken with that lens...

I supoose it must vary from copy to copy... and that seems to be true of canon lenses too.. The differences that are reported on the 100-400mm IS for instance.. seems to be dramatic.

[jdbulldog]

I have been reading items posted here for several months and have been caught up in the debate between Sigma and Canon. I have owned Sigma products for Nikon and have always had a great deal of respect for the quality of the many lenses I have used. I have recently switched to Canon and have purchased a DRebel to get started with digital. I am also planning on purchasing a Canon Elan 7 (used) for a back up camera. I normally shoot sporting events and weddings as a side business to teaching.

Anyway, I am planning a trip of a lifetime, Alaska. My family will be spending 2 months fishing, backpacking, biking, and traveling through Alaska. I need some advice on a good sized zoom lens to purchase that I could also use for the above situations. I am debating between the following:

Canon 70-200 L 2.8 (non-IS out of budget)
Canon 100-400 IS
Sigma 70-200 HSM 2.8

The 100-400 IS is at the very end of my budget range considering the cost of the trip. If you had to purchase one of these for THE TRIP of a lifetime, which would it be.

[G3]

No doubt. The Canon 100-400 L.

[karusel]

Belmondo, the reason Sigma (or Tamron & Tokina) lens are by default compared to Canon lens (and yes, even to L's which sometimes do get beaten) is simply due to the fact, that Canon produces lens as well as cameras. So it would be kind of natural to expect that people would tend to buy lens from the same Canon family, trusting they are better than the rest, so comparing a third party lens to Canon's is perfectly natural, IMHO, that is...

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'd bring a 70-200 f/2.8.. with both 1.4X and 2X t-cons.

[Whaler]

Better yet. . . . leave one family member behind and get the the 70-200 2.8 IS.

[kahfluie]

I'd bring a 70-200 f/2.8.. with both 1.4X and 2X t-cons.

For the money... I'd have to agree with CDS, although Whaler does bring up a good alternative! :lol:

[jdbulldog]

Considering that the Wife's family is helping put the bill I can't leave anyone behind so I am really having to watch my budget.

I am leaning towards the 2.8 with a 1.4X and 2 X Convert. Now would you recommend the Canon L (non-IS) or the Sigma HSM? I will be taking my medium tripod and my monopod and I almost exclusively shoot off of a monopod when using a zoom.


To each who responded, I really appreciate the advice. I have read many of your previous posts in other threads and admire your candor as well as your expertise.

Sincerely,

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

When I bought the 10D I decided to buy only Canon glass, and did, my first 2 lenses were Canon.

But they were not as good as expected and because I only had little money I decided to try a few Sigma's and they performed better in the same price range.

Recently I almost bought myself my first grey lens the 100-400L but decided to go for the Sigma 80-400OS instead, and I never regretted it.

I think that if you look in the SAME price range the third party lenses will win, and is that not all that counts, I can't understand people comparing a $ 400,00 to a $ 1500,00 lens and than claiming the $ 1500,00 is better, I BETTER BE !!! :shock: :D.

I have a limited budget and want the absolute best within that budget, when I saw reviews about the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 in which it bettered the Canon L version I knew I was on the good road (because I allready wanted that one).

I think all is worth it's money and so you can NEVER make a comparison between the brands, unless you take two lenses in the same range, for example the 100-400L vs the Sigma 80-400 OS.
And that test I still have to do :D.

Greetings,
Frank

[defordphoto]

The main thing people need to remember here is that they need to buy what's best for them. We have a mixture here on this forum of pros, semi-pros, freelancers, extreme-hobbyists, hobbyists and snap-shooters.

If you play this as the contest of who has the most toys, you'll go bankrupt.

Consider your budget, what you'll be shooting and then make your decisions from there. Just because a pro-shooter (or wanna-be pro) says a lens is crap, does not mean it's crap. It may not suit their needs, but it'll take awesome shots of Grandma, your dog, junior and the flowers out in the backyard.

Do not overbuy.

It's easy to become influenced by the forums and buy much more than you need to try and keep up with the toy-contest, but when you have pros and semi-pros buying 1Ds', 1D MKII's and L-glass galore, you'll quickly find the credit card police at your door if you're not careful.

There are some great, relatively inexpensive third-party lenses out there and the best advice I can give is to peruse the review websites and avoid the forum-hash that's dealt out not only here, but at all the other photo forums on the Net.

Now do not get me wrong, most of the forums provide some very sound advice, but as I said above, it's easy to get entertwined in the accessory-purchasing hoopla and relegating other priorities (food, day care, new underwear, shoes for the kids) ahead of photo-related purchases.

[Canuck]

I totally agree with Jim here. Although this is a 10D and Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 lens you need to put it in perspective. I will also say there is nothing worse than having someone come back at you for giving them advice and getting crummy pics. That is partially the reason I reccommend expensive glass, that way it puts me more at ease, knowing the glass can perform. It may well be that case that the user isn't to that level yet. So where do I fit? I am truely not sure...I am definitely not a pro by any stretch of the imagination. If I had to make an educated guess it would be advanced amateur. The only thing stopping me from going pro is the fact that I don't make money off the pics I take.

This pic was taken at London, Heathrow Int'l Airport and is a Tupolev Tu-154M.
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3180716&outx=760&oq=0