Sigma Recommendations?

[Lionstone]

A long time ago, I bought a Canon Rebel G 35mm SLR from Wolf Camera, and Wolf sold a Sigma lens instead of the Canon kit lens with the body (for a reduced price). I think it was a 28-80, if I remember.

I sold that camera several years ago, but I remember really enjoying the way the pictures looked from that lens. Lately, I've been reading that Sigma is really hit or miss with their lens designs, though.

After that long lead-in (sorry), can anyone give me a short list of good Sigma lenses? I'll be happy to read the reviews myself at the various sites out there, but there are a whole lot of reviews and I'm lazy. ;) I'd like to try out some of their modern lenses for old times' sake and maybe even get a bargain in the process. :)

Thanks in advance.

[bagtagsell]

17-70
70-200 2.8
10-20
30 1.34

[angryhampster]

any "EX" model sigma is going to have a GREAT build quality. Only one of their lenses is *known* for its quality control issues..the 30 f/1.4.


Look at my sig. I'm extraordinarily happy with these lenses considering the money that I've spent. What I got from Sigma for $1250, I would get from Canon for $3000 if I'm lucky. No complaints about the 150, the 24-70, or the 10-20.

[MikeI]

28-70 f/2.8 EX DG (although sometimes wish I had the 24-70)

70-300 APO---great telephoto for the price.

30 f/1.4

50-500----The Bigma!

[Lani Kai]

Any of their 5 macro lenses
120-300mm f/2.8 EX HSM
300-800mm f/5.6 EX HSM

[Lionstone]

Thank you for the help!
Based on your suggestions and the image galleries in the sticky, I've added the 10-20 EX and the 24-70 EX DG to my list. I'm still flip-flopping between the 24-70 and 17-70, though, especially with the XT's crop factor. I've got the BIGMA on a long-range wish list - that's a really affordable 500mm! It seems to be well regarded by the community, too.

I remember my old Sigma lens had a "macro mode" switch at its longest focal length that would let the front element extend WAY farther out than normal for close focusing. I'm glad to see that the 24-70, about the same focal range, still has that "MACRO" designation. :)

[HoRnYTuRbO]

budget maybe? not everone want to drop a g on a lense

[Tony-S]

Lately, I've been reading that Sigma is really hit or miss with their lens designs, though.

I'm 6-for-6 with Sigma lenses. All worked perfectly well right out of the box.

After that long lead-in (sorry), can anyone give me a short list of good Sigma lenses?

My best Sigma lenses are the 30mm f/1.4 and the 100-300mm f/4. The 100-300 is the best $800 I've spent on a lens and it takes the 1.4x TC very well. My 105mm macro is also fabulously-sharp (as one would expect) and is very easy to handle. (I'm thinking about selling it to fund the 150mm macro.) The 17-70mm gets the most time on my camera, and the 10-20mm is used principally for landscape shots.

The 18-200mm? Well, it's a good travel lens. It suffers from CA, but not too badly, and can hunt a bit at the long end in poor lighting.

Next on my list: The Bigma.

[Miyagi-san]

Sigma's 150mm macro is my #1 favorite lens I've ever used....highly recommended

And my sig is a little premature....the 30mmf1.4 should be here tomorrow or the next day....I'm honestly a bit worried as I've read a bunch of stories about front-focusing but I am thinking that it's really a small percentage that are "bad"....I figured it's worth the small gamble, I mean an EX HSM lens that is comparable by many to canon's 35mmL for $700 less.......couldn't pass it up. Hope it gets here SOON!

woohoo! 1500th post!

[rparchen]

I've never had any issues with a Sigma lens. My favorites as my 150mm F/2.8 EX and 10-20 EX. I also owned the 18-50mm F/2.8 EX when I had my XT and the optics were great. My only gripes about the 18-50 was lack of full-time manual focus and HSM motor. But I've always been pleased by their quality and wouldn't hesitate to get one. I'm currently considering the 30mm F/1.4, that looks to be a fun lens.

[angryhampster]

Thank you for the help!
Based on your suggestions and the image galleries in the sticky, I've added the 10-20 EX and the 24-70 EX DG to my list. I'm still flip-flopping between the 24-70 and 17-70, though, especially with the XT's crop factor. I've got the BIGMA on a long-range wish list - that's a really affordable 500mm! It seems to be well regarded by the community, too.

I remember my old Sigma lens had a "macro mode" switch at its longest focal length that would let the front element extend WAY farther out than normal for close focusing. I'm glad to see that the 24-70, about the same focal range, still has that "MACRO" designation. :)



IMHO, with the 10-20, the 24-70 is a great partner :) I've got the older 24-70, not the macro version. I bought a set of "macro" diopters on ebay for $20, and got some really neat shots last fall before I got my extension tubes and 150mm lens. It's really a nice lens to use.

[irish1]

If I could only have one lens, it would be the 17-70. 'Nuff said.

[kevindar]

add the sigma 105 and 150 macro to that list. I agree with 30 1.4, and 10-20 (own both)

[Nick_C]

I find my 17-70 almost never leaves my camera, apart from when I mount my Sigma 55-200 which is also a rather suprisingly good lens.

With the 17-70 you dont need to carry a macro lens around with you either, the macro side is by far the most underated feature, sure its not 1:1 like a macro but its 1:2 is so close to a real macro lens in terms of sharpness, CA etc.. I did some tests & ended up getting a refund on the 50mm Macro lens as the 17-70 proved itself to be so good.

For a lens that "does it all" you cant go wrong with the 17-70, I cant see any other lens that comes close to what it offers, there doesnt seem to be any major sacrifices with the 17-70 like there are with lenses like the 18-200 etc..

Nick :-)

[R32Bum]

The 4 sigma lenses that I have used and found to be stellar

12-24mm 4.5/5 especially considering the fact that it works on 1.3 and ff cameras

18-50 2.8 5/5 it takes the kit lens outside and beats it up, rarely left my 20d

24-70 2.8 EX 6/5 (its that good) cheap, sharp, I have this and a 24-70L and on a crop camera would pick the sigma, hands down. On a 1 series its a little closer, as the L has the weather sealing and faster AF, but on my 20d the Sigma was the clear champ

70-200 2.8 4/5 Gets a four simply because I had to send it in for calibration (back focus was an issue, but when it came back :wow: what an awesome lens for only slightly more then the canon f4 you can have f2.8

[fleurya]

I have a question about the 70-200. Does the sigma have image stabilization? I don't see anything that says so, so I don't really see an advantage. I've seen the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 priced at $890 and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 priced at $950. For me, it seems that all things being equal, I would pay $60 more to get the Canon, unless the Sigma does have IS.

[LightRules]

I have a question about the 70-200. Does the sigma have image stabilization? I don't see anything that says so, so I don't really see an advantage. I've seen the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 priced at $890 and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 priced at $950. For me, it seems that all things being equal, I would pay $60 more to get the Canon, unless the Sigma does have IS.

The EX has no IS/OS, but there should be more than a $60 price difference between the EX and non-IS L.

[TeamSpeed]

The EX has no IS/OS, but there should be more than a $60 price difference between the EX and non-IS L.

Yes, you have to compare prices at the same store. B&H has $890 vs $1140, so there is $250 price difference between the two. The Sigma is the better bang for the buck. I have had 2 out of the 3 different variants of the Sigma 70-200, and they were very, very nice. I now have the Canon IS version, only because I got a deal on it, but still have to wonder if the all weather sealing and IS is worth twice the price, with the type of shooting I do.

[Lionstone]

Wow, you've all been very helpful. Thank you very much.

I went ahead and spent the money on the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS a couple weeks ago. I've been very happy, but need to be more budget minded with the rest of my starter kit. ;) The kit lens with the XT isn't giving me enough latitude. I was going to get a kit replacement at the same time as the f/2.8 but wanted to make sure I had enough spending money on my trip. Now that I'm back, the combination of the Sigma 24-70 and 10-20 ought to keep me busy for a while. The other L's I have my sights on will come in time. :)

Thanks again!

[Tony-S]

Have you considered the Sigma 12-24 instead of the 10-20? That would give you continous range from 12-200mm.

[condyk]

It would take a while to list all the good Sigma's, so why not say what range you are interested in and people can suggest. Also true that the lens you liked was old and in the same range there may be better options than a new Sigma.

[jr_senator]

I have a question about the 70-200. Does the sigma have image stabilization? I don't see anything that says so, so I don't really see an advantage. I've seen the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 priced at $890 and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 priced at $950. For me, it seems that all things being equal, I would pay $60 more to get the Canon, unless the Sigma does have IS.

Oh, hell yes, but many still get the Sigma. I can't understand it either.

[Tony-S]

I have a question about the 70-200. Does the sigma have image stabilization? I don't see anything that says so, so I don't really see an advantage. I've seen the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 priced at $890 and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 priced at $950. For me, it seems that all things being equal, I would pay $60 more to get the Canon, unless the Sigma does have IS.

Not sure where you're seeing the Sigma at $890; it's $750 at Sigma4Less.

[Tony-S]

Oh, hell yes, but many still get the Sigma. I can't understand it either.

Perhaps it's because the Sigma comes with a 4 year warranty vs. 1 year for the Canon? Perhaps $200 in savings is enough to justify going with the Sigma?

[condyk]

Could also be the non-IS isn't sold in the UK ... for some that will be an issue. If the gap was only $60 I would get the Canon too. It doesn't seem to be the case.

[Col_M]

70-200 EX DG is a cracker of a lens!

It's the sharpest zoom i have.

[Lionstone]

It would take a while to list all the good Sigma's, so why not say what range you are interested in and people can suggest. Also true that the lens you liked was old and in the same range there may be better options than a new Sigma.

Well, I need wide angle first. The 10-20 will probably be next in line (or the 12-24 depending). After that, I need to fill in the range currently covered by the kit, and filling in all the way up to 70mm in one lens would be nice. Right now, telephoto is covered via the Canon 70-200 and 1.4 TC. Anything beyond that range is not really essential for me, so it goes to the end of the line, probably not until next year some time.

The members here have lots of great ideas for ways to fill in the kit; I'll probably take a little while deciding even though I thought I had already. :)

I thought of Sigma because I liked the old one I had and the cost savings can be significant over Canon. I can buy L replacements as I get promoted (first job is programming; attrition can be bad, so simple longevity can get you a high position).

[blur07]

Which I should I buy?

Sigma 17-70 / 2,8-4,5 DC Macro
OR
Sigma EX 24-70/2,8 DG Macro

The 17-70 is 25% cheaper. Has better Maco 1:2.3 compared to 1:3.8. Downside not constant aperture and no EX build quality.

How about the IQ between those lenses? Is the front rotationen on those lenses which gives you probs when using UV-filter?

Help me out please.

[Nick_C]

Which I should I buy?

Sigma 17-70 / 2,8-4,5 DC Macro
OR
Sigma EX 24-70/2,8 DG Macro

The 17-70 is 25% cheaper. Has better Maco 1:2.3 compared to 1:3.8. Downside not constant aperture and no EX build quality.

How about the IQ between those lenses? Is the front rotationen on those lenses which gives you probs when using UV-filter?

Help me out please.

Not sure about IQ on that 24-70 but build on the 17-70 is good enough, I tried an EX macro a while back & it was about the same build as the 17-70.

I would find 24mm not wide enough on a cropped body but for some that isnt the case.

IQ wise take a look at my 100% crops I did recently on the 17-70 samples page, its one tack sharp lens by anyone's standard.

The front element does NOT rotate on the 17-70.

Nick :-)