The Best of Sigma Lenses

[Hannah]

With reviews widely mixed around the net (including those of fredmiranda), I was hoping to get some input from Sigma Users on what lenses you feel can hang with Canon quality (or close based on way you pay) and which should be avoided?

Thanks everyone,

Hannah.

[xuxu1]

I´ve been looking around the Internet quite a lot since i was interested in the Sigma 50-500 and the Canon 100-400L IS.

It took a long time until i found the (for me) proper decision.

I went for the Canon!

Regards
Ed

[blackviolet]

sigma lenses that i love:

50-500mm f/4-6.3 ex apo hsm (aka bigma)
15mm f/2.8 ex fisheye
12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 ex dg hsm

sigma lens that i hated (and sent back):
28-300mm f/3.5-6.3

one i don't mind (not nearly as sharp as the 'ex' or of course 'L', but not bad nonetheless):
28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (the one that is 72mm diameter, - the other one was crap)

one i couldn't really test due to err99 on every one i tried:
135-400mm f/4-5.6 apo

[photoguynorth]

I think it is sharper than the Canon (I don't know about the new DO version though), but lacks IS. If IS is not important to you, the Sigma will be very satisfactory.

[scottbergerphoto]

The Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX APO HSM is a stellar lens and $1500 less then the Canon 500 f/4.

http://www.pbase.com/image/26490950.jpg

Regards,
Scott

[Tom W]

I'm very fond of my Sigma 70-200/2.8. Its a keeper.

[Brianbar]

I took my 10D to the local camera store and tried the Sigma 17-35mm 2.8-4 EX (not the new DG version), then tried the Canon 17-40mm L,
both with all the same setting and distance from subject.
I then went home and down loaded both onto my computer, the results were like night and day, with the Canon been so much better than the Sigma.
I've read messages on this forum, stating, unless your a professional, why go to the extra expense of the Canon 17-40mm L, if you spend that kind of money on a 10D, why would you settle for anything less from a lens.
Believe me it's worth the extra money.

Brian
Canon 10D
17-40L
28-105 USM
75-300 USM
420EX

[RikWriter]

I own the Sigma 12-24 and love it---excellent sharpness and a very wide angle.
I used to own the Sigma 28-200, but I sold it...I wanted it for a walkaround snapshot lens, but it wasn't even good enough for that.

[AzzKicker]

I love my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX. I think it competes fine with the Canon version and WAY CHEAPER. I still find it funny that people pay almost half more for the canon version. I guess if you have the money it doesnt matter. To me "L" Glass is overrated. in certain things.

[DocFrankenstein]

This sigma 70-200 you speak of... is it plastic or metal body?

[Cordell]

I have the Sigma EX 70-200 2.8 and LOVE it. I used the Canon 70-200 2.8 with IS and wasn't impressed except for the IS. For the money the Sigma is way better (READ: I SAID FOR THE MONEY). If I had the money to go with the Canon with IS I might, but I would not consider the Canon that does not have IS in place of my Sigma to simply pay more money and say I have an "L".

[timmyquest]

120-300 f/2.8

[Miika]

70-300 APO Macro II / 4.0-5.6

Pros:
- cheap
- sharp enough
- macro feature
- light

Cons:
- slow & loud autofocus (compared to Canon USM lenses)
- plastic body
- not very useful in low light conditions
- no image stabilizer (see price on the pros side)
- not very smooth zoom ring
- focus ring feels loose (manual focus)
- eye-catcher: you are going to be noticed


When I was considering buying my 10D almost two months ago, I was quite novice on the lenses. The dealer made a nice offer and included this lense with a very good price. During last weeks I have thought a lot of investing on a Canon 70-200 / 2.8.

BUT: reviewing the pictures I have taken during past year with G3 and now with 10D I don't feel there's much need for >100mm indoor shooting. To fill the low light shortcoming I got the Canon 85/1.8 - it is quite close to maximum reach of G3.

Miika

[AzzKicker]

The Sigma EX line is Metal body. Not the cheaper plastic ones. IMO the non EX series of Sigmas are crap. But then again a lot of Canons NON-L lenses are crap too.

[Jmurman]

I have the 70-200 2.8 and like it.

[DocFrankenstein]

I can't stop hyperventiating! :lol: :shock:

I just got the Sigma 70-200 2.8

[MarkH]

120-300 f/2.8

[drools]

Sounds nice. Apart from size, weight and price, this lens would be perfect for me.

This is one where no one can suggest getting the Canon instead, there is no Canon zoom this long with as much aperture.

[velvetjones]

The Sigma 70-200 is a great lens...I got mine for under $600. I also have the fisheye and that is also a decent piece of glass for the money.

[CyberDyneSystems]

First off ,.. look for these two letter acronyms;

1: "EX" this is there "excellence" line or whatever... definately of higher build quality.
2: "HSM" = HyperSonic Motor. This is Sigma's fast "USM" type focus motor.. MUCH faster and MUCH quieter than Sigma's (or anyone elses) "standard" focusing systems.


Zooms

12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX

70-200mm F2.8 EX APO IF / APO IF HSM
One of the best lens bargains by ANY manufacturer

100-300mm F4 EX IF / IF HSM
120-300mm F2.8 EX Apo HSM IF
These two 300mm Zooms are in classes by themselves... no competitor has anything quite like them in either quality or specs.. (although the new EF 70-300mm DO is arguably competetive with the 100-300mm f/4 in certain aspects including image quality) The 120-300mm is literally a 300mm f/2.8 Prime in quality that happens to be able to zoom as well. Untill Canon released the "DO" Sigma virtually owned the 300mm zoom market with these two super lenses.

80-400mm f4.5-5.6 EX OS
This lens has two major faults. It is too closely priced to the Canon 100-400mm in the US,. and it lacks Sigma's own HSM focus motor

50-500mmF4-6.3 EX APO RF / RF HSM
This is Sigma's definitive low cost Wldlife lens. Anyone looking for a wildlife lens at a low cost of about $1,000.00 need look to only two lenses.. this and the Canon 400mm f/5.6L

300-800MM f5.6 EX Apo HSM IF
Again Sigma has this lens in a class all it's own. Another Zoom that thinks it's a prime and performs like one across it's entire range.

Primes

20mm F1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF
24mm F1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF MACRO
28mm F1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF MACRO
These don't have the respect of many of the other lenses mentioned.. but there cost vs. qualiity ratio should put them on anyones list of good lenses

105mm F2.8 EX Macro
180mm F3.5 EX APO Macro IF / IF HSM
The Sigma Macro primes are every bit as good as others as far as image quality is concerned. The only drawback is the focus motor on the 105mm


300mm F2.8 EX APO / APO HSM
A great perfomer for a fast sports telephoto at a very reasonable price. It's only problem these days is Sigma's own 120-300mm f/2.8 Zoom has literally destroyed the market for this lens.

500mm F4.5 EX APO / APO HSM
800mm F5.6 EX APO / APO HSM
The ONLY option to the OEM big primes come from Sigma, and they are true bargains and exceptional perfromers. Every bit as good as there Name Brand counterparts lacking only the Image Stabilization and Canon's flourite lens' inherent "cool" look.


O-kay.. let me know if I missed any :)

[Tom W]

the only thing I think you missed is that Canon's 100-400L does compare favorably to Sigma's 50-500. You mentioned the 400/5.6, but the Canon zoom is quite good as well.

As for the 20, 24, and 28, they all recieved good reviews from PopPhoto not too long ago. I have the 20, and while it is a bit soft at f/1.8, it tightens up quite well at 2.8 and is fine beyond that. Its only weakness is side sharpness isn't as good until about f/4 or so, and the autofocus isn't all that great. Put HSM on it and it would be great.

It is worth noting that it is considerably harder to make a good wide angle lens as compared to "normal" or moderate telephoto. PopPhoto's review reflects this by noting a considerable improvement with the 24 mm lens (in fact, I recall that one having the best SQF chart of the 3 in the test). Too bad 24 isn't very wide on a 1.6 lens.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I agree about the 100-400mm.. but I don't consider it to be in the same price bracket... (although recently the price of the 50-500mm has gone up :( )

It used to be more than a $500.00 difference in price.. that's why I started with the 50-500mm That extra $550.00 at the time nearly paid for my 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM :mrgreen:

[Tom W]

It used to be more than a $500.00 difference in price.. that's why I started with the 50-500mm That extra $550.00 at the time nearly paid for my 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM :mrgreen:

What do you mean your 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM? :D

j/k, of course. If Dell ever produces a deal like you had again, I'll probably end up with the Canon IS version.

[danphoto1]

Love the 120 300 f2.8 14mm Aspherical 2.8 prime and 20 mm 1.8. I enjoyed usung other lenses but as I bought new cameras the failed became washed out and just plain didn't work with the newer cameras.


Dan

[tekgik]

I'm very fond of my Sigma 70-200/2.8. Its a keeper.

i vote for the 70-200 2.8 too! :wink:

[Jmurman]

When I bought my Sigma 70-200 2.8 I was trying to decide between the Canon 70-200 2.8L and this lens. I guess that Canon pissed me off by not including the tripod ring mount with the "L", and I went with the Sigma. Glad I did.

[rboate]

I have been using a Sigma 28 -70 2.8 EX for several years and find that it is a great lens when used with film bodies but, due to the 1.6 crop this lens doesn't get used quite as much on my 300d. I hope to purchase the new Sigma 12-24 EX soon.

[Murph7355]

I back to back compared the 50-500 APO HSM lens with the Canon 100-400L IS USM.

Thoughts were:

1) Lack of IS will be a problem for most people when these things are at full extension. They are weighty beasts and to hold them steady for lengthy periods you'd need wrists like Hercules!

2) The Sigma lens is a lot heavier than the Canon. And you really feel this (see above). That noted, its tripod mount is a lot better than Canons and can readily be used as a hand grip/handle.

3) Autofocus on the Sigma is much noisier than the Canon.

4) Autofocus is noticably slower on the Sigma too.

5) The Sigma was incredibly stiff to zoom. Could have been that it was new, but I suspect it's simply a factor of the weight that has to be geared in and out.

6) The Canon's push pull zoom takes a bit of getting used to (but actually works quite well once you get used to it).

7) Both lenses are built like brick outhouses.

8) Image sharpness on both at 400mm is very good. I believe the Canon shades the Sigma at this length, but of course the Sigma has another 25% up its sleeve.


All in all I went for the Canon. Speed of autofocus, the slight improvement in image quality at 400mm, the lighter weight and, above all, the IS meant that the lens was well worth the extra (equivalent to about 3-350USD).

The extra reach of the Sigma was sorely tempting, but in the end I went with the Canon.

I'm now debating whether to go for the Sigma 12-24 or Canon 17-40L. I suspect the Canon may get the vote again, though this time many of the above considerations don't apply - I'll be using the 100-400 for sports photography etc (ie fast moving) whereas the wide will be used for portraits/landscapes, where different selection criteria apply...

Canon really need to develop a wider wide zoom. They also ought to look at the top end too - the Sigma 300-800 is another interesting lens. But at nearly 6kg I think I'll need to get down the gym!

[danphoto1]

Canon lens on Canon camera will win every time. If you really want shar get thw 16-35 L lens nothing that is a zoom can compare with it on a Canon camera. I have owned Sigma 17-35 good lens but as I traded up cameras the ability of the lens to work degraded with each camera. I also have had durability problems some times auto foucs worked omtimes it didn'twith the Sigma

[CyberDyneSystems]

Murph7355

Having owned both lenses myself (50-500mm &100-400mm) I have to say your comparison is very accurate!

One thing I would say though.. about the weight comparison is this.

There really is no comparison where hand holding is concerned.. it boils down to a much more basic and fundamental difference.

Simply put,.
The Canon 100-400mmL IS is a dream to handhold.
The Sigma 50-500mm EX NEEDS a support. Don't even think of lugging this beast around without a monopod.

That said.. anyone considering the Sigma,.. or any lens that weighs this much,. should be buying it WITH a monopod in mind. :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Canon lens on Canon camera will win every time. If you really want shar get thw 16-35 L lens nothing that is a zoom can compare with it on a Canon camera. I have owned Sigma 17-35 good lens but as I traded up cameras the ability of the lens to work degraded with each camera. I also have had durability problems some times auto foucs worked omtimes it didn'twith the Sigma

Hi Dan :)
I have to say,. if the sum total of your expeirience with Sigma is this one lens.. then your judgment of the entire line is far too broad. :?

Please notice the 17-35mm does NOT make the list of "Sigma's to consider". It is a "dog" in my humble opinion, and I would certainly agree that the $400.00 Sigma does not compare with the $1,400.00 Canon... at $1,000.00 less,.. if it did,. Canon would not be selling any lenses at all. :shock:

If you have any interest at all in seeing if there are Sigma's of quality,. then I would suggest trying out the 120-300mm f/2.8 EX, 100-300mm f/4 EX, or 500mm f/4.5 EX...

I've said this before and I'll say it again here,. Quite simply the best lens I own is a Sigma. The 500mm f/4.5EX has consistently given me the best images out the 10D, 1D and the MkII of any lens I have owned. And this includes a kit of now 100% "L" lenses (other than the 500mm of course)

This is not to say that any one needs to consider any other lens than Canon of they don't want to.

Using Canon lenses,. especially the high dollar lenses, is allways the safest bet. But it may not allways be the best value for those on a budget.. and thus a thread like this one is valuable to those that will consider "the other brand"

:wink:

[AzzKicker]

The thing is sometimes people cant really tell if it was shot with a canon lens or sigma lens. That to me tells me that the difference is not much but the price is. PRICE wins hands down :)

[Tom W]

The thing is sometimes people cant really tell if it was shot with a canon lens or sigma lens. That to me tells me that the difference is not much but the price is. PRICE wins hands down :)

Though at f/8, you'd have a difficult time telling the difference between many different lenses, at least among the respectable ones. But you're right, Sigma has some gems and some dogs, as does Canon.

[DocFrankenstein]

The thing is sometimes people cant really tell if it was shot with a canon lens or sigma lens. That to me tells me that the difference is not much but the price is. PRICE wins hands down :)
I've spent the last 2 days comparing L to sigma to S1 IS...

I don't wanna post results yet, cause I still harbour a hope that I got a defective Sigma...

[danphoto1]

First I own a 120-300 F2.8 Canon and have stated that it is an excellent lens. I also own a Sigma 20mm 1.8 and 14mm. aspherical,. what I am saying is that at the time I owned a D30 & a D60 The Sigma lenses worked well with those cameras maimly the 17-35mm 2.8 and the 28-300.As much as folks like to not like that lens I got some great shots withit using my d-30. Yes the lens is a trade off but if your on vacation It is usefull. when I moved up to the !D neither lens fucnctioned properly with the camera. they were washed out and sometime didnot auto focus etc. I use a Tamron 28-300 and find it very usefull but it cannot hold a candle to the new 28-300 Canon lens that is stabilized and costs about 8 times as much. You get what you pay for . Unfortunately Canon controls the retail price of their lenses and I don't see any other lenses working as well or better. If they did then the pros would use them on a consistent basis. We have an authorized repair station here and When my Sigma F2.8 refused to focus the tech showed me how the plastic geare were worne out and chewed up. the lens was a little over a year old. You can get great shots occasionally withe almost anything but cosistancy and durabilaty are what I am talking about. a VW can't do what a milatary tank can.

[blackviolet]

oh yeah - i also forgot to mention that sigma generally provides a lens hood and a beautiful padded lens case with their nicer lenses. the bigma even came with a carrying strap 8)

[Cadwell]

I only own (and have only ever owned) one Sigma lens. The 120-300mm f/2.8 EX HSM. I also own the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L. The two lenses make an interesting comparison.

In lighting conditions where they can both operate there is very little to choose between them. The image quality and sharpness of both is outstanding. I probably get slightly more keepers with the Canon as the IS ( in mode 2 ) saves me from occasional camera shake problems. The Canon is also easy to hand hold all day whereas I start to feel the strain after four or five shots with the Sigma. Basicaly the Canon is half the weight. It's also more compact when retracted so easier to manage and transport.

When the light goes, however, the story changes. The Sigma is truly excellent in low light and allows me to maintain a relatively high shutter speed. Even with a 1.4x TC it's faster than the Canon. Yesterday I was shooting racing trucks at 1/320s-f/2.8 and the images were outstanding. The Canon ( which I had started off the day with ) had long since given up the ghost and been returned to the car. I can truthfully say that without the Sigma my camera would have spent half the day in it's bag.


So... the Sigma APO 120-300mm f/2.8 EX IF HSM. A truly outstanding Sigma lens.

[adamsti]

When I bought my Sigma 70-200 2.8 I was trying to decide between the Canon 70-200 2.8L and this lens. I guess that Canon pissed me off by not including the tripod ring mount with the "L", and I went with the Sigma. Glad I did.


Where did you try to buy the 2.8L? This lense comes with the tripod ring all the time. If someone was telling you otherwise, they are wrong, and tried to screw you.

[jimtfoto]

Own both the 50-500 mm and 15-30 mm Sigmas ... excellent glass ... no disappointments ... looking forward to September release of 18-50mm f2.8 EX

jim

[Belmondo]

When I bought my Sigma 70-200 2.8 I was trying to decide between the Canon 70-200 2.8L and this lens. I guess that Canon pissed me off by not including the tripod ring mount with the "L", and I went with the Sigma. Glad I did.


Where did you try to buy the 2.8L? This lense comes with the tripod ring all the time. If someone was telling you otherwise, they are wrong, and tried to screw you.

That's a fact. The f/4.0L does not have a tripod ring, but the 2.8L does. Canon wasn't ripping you off---the dealer was.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I bet Jmurman was looking at the f/4L ... it's in the same price range as the Sigma?