So ahh...Sigma OS? Sued?

[creamcorn]

Why doesn't Sigma produce more OS(Optical Stabilized) lenses? Ya know attach it to the 70-200mm or 300mm etc. Did Canon strong arm them or was their system junk? I would be will to give Sigma one more chance if they utilized the OS....

[Luckie8]

Heard they coming out with that

[ed rader]

Originally Posted by creamcorn

Why doesn't Sigma produce more OS(Optical Stabilized) lenses? Ya know attach it to the 70-200mm or 300mm etc. Did Canon strong arm them or was their system junk? I would be will to give Sigma one more chance if they utilized the OS....

OS? sigma doesn't even put HSM on some of their top of the lines lenses .

ed rader

[creamcorn]

Originally Posted by ed rader

OS? sigma doesn't even put HSM on some of their top of the lines lenses .

ed rader

Well HSM is hardly worth putting on the side of their lenses.....click-click-eeeerrr-click-crunch-screech-clickclick-focused. ..So thats I guess the real question does their OS even work?

[05Xrunner]

i guess obviously you guys never really used any Sigma EX lens. Both my HSM lens are very very silent and my macro one is TOTALLY silent. You cant hear it at all. But ed rader is already a sigma hater. Sounds like cream is as well. The HSM compared to my L i sold is just as fast and just as quiet. But then there are the canon fanboys who will think NOTHING is every close to an L just so they can make sure they feel better about paying much more.

[ed rader]

Originally Posted by 05Xrunner

i guess obviously you guys never really used any Sigma EX lens. Both my HSM lens are very very silent and my macro one is TOTALLY silent. You cant hear it at all. But ed rader is already a sigma hater. Sounds like cream is as well. The HSM compared to my L i sold is just as fast and just as quiet. But then there are the canon fanboys who will think NOTHING is every close to an L just so they can make sure they feel better about paying much more.

hey i made a simple observation about sigma not including HSM on some of the their top of the line lenses like the 24-70 ex.

if you were a little more secure about your equipment choices you'd probably care less about what i or anyone else thought and whine less .

ed rader

[creamcorn]

Originally Posted by 05Xrunner

i guess obviously you guys never really used any Sigma EX lens. Both my HSM lens are very very silent and my macro one is TOTALLY silent. You cant hear it at all. But ed rader is already a sigma hater. Sounds like cream is as well. The HSM compared to my L i sold is just as fast and just as quiet. But then there are the canon fanboys who will think NOTHING is every close to an L just so they can make sure they feel better about paying much more.

Hey hey hey....I have a Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 DG and I had a 100-300mm f/4, I also still have some old 18-50mm DC and 55-200mm DC's....Doesn't mean I can't make fun of them. If you are a person who uses AI Servo focusing alot(Myself), you can't help but notice how loud and bad they are while trying to "locking on". I was a person who thought that a Canon lens couldn't be that much better then a Sigma, and always stood by Sigma. I can say my brother just got the Canon 24-70mm and there is no comparison! 2 Things make it simple...The Canon locks on perfect focus and is sharper even after f/5.6! I want to like Sigma, cause I feel they are more of a 2nd party company...A sigma at times can be just as sharp or sharper, but if it mis-focuses what good are optics? I have yet to find a Sigma lens that is better then an "L" of the same lengh or build though....

[ed rader]

Originally Posted by creamcorn

Hey hey hey....I have a Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 DG and I had a 100-300mm f/4, I also still have some old 18-50mm DC and 55-200mm DC's....Doesn't mean I can't make fun of them. If you are a person who uses AI Servo focusing alot(Myself), you can't help but notice how loud and bad they are while trying to "locking on". I was a person who thought that a Canon lens couldn't be that much better then a Sigma, and always stood by Sigma. I can say my brother just got the Canon 24-70mm and there is no comparison! 2 Things make it simple...The Canon locks on perfect focus and is sharper even after f/5.6! I want to like Sigma, cause I feel they are more of a 2nd party company...A sigma at times can be just as sharp or sharper, but if it mis-focuses what good are optics? I have yet to find a Sigma lens that is better then an "L" of the same lengh or build though....

oh please don't confuse him with the truth !

of course L lenses are better. they better be for the price .

ed rader

[aristowercz]

but back to the topic!! so you can use an OS lens on a canon? and it will still stableize your twitch?

[gcogger]

Originally Posted by creamcorn

Hey hey hey....I have a Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 DG and I had a 100-300mm f/4, I also still have some old 18-50mm DC and 55-200mm DC's....Doesn't mean I can't make fun of them. If you are a person who uses AI Servo focusing alot(Myself), you can't help but notice how loud and bad they are while trying to "locking on". I was a person who thought that a Canon lens couldn't be that much better then a Sigma, and always stood by Sigma. I can say my brother just got the Canon 24-70mm and there is no comparison! 2 Things make it simple...The Canon locks on perfect focus and is sharper even after f/5.6! I want to like Sigma, cause I feel they are more of a 2nd party company...A sigma at times can be just as sharp or sharper, but if it mis-focuses what good are optics? I have yet to find a Sigma lens that is better then an "L" of the same lengh or build though....

The only HSM lens there is the 100-300, and it sounds like you don't have that any more?

[Lightstream]

Well, as second fiddle without Canon's clout they have to compete and they generally do so on price. Leaving out HSM (especially on certain lenses where I find this decision to be questionable) and OS are ways of reducing cost for them, because given two lenses of similar capabilities at identical price points, people would tend to buy Canon as the market leader.

You always tend to see Sigma lenses mentioned as "best for the price" and "bang for the buck" and other things, but seldom "far superior to anything else price or otherwise".

I have the Sigma 70-200 and I'm quite happy with it. HSM is decent, even as a devoted worshipper of the Temple of L and IS and USM no doubt OS would jack up the price a little bit but would give them a credible lens to fight with the Canon offering.

24-70 REALLY needs HSM in my opinion. It's not about 'how silent', it is about HOW ACCURATE the focus drive is.
100-300 would be really improved with OS, offering something that can't be had in the Canon lineup.
18-200 OS is nice. Optical quality needs to be a bit better. Nikon 18-200 VR sets the standard, Canon has no equivalent. Needs HSM, the Nikon offering is an AF-S (SWM).
Bigma DESPERATELY needs stabilization. I had a Bigma and enjoyed it, just that it didn't suit my profile as a handheld shooter. On a tripod, optical quality is decent and zoom range is unbeatable.

[DavidEB]

HSM is pretty good, but it's not on some of their best (optically) lenses. And they make a pretty good OS on the 80-400, but that lens lacks HSM. They have no lens with both HSM and OS. If they could get those two together, the 70-200, the 100-300 f4, 120-300 f2.8 , and 80-400 would clean up.

[Thordic]

The problem is cost. For Sigma to remain competative, they need to price their lenses below Canon's.

On most of their lenses, the truly important part, the optics, are competative to Canon's equivelent. They are either a close second, mostly identical, or in some cases superior. And the price is 30% - 50% less, generally.

Now if you added in HSM and OS, you'd end up eating up that price difference, which is where Sigma makes its sales. If there was a $50 difference between the Bigma and the 100-400L, do you think the Bigma would sell as well as it does? I think people would be willing to eat the extra 100mm of length to get some white glass.

It's easy to say "Sigma should do this..." but if they didn't have that 30-50% price discount, Canon would win out in sales MUCH more often.

Personally I can live with slower/louder focusing and the lack of stabilization as long as the optics are there. My 24-70EX has GREAT optics, and I paid a whole lot less than I would have for the Canon equivelent. Same thing for my Bigma, and my 10-20EX.

Great glass, great build, no frills. That pretty much sums up Sigma's game plan.

[rbush83]

Originally Posted by gcogger

The only HSM lens there is the 100-300, and it sounds like you don't have that any more?

They made 100-300 f/4s without HSM too, so he may not of had an HSM lens at all. He certainly didn't designate it as such.

[creamcorn]

Originally Posted by rbush83

They made 100-300 f/4s without HSM too, so he may not of had an HSM lens at all. He certainly didn't designate it as such.

Yes my 100-300mm had a HSM....I had to upgrade to the 100-400mm "L" as the focusing was pure junk! Instantly shooting motorsports, I went from 1/3 of my pics turning out to about 2/3's.
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b8...P/IMG_2896.jpg

I can't imagine it costs Canon or Sigma that much more to add a USM or HSM to a lens....unless the whole design of the lens is changed. I'm sure pennies seperate a micro motor and a USM.