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]

Originally Posted by 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!)

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.