Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 22 Feb 2013 (Friday) 04:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

My take on Sigma

 
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,432 posts
Likes: 2392
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Mar 01, 2013 06:19 |  #121

Earwax69 wrote in post #15663897 (external link)
A big part of those accusing Sigma dont even own one. They just repeat the same old threads. While I do agree that older Sigma lenses had noisy AF and QC problems, they were also a third of the price of Canon/Nikon. However now that I own a new (and expensive) Sigma lens, I can say that this baby is something else. Silent, fast and reliable. It's now my best lens and I can only say that if people skip it because of Sigma bad rep, it's their lost.

For any lens you buy, just be sure you have a return policy in case something is wrong with the lens. For fast primes, having MA on your body is a must to compensate the gap in body/lens calibration.

How big of a part? Care to back up your claim with data? Or is this just repeating something you read off the internet. BTW, I don't currently own any Siggy glass so maybe I fall into that category. I tried to, several times but got burned so bad they they have made my life long ban list along with Apple and Sony.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,139 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6239
Joined Sep 2007
     
Mar 01, 2013 08:34 |  #122

mystik610 wrote in post #15663398 (external link)
Many people out there own Tamron lenses, but I've never heard of focusing issues with Tamron lenses. There are also a number of Canon lenses that are known to have reliability problems of their own....like the 50mm 1.8 and 1.4, both of which I actually did have issues with.

Another reason you may hear from Sigma owners, but not Tamron is because Sigma makes fast primes, and all of their fast primes have AF complaints. Even with the best working fast prime, it's just naturally harder to nail focus when DOF is so thin. Throw in the fact that sigma has a very short throw, that may also be an issue in acquiring critical focus.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,158 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 9744
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Mar 01, 2013 12:50 |  #123

Charlie wrote in post #15664346 (external link)
Another reason you may hear from Sigma owners, but not Tamron is because Sigma makes fast primes, and all of their fast primes have AF complaints. Even with the best working fast prime, it's just naturally harder to nail focus when DOF is so thin. Throw in the fact that sigma has a very short throw, that may also be an issue in acquiring critical focus.

But people report focus issues with Sigma's zooms as well.

Canon and Nikon have plenty of fast primes without focusing issues, so I wouldn't deduce it completely to operator error. There are Canon primes that have focus errors too, and its well known (ie, the 50L), but it seems rather limited to select lenses. Sigma seems to have problems across a broad spectrum. Probably a minute possibility to an individual buyer, but it seems to be a very broad reaching problem for Sigma (which usually points to issues in the manufacturing process)


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀIV - α7ʀIII
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 ART - Zeiss Loxia 21 - Sigma 35 f1.2 ART - Sony 35 1.8 - Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 - Sony 85GM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,100 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6818
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Mar 01, 2013 17:16 |  #124

guitarjeff wrote in post #15659100 (external link)
Again, personal, individual experiences mean little. Either they have more failures ON AVERAGE, or they don't. In other words, this is not OPINION. Either they have more problems, OR THEY DON'T!! Which is it?

Personally, I would not doubt that Sigma has more QC issues than Canon, but that's not the one and only point IMHO.

If it is the entire point to you, then case closed, feel free to move on.

I drive a fantastic 2007 Toyota pickup. It does everything I need it to, has yet to need service beyond normal maintenance, and has all the features I wanted.
Are there cars out there with better ride and even better service records? Manufacturers with fewer recalls than Toyota?

Damn straight there is, but to me and most of the world, this is NOT the one and only bottom line case closed question. If there was one perfect car manufacturer that did it all right, all better than the others, well there would be no others. Seriously, the world just doesn't work that way.

I was 50 percent on my two,so really, I can't say. One thing I did notice with both, and with many of the sample thread pics, Sigma and Tamron too seem to have some kind of a sepia or brownish, yellowish tinge to their pictures. I notice this hasn't been mentioned here.

?

What's to mention? different optics give different color casts. I notice this going from any one lens to another. It's part of the optics character. None of it is in any way degrading. A tweek of a setting in PS and you canon color looks like Sigma color etc.. Most of it comes from the optical coatings.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ntotrr
Member
73 posts
Joined Nov 2009
     
Mar 01, 2013 19:25 |  #125

gjl711 wrote in post #15663493 (external link)
I always wondered who bought the three Sigma DSLRs. :):):)

LOL! Excellent!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,362 posts
Gallery: 550 photos
Likes: 2617
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Mar 02, 2013 00:44 as a reply to  @ post 15640744 |  #126

For me the worst brand I've had was Tamron... they're the only company I've had not one nice lens from and I've always had similar complaints with them which boil down to their autofocus being absolute garbage in my opinion... The lenses were sharp and had nice colors sure, but thats worthless if i cant focus on a well contrasted barn in broad daylight!

Sigma, I've had a lot of good experiences with, the 150-500 I tried two copies of and wasnt fond of it, but it wasnt defective (I just found the optics lacking personally) The 50-500 OS was a peach however and my 50mm f/1.4 is one of my favorite lenses..

The only defective NEW Sigma I had was my 30mm f/1.4, Which couldnt focus on anything, Oh well..

Yes I had a couple defective used Sigmas, but they were used, and were in worse shape than described (IE, obviously not well taken care of lenses) which I feel is a complaint about the prior owner, not the company.. or perhaps who i bought them from (A lot of stuff I bought from KEH was defective looking back on it :/)

Before anyone says the one defective Sigma is proof Sigma stinks, I also had a defective Canon 50mm f/1.4, Focus motor was broken right out of the box, and it was a brand new lens... AND the first Canon lens I bought.. So yeah, That was a great start to the Canon experience... ;)


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
I ­ Like ­ to ­ Watch
Member
123 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Mar 02, 2013 00:52 |  #127

Got a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 last week. I was aware of the perceived QC issues with front focusing so ensured I got one locally through the correct channels. Sure enough, front focusing straight out of the box so will be sending it away for calibration.

Not overly concerned except they want me to supply my Camera Body as well...so hopefully it will come back tack-sharp.


Canon 5D Mk lll & 50D : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L, Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS , Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, Canon EF-S 10-22mm, Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Canon 50mm f/1.8, Sigma 17-70mm, Sigma 50mm f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
guitarjeff
Senior Member
671 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2012
     
Mar 02, 2013 01:13 |  #128

Not seeing the reasoning in your response. I didn't say NO ONE could prefer their Sigma lens, I simply said that personal experiences don't tell us anything individually about Sigma problems, so it is meaningless to say how one person has had great Sigma lenses. That's great, but it doesn't change the overall facts regarding Sigma failures, it's that simple.

As to color cast you must have missed my point that PP DOESN'T fix the cast, for me at least, and many others. Once the scene goes through the coatings and gets the cast you are starting from that state to begin with, so any PP is nothing but a compensation from the cast, which never looks neutral again in my experience with the two Sigmas I have had. As i said, sometimes I actually like it and it has some strange quality to it the just suits the situation, but I found that most times I wanted out of that reality, I wanted to start from a neutral base, and the color cast never let me do that once the scene came through the coatings.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #15666197 (external link)
Personally, I would not doubt that Sigma has more QC issues than Canon, but that's not the one and only point IMHO.

If it is the entire point to you, then case closed, feel free to move on.

I drive a fantastic 2007 Toyota pickup. It does everything I need it to, has yet to need service beyond normal maintenance, and has all the features I wanted.
Are there cars out there with better ride and even better service records? Manufacturers with fewer recalls than Toyota?

Damn straight there is, but to me and most of the world, this is NOT the one and only bottom line case closed question. If there was one perfect car manufacturer that did it all right, all better than the others, well there would be no others. Seriously, the world just doesn't work that way.

What's to mention? different optics give different color casts. I notice this going from any one lens to another. It's part of the optics character. None of it is in any way degrading. A tweek of a setting in PS and you canon color looks like Sigma color etc.. Most of it comes from the optical coatings.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ebiggs
Senior Member
Avatar
638 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 70
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Spring Hill, KS
     
Mar 05, 2013 11:38 as a reply to  @ guitarjeff's post |  #129

My personal feelings about Sigma lens' is, I won't buy any one that is not the EX rated. And I will never buy a used third-party lens. Sigma or otherwise.
My Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 is a fine lens and has been for six months now. It gets lots of use and almost lives on my Canon 7D. Had Canon seen fit to make a similar lens, I probably would not buy the Sigma. But than again a Canon 50-150mm f2.8 would most likely be three times as expensive.
I love this Sigma and highly recommend it. It works perfectly, as expected.
It is not an "L" lens, though.


G1x, EOS 1Dx, EOS 1D Mk IV, ef 8-15mm f4L,
ef 16-35mm f2.8L II, ef 24-70mm f2.8L II, ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II,
Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport
*** PS 6, ACR 9.3, Lightroom 6.5 ***

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ntotrr
Member
73 posts
Joined Nov 2009
     
Mar 05, 2013 12:54 |  #130

ebiggs wrote in post #15679593 (external link)
My personal feelings about Sigma lens' is, I won't buy any one that is not the EX rated. And I will never buy a used third-party lens. Sigma or otherwise.
My Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 is a fine lens and has been for six months now. It gets lots of use and almost lives on my Canon 7D. Had Canon seen fit to make a similar lens, I probably would not buy the Sigma. But than again a Canon 50-150mm f2.8 would most likely be three times as expensive.
I love this Sigma and highly recommend it. It works perfectly, as expected.
It is not an "L" lens, though.

Not buying a Sigma that is not "EX" comes with caveats. Sigma changed their naming designation a couple of years ago. Only lenses that have a constant aperture are labeled as "EX". Lenses that were EX, like the 50-500mm, are no longer called EX because they have a variable aperture. They are still made the same as if they were EX lenses but they are no longer called that.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Mar 05, 2013 13:41 |  #131

guitarjeff wrote in post #15667457 (external link)
Not seeing the reasoning in your response. I didn't say NO ONE could prefer their Sigma lens, I simply said that personal experiences don't tell us anything individually about Sigma problems, so it is meaningless to say how one person has had great Sigma lenses. That's great, but it doesn't change the overall facts regarding Sigma failures, it's that simple.

True. But then it is also just as meaningless to say how one person has had a bad experience since no one would argue that the complaints you see resemble actual numbers at all. In that case, this becomes a completely worthless conversation since nothing stated here has meaning.

guitarjeff wrote in post #15667457 (external link)
As to color cast you must have missed my point that PP DOESN'T fix the cast, for me at least, and many others. Once the scene goes through the coatings and gets the cast you are starting from that state to begin with, so any PP is nothing but a compensation from the cast, which never looks neutral again in my experience with the two Sigmas I have had. As i said, sometimes I actually like it and it has some strange quality to it the just suits the situation, but I found that most times I wanted out of that reality, I wanted to start from a neutral base, and the color cast never let me do that once the scene came through the coatings.

I've never noticed a color cast. When I white balance, white is white, gray is gray, black is black. All of the other colors fall in line. Is there any particular color where you see this shift more than others?


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,158 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 9744
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Mar 05, 2013 14:12 |  #132

kfreels wrote in post #15679983 (external link)
I've never noticed a color cast. When I white balance, white is white, gray is gray, black is black. All of the other colors fall in line. Is there any particular color where you see this shift more than others?

I've noticed it with both Tamron and Sigma lenses, and also when using neutral density filters. Jeff is right that its never fully corrected in PP. Trying to correct it in PP is like having the numbers -4, 5, 4, and -2, and trying to net them out to 0 by adding 4 across the board. It's never truly neutral.

Granted for the Tamron and Sigma lenses its a very sutble shift (compared to using a cheap ND) and doesn't really bother me, but its there.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀIV - α7ʀIII
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 ART - Zeiss Loxia 21 - Sigma 35 f1.2 ART - Sony 35 1.8 - Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 - Sony 85GM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
skahanphotography
Mostly Lurking
14 posts
Joined Dec 2012
Location: Columbus, Georgia
     
Mar 05, 2013 14:14 |  #133

I own the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM and love it. Every other lens I have is Canon L glass, the 50 f/1.2, 35 f/1.4 and the 24-105 f/4. On my 5D Mark ii, the Sigma works fantastic and always gives me great IQ. It's not the best low light shooter (ie; I mean, really low light) but I don't typically shoot in low light anyway. I have no plans on dumping the Sigma for Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I don't see the need. Also, Sigma's customer support is top notch in my book. While doing a senior session last summer, I slipped on a rock next to a river and fell straight down on top of my Sigma lens. It stopped focusing. There is a Sigma repair center in Georgia where I live. I sent it to them. They had it fixed and turned around back to me IN A DAY! You can't beat that service. And as of late, Sigma really seems to be trying to step up their game. I might pick up the new 35 f/1.4 as I have read the IQ is better than Canon's or Nikon's version. I would like to compare it to my own 35L and see if that's true...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,100 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6818
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Mar 05, 2013 14:18 |  #134

I don't buy that the color cast can't be corrected. ( I also don't buy that color cast of an optic are better or worse universally from brand to brand, only different and subjective. I will grant that someone might be used to or prefer one over another of course.)

Whatever the case, like kfreels said, this is a white balance issue that if you know how to get proper WB all color casts disappear.

Maybe if your shooting jpeg it's harder to "fix" ?


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,158 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 9744
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Mar 05, 2013 15:27 |  #135

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #15680107 (external link)
I don't buy that the color cast can't be corrected. ( I also don't buy that color cast of an optic are better or worse universally from brand to brand, only different and subjective. I will grant that someone might be used to or prefer one over another of course.)

Whatever the case, like kfreels said, this is a white balance issue that if you know how to get proper WB all color casts disappear.

Maybe if your shooting jpeg it's harder to "fix" ?

My guess is that it has something to do with the coatings that different lens manufacturers use.

It's not necessarily a white balance issue, as the color cast doesn't seem to shift the ‘tone’ of each color channel as uniformly as say......a florescent light would. Ie, while a WB correction might shift the whites to a more neutral tone, the reds and blues are still comparatively warm (in the case of Sigma/Tamron). To fully ‘correct’ it, you would need to go a step beyond a standard white balance adjustment, and adjust each individual color channel.

Again, the variation between lens manufacturers is very subtle, and not a big deal unless you’re really anal about it (I used to calibrate TV’s in college, so I’m somewhat anal about it). Anyone who’s ever used a cheap neutral density filter knows first-hand that when you're dealing with a color-cast caused by the optics, white balance adjustments alone don’t do the trick.

You’re absolutely right about there not being a ‘better’ or ‘worse’ colorcast. It’s all relative, and depends largely on what you’re used to. In my experience, Tamron and Sigma lenses are comparatively ‘warm’ (Tamrons more so), and Canon’s are comparatively ‘cool’.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀIV - α7ʀIII
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 ART - Zeiss Loxia 21 - Sigma 35 f1.2 ART - Sony 35 1.8 - Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 - Sony 85GM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

12,522 views & 0 likes for this thread
My take on Sigma
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Cosmo19
880 guests, 215 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.