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 07 Aug 2013 (Wednesday) 09:47
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon vs Sigma

 
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
55,607 posts
Likes: 2484
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Aug 09, 2013 10:12 |  #91

guitarjeff wrote in post #16193605 (external link)
...So I have to say, how about making this comparison fair and compare dollar for dollar. L..

Hmmm.. the 800mm Rokinon is looking better and better. :). I mean why spend $15,000 when $184 will do the same thing. And the Canon 50mm f/1.8 should be the only one considered because it's less than $100. Or the Rokinon 85mm that you can pick up a Kmart for $250. Somehow I think other factors need to come into play.


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)
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Aug 09, 2013 11:26 |  #92
bannedPermanent ban

gjl711 wrote in post #16193984 (external link)
Hmmm.. the 800mm Rokinon is looking better and better. :). I mean why spend $15,000 when $184 will do the same thing. And the Canon 50mm f/1.8 should be the only one considered because it's less than $100. Or the Rokinon 85mm that you can pick up a Kmart for $250. Somehow I think other factors need to come into play.

Like anything in life, extremes need to be chucked out. Now lets look at the 85L versus the Sigma 85. The 85L goes for $1999 whereas the Sigma can be bought for $849. How many people would drop $1999 on the L when an alternative, maybe not quite as good in image quality but better at focusing, is available for less than 1/2 that price? Same goes for the 35L versus the Sigma 35. Obviously price does come into the equation and many don't feel the extra cost of the L, with any perceived benefits, is worth it. The extra 1% in quality costs you an extra 100%...do you feel that is worth it?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Aug 09, 2013 11:36 |  #93

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16193662 (external link)
Lenses are only an investment when it comes to the pictures they take, not out in the used market when you want to sell the lens. Just because a manufacturer releases a new variant doesn't mean a person has to buy it. Buy what you need and enjoy what you buy, and don't keep looking to upgrade lenses, at least that is how I look at it. :)

Having this train of thought means that there many great options for lenses, including 3rd party.

I mostly shoot for myself and I'm not married to any particular system

So having the ability to dump it all is important for me. Sometimes photography gets boring and I want to free up a few grand for other hobbies or trips. If I think about liquidity ahead of time, it pays off.

For portraits and landscapes... and anything other than sports sigma is great.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ElectronGuru
Senior Member
Avatar
427 posts
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Oregon
     
Aug 09, 2013 11:55 |  #94

Hogloff wrote in post #16194187 (external link)
The extra 1% in quality costs you an extra 100%...do you feel that is worth it?

Vs thread after vs thread refines down to the same question. When pushing the limits (of anything in life), cost never stays 1:1 with benefits. Like a race car pushing air, each additional 10mph requiring 50 extra HP, then 100, then 250. By the time you get to even 3x typical speed limits, friction with the air is so great, you're essentially driving an aircraft.

Doubling the price gets less additional aperture, build quality, image quality, etc. So then we try to quantify these improvements with numbers, is 1.4 that much more than 1.8 (one recent thread devolved into solid equations). Eventually, we get to quality, and each person's choice of what's important to him or her. Which is really what all such questions are about.


"Light is the paint, lenses are brush, sensors are the canvas"
6D | 100L Macro | 50L | 24L TSE
Builder of custom flashlights, OVEREADY.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
guitarjeff
Senior Member
671 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2012
     
Aug 09, 2013 12:10 |  #95

I do too, it's called image quality. Are you saying the image quality difference between the Siggy 85 and the 85L is the same gap as the Rokinon 800mm for 184 dollars and an L lens? I CLEARLY mentioned optical performance dollar for dollar, not just price compared to price. So are you saying a comparison of Canon and Siggy lenses in the 500 dollar range is UNFAIR to Canon?

gjl711 wrote in post #16193984 (external link)
Hmmm.. the 800mm Rokinon is looking better and better. :). I mean why spend $15,000 when $184 will do the same thing. And the Canon 50mm f/1.8 should be the only one considered because it's less than $100. Or the Rokinon 85mm that you can pick up a Kmart for $250. Somehow I think other factors need to come into play.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
k-lo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,316 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Lost in SN's Canon vs Nikon Thread
     
Aug 09, 2013 12:12 |  #96

Hogloff wrote in post #16194187 (external link)
Like anything in life, extremes need to be chucked out. Now lets look at the 85L versus the Sigma 85. The 85L goes for $1999 whereas the Sigma can be bought for $849. How many people would drop $1999 on the L when an alternative, maybe not quite as good in image quality but better at focusing, is available for less than 1/2 that price? Same goes for the 35L versus the Sigma 35. Obviously price does come into the equation and many don't feel the extra cost of the L, with any perceived benefits, is worth it. The extra 1% in quality costs you an extra 100%...do you feel that is worth it?

The Sigma 85 (sans AF issues) can focus faster than the 85L. It's certainly not the 85L's fault, big glass at f/1.2 requires more precision in calculation and movement.

ElectronGuru wrote in post #16194256 (external link)
Vs thread after vs thread refines down to the same question. When pushing the limits (of anything in life), cost never stays 1:1 with benefits. Like a race car pushing air, each additional 10mph requiring 50 extra HP, then 100, then 250. By the time you get to even 3x typical speed limits, friction with the air is so great, you're essentially driving an aircraft.

Doubling the price gets less additional aperture, build quality, image quality, etc. So then we try to quantify these improvements with numbers, is 1.4 that much more than 1.8 (one recent thread devolved into solid equations). Eventually, we get to quality, and each person's choice of what's important to him or her. Which is really what all such questions are about.

sooo bw!


-=Karlo=- 1D III, 5D Mark II, 17-40 4 L, 35 1.4 L 24-70 2.8 L, 135mm 2.0 L, 85mm 1.2 L II, 300mm f 2.8 L, 580EX II, and a crapload of Elinchrom Gear :cool:
View my flickr sets (external link)
Check out my Modelmayhem port (external link)
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
guitarjeff
Senior Member
671 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2012
     
Aug 09, 2013 12:14 |  #97

Not to mention that if you had only the 900 for the Siggy 85, you could not spend that 900 and get a Canon lens even close. dollar for dollar, Sigma delivers the goods that Canon simply cannot do because their name won't let them.

Hogloff wrote in post #16194187 (external link)
Like anything in life, extremes need to be chucked out. Now lets look at the 85L versus the Sigma 85. The 85L goes for $1999 whereas the Sigma can be bought for $849. How many people would drop $1999 on the L when an alternative, maybe not quite as good in image quality but better at focusing, is available for less than 1/2 that price? Same goes for the 35L versus the Sigma 35. Obviously price does come into the equation and many don't feel the extra cost of the L, with any perceived benefits, is worth it. The extra 1% in quality costs you an extra 100%...do you feel that is worth it?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
55,607 posts
Likes: 2484
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Aug 09, 2013 12:34 |  #98

Hogloff wrote in post #16194187 (external link)
... The extra 1% in quality costs you an extra 100%...do you feel that is worth it?

guitarjeff wrote in post #16194292 (external link)
I do too, it's called image quality. Are you saying the image quality difference between the Siggy 85 and the 85L is the same gap as the Rokinon 800mm for 184 dollars and an L lens? I CLEARLY mentioned optical performance dollar for dollar, not just price compared to price. So are you saying a comparison of Canon and Siggy lenses in the 500 dollar range is UNFAIR to Canon?

I'm the one saying that there is not one criteria, whether it's price, optical quality, system compatibility, AF performance, build quality, resale value, name recognition, brand loyalty, after purchase support, and a host of other factors but all of them. For some people price will be a big factor but for others system compatibility or problem support may be a big factor. To evaluate the lens on just one, especially when you specifically look at the one criteria favoring one brand over another doesn't tell the whole story.


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
drzenitram
Senior Member
824 posts
Joined Aug 2012
     
Aug 09, 2013 12:40 |  #99

guitarjeff wrote in post #16194292 (external link)
I do too, it's called image quality. Are you saying the image quality difference between the Siggy 85 and the 85L is the same gap as the Rokinon 800mm for 184 dollars and an L lens? I CLEARLY mentioned optical performance dollar for dollar, not just price compared to price. So are you saying a comparison of Canon and Siggy lenses in the 500 dollar range is UNFAIR to Canon?

Actually the sigma is sharper by a hair than the 85L at all identical apertures. The only thing you get for the money is a third of a stop, more solid build quality(though I have no complaints about the build of the s85), and canon lens coatings, which you may or may not prefer, as well as different bokeh rendering, which again is subjective. You also get slower focusing.

Check out the digital picture's lens image quality comparison between the 85L and the s85.


| Bodies - 5D Mark II, T2i | Lenses - Helios 44-2, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Sigma 85 1.4, Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, Tamron SP AF 1.4x TC | Lights - 430ex ii x2, Random 3rd party strobes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ay ­ jayy
Member
61 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Aug 09, 2013 12:53 |  #100

If fast, accurate, and most importantly, consistent, AF matters to you, go with Canon. Ive owned the sigma 35 and 85, used them on photoshoots, and replaced them shortly after because the AF was not up to par with Canon's lenses.


-Anthony
http://www.asekellickp​hoto.com (external link)
Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drzenitram
Senior Member
824 posts
Joined Aug 2012
     
Aug 09, 2013 12:56 |  #101

ay jayy wrote in post #16194398 (external link)
If fast, accurate, and most importantly, consistent, AF matters to you, go with Canon. Ive owned the sigma 35 and 85, used them on photoshoots, and replaced them shortly after because the AF was not up to par with Canon's lenses.

You do realize that the 85L has significantly slower AF than the sigma 85, right? Also, my sigma 85 is at least as consistent as any canon lenses I've owned. I used to get 1 in 5 photos usable with the 85L when taking pictures of the bride coming down the aisle, with the s85 I get 4/5.


| Bodies - 5D Mark II, T2i | Lenses - Helios 44-2, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Sigma 85 1.4, Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, Tamron SP AF 1.4x TC | Lights - 430ex ii x2, Random 3rd party strobes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Aug 09, 2013 12:58 |  #102

ay jayy wrote in post #16194398 (external link)
If fast, accurate, and most importantly, consistent, AF matters to you, go with Canon. Ive owned the sigma 35 and 85, used them on photoshoots, and replaced them shortly after because the AF was not up to par with Canon's lenses.

The Canon 85/1.8 is very fast focusing, but the 85L is dog slow, so you can't make the blanket statement above without some qualifications.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ay ­ jayy
Member
61 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Aug 09, 2013 14:35 |  #103

drzenitram wrote in post #16194404 (external link)
You do realize that the 85L has significantly slower AF than the sigma 85, right? Also, my sigma 85 is at least as consistent as any canon lenses I've owned. I used to get 1 in 5 photos usable with the 85L when taking pictures of the bride coming down the aisle, with the s85 I get 4/5.

That wasn't my experience with the sigma. Mine was all over the place. I use the Canon 85 1.8 now and I'm very happy with it. But yes ive heard the 85L is very slow.


-Anthony
http://www.asekellickp​hoto.com (external link)
Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jt354
Senior Member
401 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Michigan
     
Aug 09, 2013 14:43 |  #104

Where's Ken Rockwell when you need him? Lol


Zenfolio (external link)
flickr (external link)
Gear: Canon 60D / Canon G12 / Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 / Canon 35mm f/2 IS / Canon 85mm f/1.8 / Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 / Speedlite 430 EXII / Slik 700DX legs / Cullmann MB6 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DanAnCan
Senior Member
Avatar
387 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Toronto, ON
     
Aug 11, 2013 14:00 |  #105

Damn there's a lot of hate on for the 85L..
How many of you have actually owned it to try it? from MFD to infinity takes about 2 seconds, yes slow, but look how long the throw is! How often are you going to track a subject from 3 - 25ft in 2 SECONDS?? Real world use is just fine, it's just a challenge to nail focus at f1.2.

I owned the 85 1.8 and wasn't at all impressed by the overall build and image quality.
When I went to upgrade, I considered Sigma's 1.4. I tried it. it was good. for half the price of the Canon, it seemed like a good deal.

However, AF was not accurate in lower light, the build quality seemed cheap, and the image quality/Contrast etc. wasn't as good as the Canon.. Those cons made me choose the Canon, even with the $2k price tag. To me it was worth it..

My point is this:
If it's worth it to me, is it worth it to you? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm sure you can think of tons of better things to do with the ~$1k you'd save by buying the Sigma.

Im not you, you're not me... Make your own decision and be happy with it


Canon 5D3/5D2/8-15L/24-70LII/Σ35/85LII/135L/200L F2/Σ300 EX DG/EF TC 1.4 & 2X III/EX580 II/ PCB Busy Bee Kit

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

13,453 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon vs 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 Arti
1109 guests, 319 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.