Sigma Lens hobbyist-Photographers - Gifted or Cursed?

Bananapie wrote in post #13438339
If money isn't an issue I think for the most part people here would choose Canon over Sigma, but only a few people have revulsion toward the brand.

Not me

At least, not when it comes to the 30 and 50 1.4's. The canon alternatives are worse in both cases.

Use the 30 at work and own the 50. No complaints or problems. Use the 50 on a 7d to shoot basketball under the basket and get great shots.

Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro , 150mm 2.8 macro , 50-150mm 2.8 and the Sigma 100-300mm . Love them all and have no plans to replace them .

Great to see lots of happy users here. People tend to focus on the negative...

My experience with Sigma was mixed, but overall I was unhappy with my Sigma 50mm. MFA of +19 for close subjects and required different levels for different distances. This is after a calibration from Sigma, at a cost of $107, plus shipping. Even though I submitted a warranty card and receipt, from the previous owner, they would not warranty the lens.

On the other hand, I loved my 24-70 EX DG. Fast (loud) focus, sharp. Bought it on a whim when I fell carrying my 28-75 on a trip. Grey market lens all the way - bought in St. Maarten. Sent it in for an estimate only on a focus motor problem about 2.5 years after I bought it, and it was repaired and shipped back to me at no cost within 3 days. Go figure...

I really like what I am seeing from the 30mm Sigma, and would only consider a new lens from a reputable dealer willing to take it back (several times) if needed. Although it seems it has less incidence of focus issues, I would need that peace of mind to try Sigma again...

Since Sigma reverse engineers their lens, this could be somewhat of a problem. I think in years past, they had many that just missed and people complained as they should. But seems they have gotten better and don't have all the problems as they did in the past.
I previously owned two Sigmas, 105mm f/2.8 Macro and Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 original model. The Macro worked great until I dropped it on concrete, still works but auto-focus seems to be a little tight but works great on manual. Can't blame Sigma for that.
The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 worked great until someone stepped on my carrying case, I had another lens that also went out of focus, plus Canon's Nifty Fifty just broke in two. Sent the Sigma off to be re-calibrated and works great now. Oh and they fixed it for free, I didn't know it was still under warranty.
Would I trade the 50-150 for a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 MK II. Darn toot'en I would, its not fair to compare a $700 lens to a $2500 lens.
I am still impressed with Sigma lens, just this year I went and purchased the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Sirrith wrote in post #13440915
Not me

At least, not when it comes to the 30 and 50 1.4's. The canon alternatives are worse in both cases.

That's debatable. I remember the glee most people felt on the announcement of the 50mm f/1.4 eventually turned to ambivalence when real-world results started pouring in. I suppose you could say that they are focused on slightly different uses.

I've had two Sigma lenses and no mechanical problems with either.

The 120-400mm OS was just a lemon of a lens - just not a sharp design at 400mm.
The 120-300mm OS, on the other hand, is pretty amazing. It's not a $4000 lens, but at least in my case the "sample variation" worked out pretty well! I could use a bit more sharpness with a TC on, but in truth my shorter Canon primes (TS-E 90mm, 135mm f/2L) aren't as sharp with the TC on (or just close, at best). I haven't the ability to MA AF on my current camera, though, so maybe the 120-300mm OS is actually sharper than it seems at times.

I own 4 sigmas. I sent both the 17-50 and the 50 for calibration. Also had the lens hood (Very Loose) on the 17-50 changed.
They came back and are excellent. The AF on the 17-50 is fast and quiet....
so much so that sometimes I have to double check to to see if it is working.
The 50 does tend to hunt in low light.

I had no issues whatsoever with the 10-20 and 70-200 right out of the box.
I have never tried a Canon 70-200 f2.8 MKII and I doubt that I will ever want one because my Sigma is (IMHO) one sharp lens.

I'm considering selling my Canon 300 and the Sigma 70-200 to fund the new Sigma 120-300MM F2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS. I read nothing but good reviews on that lens.

i've made a thread but had no response so hopefully someone can help me here...

i bought sigma 50mm 1.4 and send it in for calibration along with my camera body, got it back and found that if subject is within about 2m it focuses great but anything further than that it will start to back focus...anyone have similar experience with the 50mm?

I've only had issues with one Sigma lens- the older 70-200 f/2.8 macro (which is known to be soft wide open).

I've had great experience with every other lens, which I bought mostly used (and I don't know if any of them have been calibrated either)

Sigma 24-60 2.8
Sigma 10-20
Sigma 30 1.4
Sigma 50 1.4

Almost bought the 17-50 OS but got the 5D instead. Eventually might look into the 70-200 OS. I'm a big fan of Sigma.

All good down here in Australia. I have the 30 and 17-70. 17-70 bought second hand, needed calibration but, meh, it is now perfect. Great to see a thread on the positives of Sigma.

I'd say my experience with Sigma has been positive. The 85 is probably my favorite lens, barely nudging out the 150. My 120-300 has been problematic though, at or above f/4 it brilliant, below it's a crap shoot at times. It's been back to Sigma twice now.

I had the 18-250 and now own a 17-70. Both are great lenses and I've actually been thinking of selling my canon 70-200f4 IS to get a sigma 70-200f2.8 OS.

The fact about the Internet is people are more likely to post about bad experiences ten good ones. Doesn't matter if it's about camera gear, a store customer service, or anything else.

Bananapie wrote in post #13438339
After lurking on these forums incessantly for a while now my observation about what the community thinks of Sigma is generally positive. Certain lenses have their issues, sure, but I'm not seeing a general distaste for them--on the contrary some lenses like the S50mm 1.4 and the S30mm are quite lauded.

If money isn't an issue I think for the most part people here would choose Canon over Sigma, but only a few people have revulsion toward the brand.

P.S.

Almostphotographer, what is the camera in your sig--it is beautiful!

it is a Voigtlander Bessa R3A

Had many Sigma's and never had a problem or a focusing issue with any of them. A lot of the problem is created by those passing on info they have read. This results in people getting these lenses and testing them inside with a printed bit of paper the the tenth degree.

I have had more problems with Canon lenses.

I was impressed with my sigma 70-200 hsm II (non os) when I had it. I had to send mine in three times for the focus to be accurate on my 40d, but I may have never have had to send it in if I had MA. Sharp throughout the range with good contrast and colors. That lens was slightly warmer than my canons so I had to adjust pp slightly. I am planning on sigma 30 and 50 in the future.