Sigma vs Canon

I know this a canon forum but ill still ask. whats the biggest difference in lenses other than price? I am thinking of buying some new lenses, a 70-200 for example and was wondering if its worth the extra cash for the canon model. I shoot Canon by the way...

it comes down to a specific lens vs. a specific lens...you can't make broad generalizations about sigma vs. canon really...

the 70-200f2.8 OS is supposed to be a good lens...a few people put it 2nd only to the 70-200f2.8IS II amongst all the 70-200mm lenses...

tennfan1125 wrote in post #14768114
I know this a canon forum but ill still ask. whats the biggest difference in lenses other than price? I am thinking of buying some new lenses, a 70-200 for example and was wondering if its worth the extra cash for the canon model. I shoot Canon by the way...

Quality control of sigma products seems to be the biggest issue/difference from what i've heard. I've only had 1 sigma lens and it seemed ok to me. You may have to return it + swap for a different one if there are autofocus issues.

Try both at your local camera store (B&H if in NYC hehe) + see which one you like.

I've always heard people saying their sigma primes are better in contrast/color/sharpne​ss than their canon equivalents although slower at AF. Although not sure about the Sigma OS zoom you're looking at.

Canon = full end to end support
Sigma = Sigma and Canon pointing fingers at each other when there is a problem taking weeks to solve.

Which is why I dumped my Siggy lens and will not get another.

The biggest differences between Sigma and Canon lenses, are going to be construction and resale value.

Sigma lens may or may not have the same quality level of construction or as good a resale value. So the real issue is how many times you want to buy the same focal length lens. If you went with the 70 – 200, 2.8 Sigma, you would probably pay half the price of the canon. Throughout Sigma's history there have been construction issues and sub par materials used in their lenses. To me it's not worth it to have a lens break on a shoot.

But when you got really resell, you would get approximately 1/3 of your initial price. And then you would have to go and buy the Canon lens. It's far better financially, to buy a used Canon L lens that will hold its value and produce the quality images that you're looking for as opposed to going the cheaper route(initially) and buying the Sigma. Replace camera bodies when technology warrents it, invest in the lenses. Even old glss make great photographs.

I buy virtually all of my lenses used, save 30% off the new price on average. And I get the quality lenses I am looking for that really do create a better image quality. Hope this helps.

LBaldwin wrote in post #14768222
The biggest differences between Sigma and Canon lenses, are going to be construction and resale value.

Sigma lens may or may not have the same quality level of construction or as good a resale value. So the real issue is how many times you want to buy the same focal length lens. If you went with the 70 – 200, 2.8 Sigma, you would probably pay half the price of the canon. Throughout Sigma's history there have been construction issues and sub par materials used in their lenses. To me it's not worth it to have a lens break on a shoot.

But when you got really resell, you would get approximately 1/3 of your initial price. And then you would have to go and buy the Canon lens. It's far better financially, to buy a used Canon L lens that will hold its value and produce the quality images that you're looking for as opposed to going the cheaper route(initially) and buying the Sigma. Replace camera bodies when technology warrents it, invest in the lenses. Even old glss make great photographs.

I buy virtually all of my lenses used, save 30% off the new price on average. And I get the quality lenses I am looking for that really do create a better image quality. Hope this helps.

there is so much b.s. in this whole post it's ridiculous...show me where you can buy any used sigma lens for 1/3 of the new price...

show me any lens that has broken due to subpar construction....

LBaldwin wrote in post #14768222
The biggest differences between Sigma and Canon lenses, are going to be construction and resale value.

Sigma lens may or may not have the same quality level of construction or as good a resale value. So the real issue is how many times you want to buy the same focal length lens. If you went with the 70 – 200, 2.8 Sigma, you would probably pay half the price of the canon. Throughout Sigma's history there have been construction issues and sub par materials used in their lenses. To me it's not worth it to have a lens break on a shoot.

But when you got really resell, you would get approximately 1/3 of your initial price. And then you would have to go and buy the Canon lens. It's far better financially, to buy a used Canon L lens that will hold its value and produce the quality images that you're looking for as opposed to going the cheaper route(initially) and buying the Sigma. Replace camera bodies when technology warrents it, invest in the lenses. Even old glss make great photographs.

I buy virtually all of my lenses used, save 30% off the new price on average. And I get the quality lenses I am looking for that really do create a better image quality. Hope this helps.

I don't quite agree with the 1/3 cheaper remark.. But I do agree it's easier to resell a canon lens than a sigma lens. Everybody knows Canon, not everybody knows Sigma Same goes for any of the other 3rd party manufacturers.. (tamron, etc) A lot of people taint 3rd party lenses like sigma with a stigma (no pun intended ) that they are crap even if they aren't.

Can't speak to the Sigma 70-200mm as I don't own that lens, but I think the general consensus is that when it comes to that specific zoom range and if you need f/2.8, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mark II, wins every time. In fairness to Sigma, though, that is probably the best telephoto zoom lens created to date.

That said if you are more of a casual shooter and you don't pixel peep, I would think you'd be fine and who couldn't use the extra cash? Personally I like to get the best I can afford as I inevitably get lens envy and end up spending more in the long run to upgrade later. I think the best thing you can do is buy the Siggy, but if you do, you must never ever look at the lens photo archive for the Canon

Many if not all Sigma are reverse engineered saving substantial R&D costs; Canon you pay a premium for this along with a more dedicated QC department.

Most Canon “L” lenses are weather sealed and are more durable as they often find themselves in the hands of people who demand a great deal out of their equipment that sometimes gets knocked about a bit.

Some Sigma/Third Party, lenses are better; all things considered if you want/need/demand the best stick with Canon. I went Sigma because as a hobbyist cost-benefit ends up netting more variety of lenses with very little loss in IQ.

I debated on the telephoto side (Bigma vs Dust Pump) and found after using both that the optical results slightly better in the Canon when cropping. Inversely some shorter Sigma lenses have outperformed Canon. I don't think you can go wrong with either brand but it'll be on a lens by lens basis and to which one to get.

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #14768379
Many if not all Sigma are reverse engineered saving substantial R&D costs;

That's only true for the EOS mount itself. The lens, IS, and other elements are all Sigma.

I have 2 Sigma zooms, a 150-500 OS and a 120-400 OS, one for each body I'm using. I had a Canon 100-400 IS L and the 150-500 OS and after a lot of testing on all the bodies I had at the time, 550D, 7D and 5D2, I decided the 150-500 was a better all round performer than the 100-400.
The IQ was about the same, the AF was quicker on the Sigma but only just, the Sigma locked on better in failing light and the OS/IS battle was easily won by the Sigma. I sold the 5D2 and 7D and got the 5D3 and the 150-500 OS is excellent on that. I added a 60D and bought the 120-400 for use between that and the wifes 550D. The wife now shoots with a 650D and the Sigma's work excellently with that as well. I have just ordered a Canon 70-200 IS L MkII though, as from the reviews I've read it's outstanding, to replace a MkI version but I've never tried the Sigma 70-200 of any type.

Some other considerations include Sigma lenses come with a hood and very nice case and a much longer warranty than Canon lenses do. Canon "L" lenses do come with a hood, but the non-L EF and EF-S lenses do not, and most have a soft case. I own one Sigma and love it, but I also love my Canon lenses, even the non-L's I've had over the years.

DreDaze wrote in post #14768273
there is so much b.s. in this whole post it's ridiculous...show me where you can buy any used sigma lens for 1/3 of the new price...

show me any lens that has broken due to subpar construction....

I agreed, that was indeed full of b.s.

Take 50mm f1.4 for example, Sigma has better design, better built, and more expensive (new and used) than Canon's 50mm.

Or take 85mm prime for another example, I am seeing people selling 85L for $1700~1800 used which is a net loss of $200~300 (according to current retail price) while Sigma 85mm can still sell for $800~900 used, maybe some do go for a bit lower depends on the condition. That's only a net loss of $100~200.

If we take the percentage count, they are pretty much the same.

strcmp wrote in post #14768303
I don't quite agree with the 1/3 cheaper remark.. But I do agree it's easier to resell a canon lens than a sigma lens. Everybody knows Canon, not everybody knows Sigma Same goes for any of the other 3rd party manufacturers.. (tamron, etc) A lot of people taint 3rd party lenses like sigma with a stigma (no pun intended ) that they are crap even if they aren't.

L lenses aren't that easy to get rid of in used market, the majority of the population actually enjoys their consumer grade lens and finds no need to upgrade to a professional L lens. Sigma provides an economic combo to those who wants better optic at a lower cost just like Tamron's 17-50mm. It's at least as popular as 17-55mm from Canon, if not better.

DreDaze wrote in post #14768273
there is so much b.s. in this whole post it's ridiculous...show me where you can buy any used sigma lens for 1/3 of the new price...

show me any lens that has broken due to subpar construction....

Hey Dre,

Sigma uses tape to hold lenses togeather on front and rear helicals. They use plastic screws in the lens mounts that either break or come loose rendering the lens useless until a repair can be made. Their front AF helical will often jump track causing the lens to tighten up and unable to focus.

Don't beleive me? Do a quick google search for construction problems on Sigma glass also look at the images. But I'll do one better meet me at K&S's repair department and I will show you the BOX of busted lenses, but when I show it to you, you are buying lunch and I aint a cheap date LOL. I ran a very large rental department, @ Ewerts Photo=Scientific. Repair was onsite for nearly everything. Unless the Sigma was under warrentee, we usually told the owner it was BER.

Now as to the 1/3 issue, let say you buy the Siggy, and pay full pop for it.
1299, and then you use it for a year or so it's still in decent condition, decide you want the Canon at 2299 a cash diff of 1k.

You have to sell the siggy to get the Canon, otherwise you have two lenses w/ the same FL w/ over 3600 invested. Take the siggy to any camera store and try to sell and get top price, they will offer you one third of the new price. This is for two reasons, they have several new Sigs on the shelf waiting to be sold, with a profit margin smaller than your lens so buying the lens at 450 (465 for KEH) or so allows them to make 100% profit at 900 or so and still be 300 below MAP. Also it keeps used stock on hand to bundle with other items for greater sales. Harder to do with a new lens. Of course you can sell the lens to a individual buyer, but if they do their homework they know that this lens can be had for 750 on the used market which still leaves you well into the negative.

I have the original 70 200 canon from my old rental department. It's 15 yo have been everywhere in all kinds of weather, still looks good and has a current value of 1200 or so, try that with the sigma.