Canon vs Sigma

I had been out of photography for more than 20 years, and have recently jumped back in. Life happened. Anyway, back in the day, about the only lenses to consider were Canon or Nikon, depending on which system you used. Now, reading threads on the forum, I see a very heavy favoritism toward Sigma lenses. Sigma lenses were only for those who couldn't afford Canon. Has Sigma come so far in IQ, etc, that it is no longer second choice, but really up there with Canon, or even better?

Subscribing before all the Canon and Sigma fanboys start dukeing it out.. Haven't watched a good Canon vs Sigma battle in some time.

eddieb1 wrote in post #16188198
I had been out of photography for more than 20 years, and have recently jumped back in. Life happened. Anyway, back in the day, about the only lenses to consider were Canon or Nikon, depending on which system you used. Now, reading threads on the forum, I see a very heavy favoritism toward Sigma lenses. Sigma lenses were only for those who couldn't afford Canon. Has Sigma come so far in IQ, etc, that it is no longer second choice, but really up there with Canon, or even better?

As usual, it depends on the lens. Some of Sigma's lenses are indeed as good as, or better than Canon's offerings while retaining their price advantage. Others are nowhere near as good, and some are not quite as good but at the same time not quite as expensive. There are also those that find a hole in Canon's lineup and do a great job of filling it.

For example, the new Sigma 35/1.4 is better than Canon's 35/1.4, and is cheaper too. The older Sigma 24-70 is nowhere near as good as Canon's new 24-70 II. The Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS is not as good as the Canon 70-200 IS 2.8 MkII, but is better than the Canon Mk I, and is cheaper than both the Canons. The 8-16 has no contender in the Canon lineup, nor do the 50-500, 50-150, and 150-500.

eddieb1 wrote in post #16188198
I had been out of photography for more than 20 years, and have recently jumped back in. Life happened. Anyway, back in the day, about the only lenses to consider were Canon or Nikon, depending on which system you used. Now, reading threads on the forum, I see a very heavy favoritism toward Sigma lenses. Sigma lenses were only for those who couldn't afford Canon. Has Sigma come so far in IQ, etc, that it is no longer second choice, but really up there with Canon, or even better?

Both manufacturers make good lenses. There are people on this forum who are unhappy with lenses from both manufacturers. However, by the current fashion of evaluating lenses by over-enlarged images on electronic screens, no lenses by any manufacturer are good enough.

Why should a manufacturer with camera bodies in the product range automatically be the better lens manufacturer? That simply is not true.
For example Zeiss lenses are highly regarded optically, often said to outperform OEM lenses. No Zeiss bodies around...
Some OEM lenses (like the 70-200II) are best-in-class for the time being, but staying on top will not last forever.
Nowadays they are leap-frogging, each newest lens leaving older ones behind, but not by far.
Competition will bring prices down, allways a good thing for customers.

Pros and Cons to both parties..

"Generally speaking" Canon lenses will have better IQ, faster AF, better in low light, etc...

Sigma Lenses come in cheaper, some quality control issues in terms of back/front focusing...

Like gjl mentioned, you've opened a big can of worms on this topic!

I do, however, vouch for the new Sigma 35mm F1.4... Great lens

What about adding Tamron to the mix ? The new 24-70 VC first in it's class is very good and probably worth about 90% of canon Mk II IQ for 50% of price approximately. Again a subjective view, but nevertheless a valid one IMHO.

All of this is null and void when we see the mythical Sigma 24-70 f/2 OS taking shape in heavens.

^^ Yep

In my experience sigma is about the same in terms of optics - some better, some worse, but has interface issues. The focusing speed is slower and the missed shots are not worth it.

If you shoot landscapes - sigma is fine. But the strong point of AF canon system is quick AF and if you go with sigma it's not there. IMHO Sigma is a good match for rebel bodies, but if you have a camera with a good AF system you need canon to get the most of out it.

Tamron is the same - 17-55 is great and sharp, but canon focuses faster.

Sirrith wrote in post #16188219
As usual, it depends on the lens. Some of Sigma's lenses are indeed as good as, or better than Canon's offerings while retaining their price advantage. Others are nowhere near as good, and some are not quite as good but at the same time not quite as expensive. There are also those that find a hole in Canon's lineup and do a great job of filling it.

For example, the new Sigma 35/1.4 is better than Canon's 35/1.4, and is cheaper too. The older Sigma 24-70 is nowhere near as good as Canon's new 24-70 II. The Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS is not as good as the Canon 70-200 IS 2.8 MkII, but is better than the Canon Mk I, and is cheaper than both the Canons. The 8-16 has no contender in the Canon lineup, nor do the 50-500, 50-150, and 150-500.

Although your comparisons are valid but you do have to remember, when each product was released. The new Sigma 35 will be better than Canon's 35 because its newer. When Canon releases a newer version, it would be better than the original and probably Sigma's.

Same for comparing Sigma 24-70 to Canon's new 24-70. A better comparison would of been Tamron's since it was released within the same year or so. You said yourself that the Sigma is "older".

Yes, there are new lenses being manufactured but the technology isn't being upgraded with new lens made.

Back to the OP's comment, 3rd party lenses will always be cheaper than OEM. Of course, quality will be hit or miss. But the new Sigma ART has been getting rave reviews and I feel the quality has improved. Whereas with Tamron, its the same. I bought the new 24-70VC and the images were soft. Great lens but still image quality issues.

Majority of professional photographers will use OEM lenses whether it be for landscape, portrait, sports or wedding. 3rd party lenses would be more suited for hobbyists and amateurs as the price would be more in their range.

gjl711 wrote in post #16188214
Subscribing before all the Canon and Sigma fanboys start dukeing it out.. Haven't watched a good Canon vs Sigma battle in some time.

TheLensGuy is banned so I think you're in for a disappointment.

Willie wrote in post #16188744
TheLensGuy is banned so I think you're in for a disappointment.

Na.. There are three truths in the universe which will always lead to a battle, maybe 4.

1. Apple vs everyone else.
2. Canon vs Nikon (and getting to be everyone else)
3. Canon vs Sigma
4. Ketchup on a hot dog yes or no.



BTW.. if you put ketchup on a dog you should be strung up by your Oscar Meyer wiener and beaten with buns.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16188722
If you shoot landscapes - sigma is fine. But the strong point of AF canon system is quick AF and if you go with sigma it's not there. IMHO Sigma is a good match for rebel bodies, but if you have a camera with a good AF system you need canon to get the most of out it.

Not necessarily true. I was under the impression the Sigma 85 1.4 is faster focusing than the Canon 85 1.2L?

mike1812 wrote in post #16188776
Not necessarily true. I was under the impression the Sigma 85 1.4 is faster focusing than the Canon 85 1.2L?

I've never had either of those lenses. You're probably right about them.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16188722
If you shoot landscapes - sigma is fine. But the strong point of AF canon system is quick AF and if you go with sigma it's not there. IMHO Sigma is a good match for rebel bodies, but if you have a camera with a good AF system you need canon to get the most of out it.

The Canons focus faster, yes (for the most part). But that does not mean the Sigma lenses focus slow. They just focus slower. I've never missed a shot due to slow focus on any of my lenses (save for the Canon 50/1.8 and 100 macro), Sigmas included. Slow reaction from me, or missed focus due to the camera AF, yes. Slow focus, no. Although with that said, the fastest subjects I shoot are BIF, and not particularly fast ones.