3rd Party Lens

well point being..they are not unbreakable.

05Xrunner wrote in post #2102171
well point being..they are not unbreakable.

How did your previous comment make that point? The lens didn't break.

I've bought Canon lenses becaues they best suit my needs. If you leave out digital-only lenses (I shoot film too, and intend to upgrade from a 1.6x camera) there really isn't a huge selection of high quality wide angle lenses, and on the long end of things, I borrowed a 70-200/2.8 and found it well suited to what I was using it for (sports and general news stuff), and I read again and again that the AF on the sigma just wasn't quite up to par with the canon-- not a big deal for most, but a major issue for me. As for the 135/2.8, well, noone else is selling an SF lens, period, and there isn't exacty an abundance of inexpensive, high quality, fast medium telephotos about, either.

It's flat wrong to assume that people who have all this or all that have made those descions because they are 'snobs' or what have you. Heck, a Minolta shooter would call all of us snobs and point to a long list of reasons why their system is better and Canon is overrated etc etc.

because They are not unbreakable. someone made a comment you can run it over with a tank..yet others post that he dropped his new 70-200 IS on the ground and it chipped the inside of the front element. Its only glass. Plus everyone makes the comment also about they buy L for weathersealing. how many are actually that. the 70-200 IS and probablyt the big ones 300 2.8 and up.
How many of the others that everyone normally buys are.

Well, I love my sigma 100-300mm f/4. I plan on getting the sigma 50-150mm and the sigma 150mm macro next. Then maybe the 50-500mm sigma. I don't really see any L's in my future. Maybe the 70-200mm f'/2.8 L , But I don't know if it's that much better than the sigma.
No troulbe with the AF on the 100-300 so far.

anglext wrote in post #2099576
...
ok
...
well
...
Because someone has an L lens they have nice clothes?
...
I have L lenses to supply my clients with the best quality images that I can, but I deffiantly don't have enough money to go and blow on fancy clothes.
I'm not sure how buying L's applys to clothes but....it's a long shot.
I work at a photography studio...a fairly popular one and we do alot of weddings which demands me to have the best quality/durable lenses I can afford. I bought cheap at first. MISTAKE! now I'm rebuying my lenses in the L's -- Slowly -- ugh.

I personally own 2 Sigmas and one L. I understand the situation of being a photographer and wanting to provide the very best to clients (I have a friend who is a professional, and has only "L" lenses). I say think carefully about what focal length you need, compare the offerings in that range, and decide if the extras (USM, weather sealing) are worth the additional money. I don't care about weather sealing because I'm a wus, and won't even take my camera out if it's cloudy!!!

I think you should do the research and in some cases there is no choice other than to go third party. Generally you get what you pay for. The Sigma EX series is their pro line. In my case, Canon doesn't make a zoom in the 120-300 range in F2.8 so that was an easy decision. There are great lenses out there and there are some really crappy lenses out there. Here's a good side by side. Look at the Canon 24-70 F2.8L or 70-200 F2.8L and then the Sigma EX same focal lengths. I've seen side by sides and many times they are hard to tell apart. When you can tell them apart, the difference is usually very minimal and will only matter to those of us that really are adamant when it comes to showing off the best pics we have to offer. What kind of budget do we have to work with and what are the future plans?

tsaraleksi wrote in post #2103139
It's flat wrong to assume that people who have all this or all that have made those descions because they are 'snobs' or what have you. Heck, a Minolta shooter would call all of us snobs and point to a long list of reasons why their system is better and Canon is overrated etc etc.

I'm personally an equipment snob. Check it out.........

grego wrote in post #2099775
They cost less than the Canon counterparts more often than not. There are some scafices but its not usually in IQ.

Werd!