Pro's using sigma lenses

I got rid of all my off brand lenses for two reasons Canon has a faster focus in low light and they all have the same rotation when zooming. Sigmas was different and it was getting confusing during the fast events. If I was only doing portraits and weddings I would of stayed with my sigma products.

Not a pro so I have no input, not sure how you draw the lines at hobbiest/Amature/Pro..​.

what if a pro used a sigma body as well?

if a pro pressed the shutter button on his sigma set up and there was no one around.... would it take a picture?

what about Tamron? why does Sigma get all the third party glory??

Stay tuned for the Ansewers to these questions and many more, on POTN channel 12 at 11

Vegas Poboy wrote in post #2422162
I got rid of all my off brand lenses for two reasons Canon has a faster focus in low light and they all have the same rotation when zooming. Sigmas was different and it was getting confusing during the fast events. If I was only doing portraits and weddings I would of stayed with my sigma products.

I had the same experience when I tried the Sigma 70-200 at a ball game. Though the exposure was fine in this very well lit gym, the autofocus sucked for basketball. As you said, if my only need was for a portrait or wedding lens, the Sigma would be fine. But since I sell my sports images, I need Canon glass for the faster, more reliable autofocus.

Skrim17 wrote in post #2419922
I got a chance to talk to a pro the other day and his thing with canon was the sealing and USM, said they couldn't be beat. In the studio he shoots mamiya, PJ its canon and this guy shoots for newsweek, time, the new york times etc.

I’d have to say USM build then sealing. I.e USM and nailing every shot even in low light vs. waiting for your lens while it’s hunting and missing the shots what’s your lens worth now?

a 'pro' knows what works for them, and doesnt necessarily 'go with the flow'.

i doubt a 'pro' would drop a lens simply because of the brand.

just because a 'brand' is deemed the best in retail land, doesnt necessarily mean it is so.

there are lots of 'pros' out there who have a variable of stock in their bag. not just lenses either.

tlc wrote in post #2424165
a 'pro' knows what works for them, and doesnt necessarily 'go with the flow'.

i doubt a 'pro' would drop a lens simply because of the brand.

just because a 'brand' is deemed the best in retail land, doesnt necessarily mean it is so.

there are lots of 'pros' out there who have a variable of stock in their bag. not just lenses either.

I agree , all part and parcel of learning and getting to where one wants to go is learning the mentality and logic behind this way of thinking, as opposed to having something for the sake of having it.

In other words, a pro makes something work despite the brand name of his equipment.

understood .... and I also like that mentality

I was talking with Jon yesterday about that. It's a BIG point when things are happening around you. Before the days of AF, another was having the focus ring for all lenses rotate the same direction when something came toward, or went away, from you. I don't want to have to think about that.

Another plus about the Ls is that they hold their resale value well, when you want to "upgrade".

decoyslikecurves wrote in post #2419905
I'm an architecture photographer and now branching into photojournalism and model shooting.

My most used lens's are:

Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 - Beautiful Glass. Enough said
Sigma 30mm 1.4 - Sigma build (awesome), sharp and good overall
Canon 70-200f4L - Not built quite as well as the sigmas from outside appearances but the focus is ever so slightly quicker and takes beautiful pictures.

The next few lens's I buy will be canon L's, simply because what they offer is what I like.

However, I love the sigma stuff, and if they come out with anything else of interest like the 30mm 1.4 (canon dont make an equivilent as nice) or the 10-20 (half th price of canons equivelent, built better and just as good optically) I'd be buying it.


Gav

Ditto that. I've used all three lenses you listed, own one, and plan on buying the other two (I own the 70-200 F/4L.)
The sigma 30 1.4 has no Canon competitor. This is really what the focal length I think a LOT of people expect when they get the 50mm, which is supose to be the normal lens, but imo, on a crop body it's more of an 80mm lens then a 50mm.
The sigma 10-20 has great build quality, and is quite sharp. For the money I wouldn't choose anything else.
The sigma 17-70 also looks extraordinarily interesting. I might pick one up. For the price, it seems as if no other lens can even compete. It is what the kit lens, probably should be.
BTW, the 10-20 and 30 1.4 both have HSM. The 30 1.4 focused fluently and perfectly for me when I tried it. I think it was easily as good focus-wise as my 85 1.8.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #2424231
I was talking with Jon yesterday about that. It's a BIG point when things are happening around you. Before the days of AF, another was having the focus ring for all lenses rotate the same direction when something came toward, or went away, from you. I don't want to have to think about that.

Another plus about the Ls is that they hold their resale value well, when you want to "upgrade".

Yes, all attributes to why you should choose one over the other in regards to your equipment but I think what I was trying to get at in this thread was whether or not a pro can be taken seriously with a set of sigma lenses as opposed to a series of L lenses.

Based on the responses, I now know better.

these kinds of threads allow me to learn the mindset which is just as much apart of the business as learning about the dof.

Thanks to everyone who responded.

I use Canon L in the field, 16-35 and 70-200 (and sometimes the non-L 50 1.8....I've had a few strange looks from others when changing from the 16-35 to the 50, I know that they think that the size of my lens makes me who I am....), but in studio, or on location portrait work my Tamron 28-75 is still my weapon of choice. If I did glamor shots and had to worry about wide open for dramatic shots I would consider dropping another $1200 on Canon's 24-70, but I see no need as all of my shots are f/8-f/16.

i use the sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX. it's one of my sharpest lenses. the only complaint i have is the focus motor noise and the focus ring. had to send it in for repairs because the focus motor died once.

I personally used both Canon and Sigma (EQUAL lens) apples vs apples.
ie. Canon 24-70L 2.8 vs Sigma 24-70 EX 2.8 and Canon 70-200 2.8L vs Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8.

I have to honest, the Canon is slightly better in several areas especially resell value but I personally like Sigma because of it's warranty. I have 10 warranty years for my lens and so far I had my lens fixed several times which has paid for itself already. Customer service and turnaround time is amazing and is very important to me. I took my canon lens to canon for repair and my lens came back scratched. Obviously Canon denied it.

I use my Sigma lens for many rough conditions and still lived up to it. Low light is a problem but how I work around it is by mounting my flash and use the IR assist on it.

I agree , it's the warranty that Sigma offers and the reputable service that really sells me on sigma..

Canon canada..sucks , real bad. If your going to go into business and need dependable service , it's nice having that.

Worth more than the resell value imho

Broncobear wrote in post #2425345
I agree , it's the warranty that Sigma offers and the reputable service that really sells me on sigma..

Canon canada..sucks , real bad. If your going to go into business and need dependable service , it's nice having that.

Worth more than the resell value imho

That too. A lot of people just send there lenses into Sigma for calibration or whatever and it's all good.
I'm curious, if the front element or something cracks (your fault or whatever) under warranty, what do they charge?