Pro's using sigma lenses

Nothing wrong with Sigma..

I think my Sigma 120-300, is more discreet than a white 300mm 2.8

Anyway, Sigma lens, will all do 90% quality to that of their Canon rivals.. At only 70% of the cost generally it seems.


However with that slight difference, if you have a really good photographer, using Sigma, getting 90% sharp good results, and a poor user on a L, who has money to burn, and 1DSii etc, but only getting 30-50% results ..

So yes, I do pro work
I use 20D, Sigma 10-20, Canon 17-40L, 50mm 1.8 (not that great, I know), 85 1.8, Sigma 120-300... Ever consider the Sigma 300-800 not a high quality lens?

Wazza, you brought up a good point... the white does stick out like a sore thumb and if you carry it around all day, it's quite a strain on the back..

I personally like Sigma but wished they had better QC before their lens left the factory.

EOSAddict wrote in post #2430312
I lose track of the number of times I have posted this comment since joining POTN usually to tweak the tail of the odd L-blind member!

Which part of my comment? .

The bit about Sigma being a lens manufacturer whereas Canon make photocopiers etc etc.

EOSAddict wrote in post #2433240
The bit about Sigma being a lens manufacturer whereas Canon make photocopiers etc etc.

Oh yeah. Going to there site actually, you can see a huge list of things they create. I also think the point and shoot market is a very profitable and sucessful market. They release new models even quicker then SLRS (from what I think), and who can't say they don't know atleast 10 people with a P&S?

i use and have used numerous sigma lenses always been happy I use canon lenses as well
but never had a problem or negative experience with a sigma lens

rider

Ok... so I gave my personal opinion on Sigma, but not my observation on what is really used. Honestly, a pro who is earning his/her mortgage with their photography usually will not use 3rd party stuff unless there is a compelling reason to. The cost differential between Sigma and Canon (usually in the order of hundreds - not that much in businses terms) is not worth the risk of adding 3rd party products into the mix if it is not needed. You need to KNOW the stuff is going to work well together, and you need to KNOW that if it doesn't work, you only have one throat to choke to get it to work together. Absolutely nothing wrong with Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, or any other lens company as they all produce fine products. But when it is your livelihood on the line, you need to know you can send your kit into CPS and have them make it work and turn it around in a heart beat. It is all about risk mitigation, not sharpness, clarity, focus speed, yada yada yada. All those things are extremely nice and good, but as most images end up in daily or weekly publications, image quality is not a fine art here. The hobbiest can worry about resolving power of x lens on y body. A pro buys as much as he/she needs and not a cent more. Unfortunately for the 3rd party people out there, that means if paper x or rag y can standardize on a brand, it gives them more clout when things go wrong. At least that is my view from where I am at. Again, nothing wrong with Sigma, they make one of my most used lenses, but that is because Canon doesn't have anything in it's class right now. If they did, I would be using the Canon version. Cheers.

I can think of at least one reason to use Sigma in nature shots. A big white barrel will often startle the critters (especially skittish birds) when the camera is moved.

Several nature photographer with whom I have spoken have complained about this. Many use a wrap or sleeve over the Canon white barrel, even though they complain it often interferes with control.

Besides, the Sigma 170-500mm is one heck of a lens for the price. It's also a rotary zoom, which many like better than the EF 100-400.

I use my 50-500 sigma for equine events and to be honest it is the best that I have tried, the boca and af is fantastic and I must get 85% of the shots that are " Whoop's where did that horse come from" and throw the camera to your eye and push the button . I do find though that its better at 150 to 400mm than 50 to 150mm and at £680.00 that it cost new its a bargan.

Martin.

20droger wrote in post #2439978
I can think of at least one reason to use Sigma in nature shots. A big white barrel will often startle the critters (especially skittish birds) when the camera is moved.

Several nature photographer with whom I have spoken have complained about this. Many use a wrap or sleeve over the Canon white barrel, even though they complain it often interferes with control.

Besides, the Sigma 170-500mm is one heck of a lens for the price. It's also a rotary zoom, which many like better than the EF 100-400.

a customer will never look at an image and say "this wasn't taken with XXXXXX brand, so I don't want it"

I use high value lenses, no matter the brand. just use the gear that works for you and deliver the best pics you can. I personally have had better luck with tamron lenses than sigma, but that is just a quirk, maybe.

Croasdail wrote in post #2439470
Ok... so I gave my personal opinion on Sigma, but not my observation on what is really used. Honestly, a pro who is earning his/her mortgage with their photography usually will not use 3rd party stuff unless there is a compelling reason to. .

i disagree - on the basis that i have seen a few use exactly what works for them, regardless of the brand - as i stated earlier, there is an article in the professional photographer UK latest edition with a fashion photographer using a sigma lens.

so i guess that is the compelling reason?

i am saving for a 70-200 F4L at the minute.......i use sigma a lot and love my 24-70F2.8EX the build is great so is the IQ and sharpness.....my only gripe is the slowish AF.......but for how i shoot it isnt a problem......i want the 70-200 because ive used one and find it a nice bit of kit.....BUT i certainly wouldnt get one because of some snobish fashion.......i find the blindness to other products narrow minded and pathetic as do i find equally distastfull that a manufacturer should brand a range proffessional IE giving the assumtion that a non L glass user is an amature.......like a customer gives a damn what you shoot with as long as you get the shot suitable to thier brief.......i have a list of glass i want in the future......the 70-200L,bigma,10-20 sigma ....

budgetbus wrote in post #2449664
i am saving for a 70-200 F4L at the minute.......i use sigma a lot and love my 24-70F2.8EX the build is great so is the IQ and sharpness.....my only gripe is the slowish AF.......but for how i shoot it isnt a problem......i want the 70-200 because ive used one and find it a nice bit of kit.....BUT i certainly wouldnt get one because of some snobish fashion.......i find the blindness to other products narrow minded and pathetic as do i find equally distastfull that a manufacturer should brand a range proffessional IE giving the assumtion that a non L glass user is an amature.......like a customer gives a damn what you shoot with as long as you get the shot suitable to thier brief.......i have a list of glass i want in the future......the 70-200L,bigma,10-20 sigma ....

You should give the Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 a try because that is one of my favourite lens. It's fast, quiet and excellent for nature shots. Build and image quality I find excellent. Obviously speed and build quality is just a tad lower than Canon but still very good. Some say that the Sigma image quality is better than Canon's.
One thing for sure is price and warranty is definitely better. I personally use both Canon 70-200L 2.8 (NON IS) and Sigma 70-200EX 2.8 and I personally like the Sigma because it's lighter and it's colour not sticking out like a sore thumb.

tlc wrote in post #2449537
i disagree - on the basis that i have seen a few use exactly what works for them, regardless of the brand - as i stated earlier, there is an article in the professional photographer UK latest edition with a fashion photographer using a sigma lens.

so i guess that is the compelling reason?

The compelling reason there might be sponsorship. Buy Canon, or get paid to use Sigma. I'd use Sigma if those were my choices.

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2450042
The compelling reason there might be sponsorship. Buy Canon, or get paid to use Sigma. I'd use Sigma if those were my choices.

yes but thats on the assumption that that actually happened in the case.....heaven forbid anyone actually not choosing canon glass....