Pro's using sigma lenses

S230 wrote in post #2449979
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.

might take a look at it.......ive got a choice coming up......i can either buy
70-200 F4L
70-200 F2.8EX
or the bigma
or a dual head elinchrom setup

budgetbus wrote in post #2450114
yes but thats on the assumption that that actually happened in the case.....heaven forbid anyone actually not choosing canon glass....

Yes, it is on that assumption. But it's a scenario worth considering. When you're at the top of your game, big companies want to align themselves with you.

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2450124
I said might.

.

I think I'll pick up a Sigma 10-20.

I got rid of my 24-70EX cos of the crazy loud focussing. The build quality felt solid but it also felt klunky. And I couldnt' stand the finish (so easy to scratch!)

Jason loves his Sigma 15/2.8 Fishy.

budgetbus wrote in post #2450121
might take a look at it.......ive got a choice coming up......i can either buy
70-200 F4L
70-200 F2.8EX
or the bigma
or a dual head elinchrom setup

I personally recommend the 70-200 2.8 EX because it's probably I feel that this lens feels and performs close the 70-200 F2.8 L. I've tried the F4 but it's not as even close to the Sigma's build. Also, pricewise, you rather pay a little more for a better lens plus remember the excellent customer service and warranty the Sigma offers. The other option is go for the whole nine yards and get the Canon 70-200 f2.8L because it's a lens for long term investment. IS vs NON-IS is personal opinion but some argue that the NON-IS has better image quality.

The Bigma, I've only tried for a short period of time while my friend had it but it suffers image quality at the short end of the range. It's an excellent lens and great value for the focal length it offers.

S230 wrote in post #2454533
I personally recommend the 70-200 2.8 EX because it's probably I feel that this lens feels and performs close the 70-200 F2.8 L. I've tried the F4 but it's not as even close to the Sigma's build. Also, pricewise, you rather pay a little more for a better lens plus remember the excellent customer service and warranty the Sigma offers. The other option is go for the whole nine yards and get the Canon 70-200 f2.8L because it's a lens for long term investment. IS vs NON-IS is personal opinion but some argue that the NON-IS has better image quality.

The Bigma, I've only tried for a short period of time while my friend had it but it suffers image quality at the short end of the range. It's an excellent lens and great value for the focal length it offers.

I think the F4 has an amazing build quality. You must also realize you are tossing up weight and portability if you go for any of the 2.8 lenses. The F4 is sharp, it's just not as wide wide open as the f2.8 (obviously), and it's about half the weight.

Like Lisa a few pages back in this thread, I had the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and got shot of it. Autofocus for me is much slower than the Canon version.

Were not talking hobbiest here amigo. Were talking pro photographers. If you have seen pro gear, it usually is tired, beaten, worn out, and see's little love. Lens hoods are attached by what ever works - duct tape if that is what is needed. I know no pros that worry about looking like a pro. It's the "I wish I were a pro" types that worry about if they look pro-enough. As to you other quote about some pro photographer using a sigma lens as proof that there are photographers that use Sigma, like I said, there are always times when you will use something that Canon does not make a comp. lens. The fast 1.8 wides sigma produces are some. The 12-24 full frame zoom is another. The 120-300 zoom, and 300-800 zoom are others. But it is rare that a working pro will opt. for say a Sigma 300 2.8 over the Canon 300 2.8 dispite the fact that he sigma is only 60% the price. It is just not commonly done. Sure it happens, but on an exception bases.

To Liza's comments the on the Sigma 70-200 not working for basketball, she got me thinking, and so I tried it yesturday. I am not sure why she had the results she did, but I had no problems. I shot some 380 frames, of which only 15-20 were out of focus. I have some example shots over in the sports forum if you care to take a look.

Again, I love Sigma, they produce great stuff. For the money some of the best stuff depending on the which lens you are talking about. But in the hightly competitive field of photography, your not going to take to many chances. It only takes getting burned once.

I have the 120-300 and it works just fine. I owned(well sort of, since a friend let me keep it) the sigma 70-200 2.8 before I was able to buy my 70-200 2.8 IS.
Both of those Sigma's are fine lens. I have a few complaints, but they are very marginal. Still best value for performance.

I have gone to a lot of conventions and seminars throughout the US. I have looked at a lot of 16x20's up to 20x30's hanging at displays. Not once, could I tell "what" lens took "what" picture, by "what" camera! ! In this day and age of digital, you can sharpen and massage a picture to the "umpth" degree!

Could anyone honestly identify an image (the exact same shot) if it was done by the top several camera vendors, with their own lenses and then "third party lenses?" You couldn't!

That's like saying, "Gee, I wonder what word processor, he used to write that novel?"

marian wrote in post #2456745
I have gone to a lot of conventions and seminars throughout the US. I have looked at a lot of 16x20's up to 20x30's hanging at displays. Not once, could I tell "what" lens took "what" picture, by "what" camera! ! In this day and age of digital, you can sharpen and massage a picture to the "umpth" degree!

Could anyone honestly identify an image (the exact same shot) if it was done by the top several camera vendors, with their own lenses and then "third party lenses?" You couldn't!

That's like saying, "Gee, I wonder what word processor, he used to write that novel?"

Optically, no. Most of the time you can't see a difference or tell what camera/lens took a shot. But there's more to a lens than just optics. If someone showed me 2 identical, or nearly so, shots in which one was focused and the other missed, I would be certain the missed focus was from a 3rd party lens and the in focus one was OEM. Original Canon gear with USM just works better. It almost always focuses where 3rd party misses, or at the very least it misses a lot less often in the same conditions.

Claire wrote in post #2421270
I doubt a client would give a damn what the pro uses, as long as he delivers.

Agreed. To this day I have no idea what camera and lenses the photographer of my wedding used. I was too busy being happy with the wedding to pay attention to the equipment, and I was too happy with the photos to really care after the fact!

asabet wrote in post #2456863
Agreed. To this day I have no idea what camera and lenses the photographer of my wedding used. I was too busy being happy with the wedding to pay attention to the equipment, and I was too happy with the photos to really care after the fact!

And I guess there in lies the problem. When you say pro - what pro are you referring to. There is not a single generic pro photographer type out there. They use the same skills, but in very different ways. A pro photojournalist may take hundred or thousands of frames a day. A wedding photographer may do that in a week. A wedding photographer has the leisure to be carefull with their equipment, a pj doesn't always. If your a fashion or product photographer where the client is spending hundred or thousands of dollars to secure studio or a location, they will pretty much expect you to show up with all the "right" equipment - and backups - because there is no reshoot.

So to a very generic question, your going to get a lot of different answers. Focus speed to a wedding or fashion photographer isn't as critical as it is to a sports photographer therefor they can pick some of the slower focusing lenses and still be productive with them. On the other hand, a slow focusing lens in sports photography is a death notice. It all just depends. But in the end, the best equipment never hurts you..... lessor equipment can kill.

To cdi-ink.com

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2456790
Optically, no. Most of the time you can't see a difference or tell what camera/lens took a shot. But there's more to a lens than just optics. If someone showed me 2 identical, or nearly so, shots in which one was focused and the other missed, I would be certain the missed focus was from a 3rd party lens and the in focus one was OEM. Original Canon gear with USM just works better. It almost always focuses where 3rd party misses, or at the very least it misses a lot less often in the same conditions.

Your comment doesn't make any sense at all!

I have been to several Monte Zucker (I'm just using him, in this case) seminars and as every pro who does the circuit, you walk into the hall and there are all his large 20x20's (and larger) prints on display. At that time period (Film) he shot with Hasselbald and in close examination, I noticed prints that were out of focus! (I thought Hasselblad lenses were tack sharp!)

Let me "fast forward" now to just a few months back! I went to WPPI in Las Vegas (Did you?) and they had every print hanging up there from competition for display, for the genenral public to look at.

You could NOT walk down the displays and say...... "Oh, that was shot with a Sigma!" ..... "Oh, this was shot with a Tamron!"...... "There's a Canon lens that shot this picture!" "Now, here's a shot that was made with a Nikon lens!"

Get my point?

Croasdail wrote in post #2459708
And I guess there in lies the problem. When you say pro - what pro are you referring to. There is not a single generic pro photographer type out there. They use the same skills, but in very different ways. A pro photojournalist may take hundred or thousands of frames a day. A wedding photographer may do that in a week. A wedding photographer has the leisure to be carefull with their equipment, a pj doesn't always. If your a fashion or product photographer where the client is spending hundred or thousands of dollars to secure studio or a location, they will pretty much expect you to show up with all the "right" equipment - and backups - because there is no reshoot.

So to a very generic question, your going to get a lot of different answers. Focus speed to a wedding or fashion photographer isn't as critical as it is to a sports photographer therefor they can pick some of the slower focusing lenses and still be productive with them. On the other hand, a slow focusing lens in sports photography is a death notice. It all just depends. But in the end, the best equipment never hurts you..... lessor equipment can kill.

What's to say that a Canon will not fail in a dire situation? I understand the argument, if a pro is good and smart he is going to use the best equipment that is available to him...I agree with you there, but if his experience shows that he works better with a particular lens for whatever reason even if it's a third party...then it should not make him "any less of a pro" so to speak.