Pro's using sigma lenses

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #2464210
What? Supposedly? Sounds like DPreview Bunk to me.

It's not, I've heard it several times here on POTN that the Rebel XT has focusing errors/problems with apertures below 2.8. I've ALSO heard even more, that the XTi and 30D have tweaked "algorithms" that improve the AF with the XTi and 30D over the XT and 20D.

Well, your more or less right about this, but I'm still very disappointed that I'd have to use a $5k camera to get the most of out high-speed AF on L glass that would still work on my 350D, but with worse ability to AF and track.

Well, I do realize that Canon's 1D line is very important to them. And it does already have tons of features that the XT and x0D lines don't have.

It's just that AF is something that is very important for everyone, if you miss focus, or can't track it becuase your camera is a lower model, that's a bit too much of a loss for me. I'd be much more hesitant in investing in more expensive lenses, if their AF cannot be utilized as well as if I had a 1D.

It's just frustrating, and that adds to my half-witted remarks.

Let me summerize....

1) as a semi-pro, I try to keep to one system to minimize potential problems and resolution times where there are problems. It's the old one throat to choke approach. Most of the PJ and Sports photographers I work with share the same philosophy.

2) I do fault Canon for trying to tell people they can get pro level "sports" shots with a kit lens and an xti. The biggest issue is the kit lens. Car manufactures at least tell you the car you are seeing on screen is not the one for the low-low price. Canon isn't doing that. Consumers are buying the xti at Bestbuy with the 70-300 Canon lens, and then wonder why they can't get that "pro" looking shot. Canon isn't telling you that you need a f2.8 lens.... that happens later... here. That's where I fault them. Check out the xti brochure... page 13-14. There is no way that was taken with the lens on the oposite page, and in fact if you notice, on the image detail they left off the aperature detail. Just be honest... say optional equipment used/shown - just like the auto manufactures do.

3) As stated above the next thing that happens is people log onto sites like this, and ask how come they can't get those shots like in SI. The first thing offered is you need a white lens because that is what the pros use. Now they are buying a lens that is 2x their original kit. The truth is, as a "Hobbiest", there are plenty of solutions short going "L" that will work fine. A combination of an affordable lens and some real training will serve these people a lot more then buying white. They will not be putting 100,000 actuations on their camera a year. Just because a pro uses it, does not mean it is the right answer for a hobbiest. Quit often you will find almost pro level lenses from 3rd parties where say they do focus at 90% the speed of an L... for what the hobbiest is shooting, that should be fast enough. High School ball is a hell of a lot slower then Pro or Division 1 level sports. If you can't capture High School basketball with a Sigma, it is probably the shooters technique rather then hardware.

The truth is lenses like the 70-200 Sigma are more then capable of delivering what a hobbiest need. I would not recommend it as a solution for a daily shooter pro. Not that it can't do the job. It probably can. But I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it. On my Sigma, the outside paint is coming off. It was not built for the type of use I put stuff through. I shoot in the rain, snow, sleet.... it gets put on the ground when I change off between cameras. It gets tossed in the back seat unprotected... it's just the nature of the job. That is why I also have a 70-200 L. It isn't because the AF speed is slower.

There is a HUGE difference between what will work for hobbiest - and what a pro needs. The original question from the OP is whether pro's use non-Canon equipment. The answer is some do - depending on what they shoot. A "pro" sports photographer is 98% of the time going to use OEM lenses. A "pro" wedding photographer is less likely because the demands are different. A "pro" landscape and travel photographer may or may not... I don't know as I am not one.

I know this is another rambling response.. but hopefully it clears up the mud some. I have no issues with you all challenging what I think... I have my opinions changed often on this forum... that is why I am here. The author Bryan Peterson reports he shoots about 10,000 frames a year. He is a pro, a highly respected one. He also is not working even close to the duty cycle of L class glass or 1 class bodies. He also shoots landscapes and portraits. Again, AF speed not critical to him there either. What's the point. I don't know other then what a pro uses depends on what they shoot. There is no one right answer.

Net Net.. I wish Canon would be a wee bit more honest with their advertising. Tell people what they will really need. For pros- I recommend all OEM as much as possible when it comes to lenses. For anyone short of that - there are lots of options that shouldn't be dismissed just because pros use something else.

Croasdail wrote in post #2464846
Let me summerize....

1) as a semi-pro, I try to keep to one system to minimize potential problems and resolution times where there are problems. It's the old one throat to choke approach. Most of the PJ and Sports photographers I work with share the same philosophy.

2) I do fault Canon for trying to tell people they can get pro level "sports" shots with a kit lens and an xti. The biggest issue is the kit lens. Car manufactures at least tell you the car you are seeing on screen is not the one for the low-low price. Canon isn't doing that. Consumers are buying the xti at Bestbuy with the 70-300 Canon lens, and then wonder why they can't get that "pro" looking shot. Canon isn't telling you that you need a f2.8 lens.... that happens later... here. That's where I fault them. Check out the xti brochure... page 13-14. There is no way that was taken with the lens on the oposite page, and in fact if you notice, on the image detail they left off the aperature detail. Just be honest... say optional equipment used/shown - just like the auto manufactures do.

3) As stated above the next thing that happens is people log onto sites like this, and ask how come they can't get those shots like in SI. The first thing offered is you need a white lens because that is what the pros use. Now they are buying a lens that is 2x their original kit. The truth is, as a "Hobbiest", there are plenty of solutions short going "L" that will work fine. A combination of an affordable lens and some real training will serve these people a lot more then buying white. They will not be putting 100,000 actuations on their camera a year. Just because a pro uses it, does not mean it is the right answer for a hobbiest. Quit often you will find almost pro level lenses from 3rd parties where say they do focus at 90% the speed of an L... for what the hobbiest is shooting, that should be fast enough. High School ball is a hell of a lot slower then Pro or Division 1 level sports. If you can't capture High School basketball with a Sigma, it is probably the shooters technique rather then hardware.

The truth is lenses like the 70-200 Sigma are more then capable of delivering what a hobbiest need. I would not recommend it as a solution for a daily shooter pro. Not that it can't do the job. It probably can. But I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it. On my Sigma, the outside paint is coming off. It was not built for the type of use I put stuff through. I shoot in the rain, snow, sleet.... it gets put on the ground when I change off between cameras. It gets tossed in the back seat unprotected... it's just the nature of the job. That is why I also have a 70-200 L. It isn't because the AF speed is slower.

There is a HUGE difference between what will work for hobbiest - and what a pro needs. The original question from the OP is whether pro's use non-Canon equipment. The answer is some do - depending on what they shoot. A "pro" sports photographer is 98% of the time going to use OEM lenses. A "pro" wedding photographer is less likely because the demands are different. A "pro" landscape and travel photographer may or may not... I don't know as I am not one.

I know this is another rambling response.. but hopefully it clears up the mud some. I have no issues with you all challenging what I think... I have my opinions changed often on this forum... that is why I am here. The author Bryan Peterson reports he shoots about 10,000 frames a year. He is a pro, a highly respected one. He also is not working even close to the duty cycle of L class glass or 1 class bodies. He also shoots landscapes and portraits. Again, AF speed not critical to him there either. What's the point. I don't know other then what a pro uses depends on what they shoot. There is no one right answer.

Net Net.. I wish Canon would be a wee bit more honest with their advertising. Tell people what they will really need. For pros- I recommend all OEM as much as possible when it comes to lenses. For anyone short of that - there are lots of options that shouldn't be dismissed just because pros use something else.

Now you're going way off topic. Look at the title of this thread. It's "Pro's using sigma lenses" not "Sigma good enough for hobbyists."

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2464882
Now you're going way off topic. Look at the title of this thread. It's "Pro's using sigma lenses" not "Sigma good enough for hobbyists."

Ok... let me make it real simple.

Sigma not for Pro Sports and PJ Shooters.... possible exception is the 120-300 because Canon doesn't have one. Reason- not AF speed but long term durability.

Otherwise, it just depends on what type of Pro you are.

If you shoot less then 10,000 a year - they will likely work. If you shoot 100K a year - look to the Canon Ls.

It depends on what type of Pro you are...

Was that simple enough?

CDI - are you a pro, or a "hobbiest" who shoots for money occasionally? Just wondering what your point of reference is.

Croasdail wrote in post #2465009
Ok... let me make it real simple.

Sigma not for Pro Sports and PJ Shooters.... possible exception is the 120-300 because Canon doesn't have one. Reason- not AF speed but long term durability.

Otherwise, it just depends on what type of Pro you are.

If you shoot less then 10,000 a year - they will likely work. If you shoot 100K a year - look to the Canon Ls.

It depends on what type of Pro you are...

Was that simple enough?

CDI - are you a pro, or a "hobbiest" who shoots for money occasionally? Just wondering what your point of reference is.

Wow this is a twisted statement. You're saying it doesn't matter WHAT you shoot, but how much you shoot.

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2465021
Wow this is a twisted statement. You're saying it doesn't matter WHAT you shoot, but how much you shoot.

Which lends me back to what kind of shooting you do? Yes, how much you shoot makes a huge difference. There is a reason why Canon's pro lenses are made of metal not plastic. And it isn't so they feel cool in your hands.

And for crying out loud... YES... I said depends on what type of pro your talking about. Is that really that hard to understand? The needs of photojournalist are VERY different then a small town wedding photographer. When I worked for a paper in California, the average photograher would shoot more in a week then a wedding type would shoot in a year. Give me a break here CDI. Read the whole dang thing would ya. The number of shots you take can make a huge difference on what kind of equipment you pick up.

Yes.... what you do and how you will be using your equipment makes a huge difference.
Neither the 85 L mk 1 or mk II are fast focusing lenses. To a sports/pj photographer they are not optimal. Actually the non-L is better suited. On the other hand, wedding, fashion, and portrait photographers - the "l" works great for them. At that point, the fact that the normal 85 isn't built to L standards becomes a moot point, the lens becomes a consumable that you just plan on having to service or replaced more often. The same can be said of the Sigma 20 f1.8 or the full frame 12-24 zoom. They may not last as long, but they are the only ones in their class. So they might work for a pro who isn't going to crank 100k exposures through them a year. They just were not designed for that kind of work load. But to a wedding photographer who would do a couple thousand shots a year on the lens -they would likely do just fine.

Is your vision that narrowly focused that you can't see there isn't just one answer here?

You can do all the rollie eyes you want... but until you have actually done it... I would keep an open mind. Not that your opinion is wrong... but don't dismiss others who have done and actually do this stuff on a regular basis. You might just learn something.

Yes - how much you shoot make a difference too. There is much more to a 1D then it's focus speed. My 1d's have 45 focus points... but I use only one of them. Build and duty cycle are large reason why pros use them.

You don't know how much I shoot, what I shoot, or where I shoot. You're assuming I don't know what I'm talking about.

If you go back and read your own posts, you're talking in circles. As CDS pointed out, you contradict yourself with each new post. I'm not even going to continue here. You're the one being narrow minded.

I don't know, that's why I asked.... but I think your answer clears that up.

I'll leave you with your assumptions.

Actually, Don is a professional wedding photographer who has recently added pro sports shooting to his array of services. He is not a hobbiest.

Which is fine... it just means his approach and his tools are different. That is all I was trying to get to. A landscape photographer vs. a wedding photographer vs. a pj/sports photographer vs. an artist are all going to select their tools on different criteria. There is no generic "pro" photographer. I couldn't be artistic is my life depended on it. I don't have the kit for weddings. I do go through 2 to 3 shutter boxes a year. I do have a Sigma lens I use - often. I am one of the few sports photographers that shoots for an agency that does. On the other other hand there are many youth sports photographers that use them, and very successfully.

My point was simply context is everything. What type of pro? How often do you shoot? What conditions do you shoot in? What skill level do you have. What are the expectations your customers have. It all adds up. Only knowing all that can you answer if a 3rd party lens will do the job. My opinion is they would work more often then not. My experience from the PJ/Sports side is 3rd party lenses are avoided. As part of being a freelancer, customers want to know what your kit is so they can judge if you have the right tools for the job. In the end, they don't care what you used. But it is used as a qualifier... fare or not. It is what it is. Perception often becomes reality.

Oh well....

LOL ok ok...I don't know why this topic got so complicated.

Basically I was looking for a feel if a guy can take a stab as a pro or semi pro with a mixture of sigma's and canon's and other equipment, if he/she has what works for them at the time.

that is what may be the situation for me in the comming years

I mean no one can just be a pro just cause they want to be and have all the expensive lenses all ready to go.

I personally think each case is differen't, and I've also gained more confidence since starting this thread to know that it doesn't matter what equipment the photographer uses, it what he produces is what's important.

when you say Pro... Pro what. What do you envision shooting. Short answer, based on your easing yourself into it... yeah, using a mix is a fine plan. And as you learn what your style is, then you can perfect your kit. Depending on what the end destination is going to be though will make a difference on what you buy first. For example, if you want to shoot high level college sports or the like, investing in a new or used 1D mk II or N. A really good 70-20O, a 300, plus a 24-70 would round out your starter kit. You can get good deals on all these used. On the other hand, as a wedding photographer you may want to look at a 5d to start You can skip the 300, but the rest would stay the same. If you want to go the budget route, you could easily go with a cheaper 20D or xti and the 17-50 ef-s IS plus a longer zoom like the Sigma 70-200. Landscape and stock photographer - for Microstock, image requirements aren't as exacting so a 30D plus some 3rd party lenses will get you buy. For the higher level stock images for advertising and magazine usage, then you want a much more exacting kit.

In the end, it just depends on what you want to do. I have a former photo teacher that makes a boat load of money doing high school senior pictures. L class equipment is not needed for this. Sigma and Tamron could easily handle that job. I make between 2-3 k a weekend "on the side" doing youth sports photos. These can also easily be done with good Sigma glass. If that is all I did, I could easily stay with Sigma. But I also do a lot of contract photograhy for Division 1 college teams where the images are seen in their promotional materials and given to the media for articles. I also do contract work for publications directly. As such, I have had to upgrade a lot of my hardware.

So sorry, the answer is not simple. The simple answer would be to go out and buy all L class glass. But as a business person you shouldn't spend 1 cent on something that doesn't add value to you end product. Depending on your end product, and the customers requirements, you very well may be able to get away with some of Sigma's glass.

I know I am probably not helping much, so sorry for that. I guess I could have just given the standard POTN answer - buy all and only Canon. So sorry for that. It would have made everything so much easier.

Wow it's gotten to 7 pages.

If you up your post shown limit to 50 per page... it is only 3 pages! Bonus!