October 01, 2014, 06:43:50 AM

Author Topic: Is it time to consider Sigma lenses seriously?? competitive to Canon?  (Read 34732 times)

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
IMO, no. No Sigma lens appeals to me, and I tried the 50, the 85, and the 15. I am planning to test the 35 but what I have seen so far does not excite me. I am not a crop body user anymore, so the new 1.8 zoom is of no interest to me. The samples on dpreview however  confirm what I expected - horrendous OOF blur.
 

canon rumors FORUM


mycanonphotos

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
I am about to pick up the Sigma 15mm diagonal fisheye. I will use it on my 5D3, but primarily I chose it for my IR converted 40D; it is supposedly fairly free of hotspots for IR. Anyone have any experience with this lens?

I returned it. Soft corners (not a problem with your 40D, of course), 1 stop overexposure, so-so colors.

I just picked one up from B&H last weekend...I love it. It's better then the Canon 15 I rented...I shoot it on my 5D3...its clean...colors are just fine...

cellomaster27

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • Capture the moment!
    • View Profile

Posted by: cayenne
« on: Today at 12:16:53 PM » Insert Quote
I was looking up the Sigma 120-300...when I look on Amazon, I see about 3x of them...from $2499 - $3500+....

How do I differentiate between the latest version of this and the older ones when shopping online?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne
--------------------------------------------
Well, it has better weather sealing and os system. If you look at fro's review comparing the two models, there are some critical updates. I want to get that but I don't earn money shooting so... :)

I always look for the very best deals on the lens that I KNOW I wouldn't regret purchasing. I even purchased a canon 20mm f2.8 for 80bucks! Haha! Recently sold that for 200 profit. Anyways, I have found most canon lenses to maintain their resale value fairly high. I have had a difficult time deciding on a UWA for my crop body.. I've been reading many reviews on the sigma 8-16, 12-24, 10-20, tamron 10-24, tokina 11-16, and the canon 10-22mm. Again, I tried the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 before returning it. I borrowed a canon 10-22mm a couple days after and for me, it really wasn't much of a comparison. Canon>sigma. I am biased towards canon from that instance as well as comparing the sigma 70-200 2.8 vs canon 70-200 f2.8 II. :D  but considering budgets and my rather low budget, as much as I don't want to admit it, I am considering third party sources. Canon's prices are ridiculous.

So instead of the canon 15-85 the sigma 17-70 f2.8-4? Hmm, I haven't even considered that one. I was thinking either the 15-85 or the 24-105. Haha! Biased, I know.
100D, EOS M, EF-M 18-55mm f3.5-5.6, EF-S 18-55mm IS STM f3.5-5.6, EF 28mm f1.8 USM, EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, EF 40mm f2.8 STM, EF 85mm f.18 USM, EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS, 430 EX II, triggers, lighting, stands, remotes, etc...

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 906
    • View Profile

The new 35 FF prime is supposed to be a complete game changer for them -- I've not tried it on my 5D3 but I'm keen to rent it soon.  Many reviewers have noted that 35's sharpness is spectacular, and the build quality, feel, and user experience is all significantly upgraded from their past offerings.

- A

Kendo

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
First post - long time lurker  :)

I've only got a Canon 600D (t3i) and haven't long been enjoying photography with a DSLR, previously only on bridge type cameras.  I've only owned a DSLR for a little over a year and really got into it when I was off sick from work for 4 weeks early this year and started photographing the birds in my garden and wanting to get better at it.

Anyway, I quickly found myself wanting more than the kit lens and the 55-250IS I purchased (which is actually not that bad).  I longed for the 70-200 f2.8 IS II but could never justify that amount of money (£1800 in the UK) so I read lots about the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 DG OS HSM and saved up what I could and bought one for my birthday in April and I absolutely love it.  The images are fantastic, really sharp and the colours are great, it feels solid as a rock and is lovely to use. I paid £835 for it and haven't regretted it for a second.

Obviously Canon are the daddy of lens makers, but Sigma are very good too, especially for the money.

The next lens on my list is the Canon 100mm f2.8L macro so I'm not a fanboy of either Canon or Sigma. Just go with what suits your needs and your pocket.

Great site, thanks for all the thousands of posts I've read in the past  ;D

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Hey guys.  I am an amateur/hobbyist photographer that loves to keep up on the forums and on cr.    I was wondering what you guys take on the new lenses that Sigma has been putting out on the market.  The price ranges are very competitive even to the Canon brand.  I am a Canon fanboy (to put it best) but the recent 35mm f1.4, 120-300mm f2.8, and now the 18-35mm f1.8is making me think much more of a third party brand.  A friend of mine had a sigma 50mm f1.4 that pulled some impressive pictures!  I have bought and returned a sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens before... horrid lens (possibly the copy). 

Anyways, I want to hear from y'all before buying a few lenses. (10-22, 50 1.4, and 15-85 or 24-105)  Thanks!

First of all, no offense but I would sell the T2i and buy a newer, better Canon body before upgrading lenses.  Certainly if you are considering buying a "super-tele" like the 120-300 f/2.8, or a Canon super-tele...you definitely simply must buy a better camera.

My experience with one copy of the Canon 10-22 was horrible.  Very soft in the outer 60% of the image at all apertures.  This was in 2010.  I can't believe the lens is still in production.

I've not tried one, but from what I have read on here and at the rental websites, I would avoid the Sigma 50 f/1.4.  Too many focus issues.  Also, even Sigma's own published mtf chart shows a steep drop-off in resolution toward the corners of a crop camera image, and basically the whole outer half of a full frame image.  If I were going to stay with the crop camera format, and I really wanted a fast 50mm lens, the Canon 50 f/1.8 ii is kind of a no brainer.  It punches well above its price class.

If I was still tied to crop cameras, I would personally heavily consider buying the new Sigma 18-35 f/1.8.  It could take the place of a lot of prime lenses, including Sigma's own new 30mm f/1.4.  I tried the older version, and loved the color palette...but in the outer edges of the crop image area, it had some weird distortions, probably coma...at least when viewed at 100%.  The bokeh was less than perfectly smooth at times, as well.

I have owned (including the 120-400 zoom I have now), three Sigma lenses, and rented a fourth (at least that I can recall right now).  In my opinion, they all offered good-to-excellent value for money, which is more than I can say for many (but not all) Canon lenses.

I like the Canon brand a lot, but to spend more (usually double the price) on some of their lenses, when they don't offer better overall performance, let alone better value, is silly to me.  Photography isn't about bling.  That said, if the particular Canon lens offers something that you must have, that the Sigma lens does not...then that makes more sense.  However, if that's the case, those people shouldn't sit back and spout that the Canon version is "better" overall, when in those situations, it likely is not.

Now that the Canon 100-400 replacement will likely be priced in the $2500 range (Canon simply can't stand idly by while Nikon sells their new 80-400 at that price level)...that will help hold the value of the previous version on the used market.  But it just might also help support the value of competitors like Sigma's similar lens on the used market.  I feel I made the right decision in all of my Sigma purchases and rentals, and have never regretted any of them.  One of them even helped me get published in a national photography magazine in 2012.  I can't say the same for some other brands.  Even a recent Tokina purchase proved to be inferior to the sample I rented a while back.

Realize that much of Sigma's reputation for poor design and quality control of lenses in the past, was earned.  But starting in about 2007, and especially by 2008-'09...they really seem to have turned things around.  For example, lenses are no longer painted with cheap paint that flakes off.  And the lens designs improved a lot.

 
« Last Edit: June 14, 2013, 03:14:37 PM by CarlTN »

SithTracy

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
I think it boils down to making a living at photography.  I make some side coin with it.  I have a Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG and love it.  Works well for me.  Is the Canon better?  Sure... all the experts say it is.  Is the image from a Sigma usable?  For me, the answer is absolutely!

Perhaps rent one, or buy it from a dealer with a good return policy.  Lenses are an investment and if I did not like one, I would want to be able to return it regardless of the mfg.

canon rumors FORUM


CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
I think it boils down to making a living at photography.  I make some side coin with it.  I have a Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG and love it.  Works well for me.  Is the Canon better?  Sure... all the experts say it is.  Is the image from a Sigma usable?  For me, the answer is absolutely!

Perhaps rent one, or buy it from a dealer with a good return policy.  Lenses are an investment and if I did not like one, I would want to be able to return it regardless of the mfg.

From what I have seen, that Sigma lens is very soft.  It's possible the tests I saw used bad samples.  Do you find yours to be "usably sharp", and what body do you use it on, if I may ask?

For the price, certainly it's tempting...but I had thought the Tamron might be better.  As it stands now, I need a wider angle zoom, before I need a 24-70.  But I definitely want a 24-70 in the future.

RGF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1276
  • How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
    • View Profile
Reading the thread I see comments about IQ but little discussion on build.  How well do Sigma lens hold up to routine (heavy) usage - not just dropping.  How bad is the weather sealing?

SithTracy

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile

From what I have seen, that Sigma lens is very soft.  It's possible the tests I saw used bad samples.  Do you find yours to be "usably sharp", and what body do you use it on, if I may ask?

For the price, certainly it's tempting...but I had thought the Tamron might be better.  As it stands now, I need a wider angle zoom, before I need a 24-70.  But I definitely want a 24-70 in the future.

Use mine on a 5D Mark III.

Here is a photo I took a couple of weeks back, processed through Lightroom:


bholliman

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 754
    • View Profile
Hey guys.  I am an amateur/hobbyist photographer that loves to keep up on the forums and on cr.    I was wondering what you guys take on the new lenses that Sigma has been putting out on the market.  The price ranges are very competitive even to the Canon brand.  I am a Canon fanboy (to put it best) but the recent 35mm f1.4, 120-300mm f2.8, and now the 18-35mm f1.8is making me think much more of a third party brand.  A friend of mine had a sigma 50mm f1.4 that pulled some impressive pictures!  I have bought and returned a sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens before... horrid lens (possibly the copy). 

Anyways, I want to hear from y'all before buying a few lenses. (10-22, 50 1.4, and 15-85 or 24-105)  Thanks!

First of all, no offense but I would sell the T2i and buy a newer, better Canon body before upgrading lenses.  Certainly if you are considering buying a "super-tele" like the 120-300 f/2.8, or a Canon super-tele...you definitely simply must buy a better camera.

My experience with one copy of the Canon 10-22 was horrible.  Very soft in the outer 60% of the image at all apertures.  This was in 2010.  I can't believe the lens is still in production.

As a former T2i (550D) owner, I would argue that it's a pretty good camera capable of taking excellent pictures.  The T2i's IQ is very comparible to Canon's newest crop body cameras like the T5i and SL1, as well as the older but higher end 60D and 7D. The newer bodies may have better AF, more solid build, better viewfinders, more features, but its picture quality is roughly the same.  To significantly improve IQ, you would need to invest in a full frame 6D, 5D2/3 or 1DX.

I never owned an EF-S 10-22, but rented one two years ago to use on my T2i for a 2-week vacation in Yellowstone, Glacier and other western National Parks.  I came away with lots of very good images with this lens and probably would have bought one at some point if I hadn't made the move to full frame last December.   It's reasonably sharp across the frame and distortion is modest.  Not a great lens, but a very solid performer.
Bodies:  6D, EOS-M (22/2 and 18-55)
Lenses: Rokinon 14mm 2.8, 35mm 2.0 IS, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L IS Macro, 135mm 2.0L, 24-70mm 2.8L II, 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, Extenders: EF 1.4xIII, EF 2xIII ; Flash: ST-E3-RT, 600EX-RT (x3)

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile

From what I have seen, that Sigma lens is very soft.  It's possible the tests I saw used bad samples.  Do you find yours to be "usably sharp", and what body do you use it on, if I may ask?

For the price, certainly it's tempting...but I had thought the Tamron might be better.  As it stands now, I need a wider angle zoom, before I need a 24-70.  But I definitely want a 24-70 in the future.

Use mine on a 5D Mark III.

Here is a photo I took a couple of weeks back, processed through Lightroom:


From what I can tell, it looks ok, except for the upper left corner.  Would be better to see a full size jpeg.  That's a very cool lighthouse!

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Hey guys.  I am an amateur/hobbyist photographer that loves to keep up on the forums and on cr.    I was wondering what you guys take on the new lenses that Sigma has been putting out on the market.  The price ranges are very competitive even to the Canon brand.  I am a Canon fanboy (to put it best) but the recent 35mm f1.4, 120-300mm f2.8, and now the 18-35mm f1.8is making me think much more of a third party brand.  A friend of mine had a sigma 50mm f1.4 that pulled some impressive pictures!  I have bought and returned a sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens before... horrid lens (possibly the copy). 

Anyways, I want to hear from y'all before buying a few lenses. (10-22, 50 1.4, and 15-85 or 24-105)  Thanks!

First of all, no offense but I would sell the T2i and buy a newer, better Canon body before upgrading lenses.  Certainly if you are considering buying a "super-tele" like the 120-300 f/2.8, or a Canon super-tele...you definitely simply must buy a better camera.

My experience with one copy of the Canon 10-22 was horrible.  Very soft in the outer 60% of the image at all apertures.  This was in 2010.  I can't believe the lens is still in production.

As a former T2i (550D) owner, I would argue that it's a pretty good camera capable of taking excellent pictures.  The T2i's IQ is very comparible to Canon's newest crop body cameras like the T5i and SL1, as well as the older but higher end 60D and 7D. The newer bodies may have better AF, more solid build, better viewfinders, more features, but its picture quality is roughly the same.  To significantly improve IQ, you would need to invest in a full frame 6D, 5D2/3 or 1DX.

I never owned an EF-S 10-22, but rented one two years ago to use on my T2i for a 2-week vacation in Yellowstone, Glacier and other western National Parks.  I came away with lots of very good images with this lens and probably would have bought one at some point if I hadn't made the move to full frame last December.   It's reasonably sharp across the frame and distortion is modest.  Not a great lens, but a very solid performer.

Your experience with the 10-22 was the opposite of mine.  I rented it in 2010.  I have yet to get to those parks, but want to.  However, I will be renting Canon's future big megapixel full frame when I go (and hopefully the upcoming Canon 14-24 lens)...probably next year.  I can't imagine going to that much time and expense, to visit those parks with just a crop body as the main camera. 

As for going full frame, I did as well.  Again, I want to reiterate to the original poster, that it makes no sense to spend a lot of money on lenses to use with a crop camera...any of them...even a Nikon D7100, in my opinion (which is miles better than the 7D or any Rebel, regarding image quality).  That is my bias, but it's based on some experience.  As for Canon, I owned a 50D for over 4 years, and had an Xsi before that.  I was grateful to be able to sell them both for a fantastic sum.  Having used a 7D, I can honestly say the image quality was no better than the 50D, with huge amounts of luminance noise even by ISO 640.  Identical to, or worse than the 50D, with perhaps the chrominance noise only barely improved over the 50D.  Obviously the 7D has a nice AF sensor and can shoot very fast, but after buying the 6D...I could care less about ever buying another 1.6x crop sensor camera, no matter what the claimed improvements are.  The 6D's image quality in some ways is better than the 5D3 and the 1DX, which I have also tried, and edited their RAW files (my cousin now owns both of them).

To each their own, of course...and if you are planning to stick with crop cameras for a while, I still say the new Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 looks like the lens to try.    For anything wider than 18mm, it's going to be hit or miss, unless you spring for a Zeiss full frame, manual 15mm f/2.8.  Of course, on a crop body, 15mm is still not super wide...but it certainly can be wide enough.

canon rumors FORUM


Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
I am about to pick up the Sigma 15mm diagonal fisheye. I will use it on my 5D3, but primarily I chose it for my IR converted 40D; it is supposedly fairly free of hotspots for IR. Anyone have any experience with this lens?

I returned it. Soft corners (not a problem with your 40D, of course), 1 stop overexposure, so-so colors.

I just picked one up from B&H last weekend...I love it. It's better then the Canon 15 I rented...I shoot it on my 5D3...its clean...colors are just fine...

I have exactly the opposite experience. I had rented the Canon 15 before. The Sigma was kinda OK aside form the gross overexposure problem but I remembered that the Canon was better. Then I bought a used Canon. I had them side by side for a week, and the (second) Canon was clearly better.

cellomaster27

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • Capture the moment!
    • View Profile
What I look for in lenses is sharpness and focus speed. Good coloration* is a major plus.  The issue with sigma seems that everyone has a different opinion about them. Even from pros. And it really depends on what type of photography you are going to take right? Chromatic aberration, vignetting, a little distortion isn't a killer for me. But you want a good general lens. Getting good number of copies of the same lens shows quality production instead of hoping to land a good copy... :/

+1  for not having to upgrade body. The t2i is my first dslr that I purchased from 3 years ago. It was an upgrade from a Panasonic Lumix point and shoot..Horrible camera. Haha. Though I would like to buy the upcoming 70D, it still takes great pictures. I am trying to invest in EF lenses though just in case I go FF.  my rear and front rubber grips have fallen off or is about to but it works just the same! Went to Europe and South America besides all over the US. :)

So what lenses then do you guys recommend?
I already got the sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4, 18-35mm f1.8 as recommendations. On my list to buy is a UWA and a standard zoom (want to upgrade from the terrible 18-55). Again, I've been thinking of the 10-22mm, 15-85, or the 24-105.
Thanks in advance~
100D, EOS M, EF-M 18-55mm f3.5-5.6, EF-S 18-55mm IS STM f3.5-5.6, EF 28mm f1.8 USM, EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, EF 40mm f2.8 STM, EF 85mm f.18 USM, EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS, 430 EX II, triggers, lighting, stands, remotes, etc...

canon rumors FORUM