Canon1 said:
I'm not personally excited about any of these potential lenses. It's not the focal lengths or apertures, but that sigma does not in any way get me excited. I've owned several sigma lenses including 8mm fisheye, 10-20mm, 18-200mm, 120-400mm and 300mm f2.8. None of them were remarkable to me in IQ or performance or worth the discounted price compared to their canon counterparts. IMO it's always worth the extra $$ for Canon glass...
You can't compare the older Sigma lenses against the newer ones. Sigma has completely taken their company in a new direction, and for the past year has been the most exciting lens manufacturer there is. Instead of offering slightly worse lenses than mainline manufacturers for half the price, they are now making lenses that are the best in the world and gunning for performance like Zeiss and Leica while laughing at the offerings from the likes of Canon.
Their new 18-35mm f/1.8 is one of the the highest resolution crop zoom, if not the highest on the face of the planet (depending which copy is testes it's either the best or in the top 3), and has basically no image quality flaws. Wide open it beats or matches the big white zooms including the 200-400mm 1.4x on crop. And it's an f/1.8 zoom.
Their new 35mm f/1.4 was described as ushering in a new world order by reviewers.
The Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is noticeably sharper than the Canon 85mm f/1.2 II, and has much much less purple fringing with almost no difference in background blur.
The Sigma 24-105mm f/4.0 OS lens has 29% more spacial resolution than the Canon 24-105mm (combined average of 24,28,35,50,70,85,105 focal lengths)
Viggo said:
Canon1 said:
I'm not personally excited about any of these potential lenses. It's not the focal lengths or apertures, but that sigma does not in any way get me excited. I've owned several sigma lenses including 8mm fisheye, 10-20mm, 18-200mm, 120-400mm and 300mm f2.8. None of them were remarkable to me in IQ or performance or worth the discounted price compared to their canon counterparts. IMO it's always worth the extra $$ for Canon glass...
I don't think you can compare the old Sigma lenses to the new Sigma lenses. I'm still not convinced if they are worth the cheaper price either, as AF is very important to me and I compare them always to Canon lenses. But the Sigma that's more exciting then any other lens from any brand (except the 35 L II) is the new Sigma 50 f1.4 Art.
Lens Rentals has said that Sigma's new lenses no longer have issues with defects and are basically the same as Canon or Nikon. I would trust a company that manages hundreds of Sigma lenses to know about their quality.
In fact if you look into the defect rate data the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L , which is an older design and therefore less reliable lens and compare it to the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART you find that you are more likely to get a lens with autofocus defect on the Canon than you are likely to have ANY defect on the Sigma. So not only is the autofocus way more problem free, the whole lens is more reliable in every way.
