Is it time to consider Sigma lenses seriously?? competitive to Canon?

[cellomaster27]

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!

 

[jhanken]

In a word, yes. At least the primes. I have shot with the 50mm for a couple years with my 5D Classic, love it wide open in low light, or stopped down with full light. Bokeh is fantastic, often resort to manual focus because I like to use it in such low light. Color, contrast and sharpness are excellent, out of focus areas are beautiful, construction great. Got the 35mm f/1.4 recently, even better construction, and image quality is fantastic. It feels like a million dollar piece of equipment. Still getting a feel for the output, but so far, it's excellent. It will allow me to create images that my 24-105L never will. I sincerely doubt that the most discerning photographer would be disappointed.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

If budget is an issue Sigma lenses are definitely worth considering seriously. There hasn't been much info about the USB dock that can be used to fine tune the Sigma ART lenses ... if that USB dock works as well as they say it will, I think Sigma ART lenses are a great bargain.

 

[wysiwtf]

Regarding the Dock: it seems to work just fine ...

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/sigma-optimization-pro-and-usb-dock

 

[Forceflow]

If budget is an issue Sigma lenses are definitely worth considering seriously. There hasn't been much info about the USB dock that can be used to fine tune the Sigma ART lenses ... if that USB dock works as well as they say it will, I think Sigma ART lenses are a great bargain.

Well, lens rentals seems to think it does:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/sigma-optimization-pro-and-usb-dock
Makes me really hopeful about it. Although I have to admit I've been a Sigma 'fan' for quite a while already. I had (and still have) several Sigma lenses and with the exception of the old 24-70 I really do like all of them. (The 85 1.4 is my favorite lens)

 

[hamada]

one year ago my response would be: stay away from sigma.
to much luck involved to get a good copy.

today with the new lens line they seem to produce very good and constant quality.
i tried the 35mm f1.4 and i loved it. i only have not much use for it.

 

[aj1575]

Yes, I definitly think so. Beside the IQ of the lens, they also improved quality control and costumer service.

The 35mm F1.4 is really superb (check out the test images over at "the-digital-picture"). I'm not that much impressed with the new 30mm f1.4, we have to wait and see what the 18-35 f1.8 has to offer, but only the fact they offer such a thing is impressive. The 17-70 f2.8-4 is also a nice lens on APS-C, it is optically better than the EF-S 15-85, with a little bit less range but in a smaller, cheaper package.

I'm looking forward to new Sigma lenses in the future. We as costumers can only profit from some competition in the lens market, especially in the APS-C segment.

 

[Nishi Drew]

Well the 120-300 is nothing new, just a cosmetic update from before but it is good, their 85mm F/1.4 is still fantastic, and I used to have a 10-20mm F/3.5 and that was almost perfect except for the field curvature on the wide end. Now I've got the 35mm F/1.4 and man of man I am complete with it~
Just recently I dropped it on some concrete though... and the thing still works, perfect AF accuracy and no optical problems, just won't mount of the camera as smoothly. So yes, why not consider Sigma? Well, the only reason to still not consider Sigma is if you really need weather sealing, if you're camera's sealed and you want equally sealed lenses then Canon has them, and Tamron has started to offer dust/moisture resistant models but I don't know how well they're sealed.

And being a fanboi of anything is amateurish, what's good is good whoever makes it, Canon themselves have made and proudly sold poor lenses themselves (and still do, or at least "ok" lenses at extreme prices), so really, if you don't want Sigma just because they're not Canon, or are afraid that other people will judge you with your gear then get over it, go make art and have fun knowing that the brand doesn't matter so long as it gets the job done and achieves the results you like~

 

[paul13walnut5]

Sigma have always been fairly canny at plugging holes in other manufacturers ranges, lenses like the 12-24 (full frame) and the 50-500 bigma were at the time of their launch pretty unique to Sigma.

I've owned a fair few sigmas over the years, the DC 10-20 f4-5.6, the DG 12-24 mk1, the DC 18-50 f2.8 EX, the 24mm f2.8 MD II, the 28mm f1.8 MD (one of my most favourite lenses ever) DG EX 70mm f2.8, the DG EX 50-500 and the 600mm CAT (on Minolta MD and Canon EOS) and I would vouch for all of these, I still own and use the 18-50mm and the 70mm, both of which were best in category at time of purchase.

I've owned 2 sigma lenses that I wasn't happy with, the 17-35 f2.8-4. I kept it one day and returned it and got a 17-40 f4L instead. It was a horrid horrid lens, and I had the 30mm f1.4 DC, which I loved for video (in MF mode) but was terrible at focusing, +18AFMA on my 7D and unusable on my 600D. Also returned.

I've not had any hands on with their new, well reviewed art series lenses, they seem to be getting very good, but also getting less of a value proposition. Other manufacturers also seem to be plugging interesting holes, like Tokina with my 11-16 f2.8 UWA. Nobody else makes anything like it.

I am tempted to get the Sigma 8-16mm, but theres a few more practical things on the list ahead of it.

 

[bchernicoff]

I LOVED the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS when I had a 7D.

And I love the 1.4 primes that I use now.

 

[John]

all of my lenses now are Canon, but i have owned sigma lenses in the past and liked each and every one of them. i could easily recommend that someone buy a sigma lens. i've owned a few tamron lenses that i liked as well. so why do i only own canons? i love my canon lenses. they provide sharp detail and fast focus and they are designed to work exclusively with canon cameras. the quality is very good and very consistent. i trust them and i am quite happy with them. plus, i have the money to afford the L series lenses.

if the amount of money that i had to spend on a lens was a limiting factor for me, then i would own some sigma lenses. u can great sigma lenses for less than a comparable canon. personally, if u can afford canon lenses, then i would recommend getting canon lenses.

 

[fugu82]

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?

 

[Malte_P]

Well the 120-300 is nothing new, just a cosmetic update from before but it is good,

it´s a revised version.
a bit more then a cosmetic update.

nobody would pay nearly twice as much just for a cosmetic update.

 

[cayenne]

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

 

[Pi]

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.

 

[Pi]

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.

 

[mycanonphotos]

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]

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. 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.

 

[ahsanford]

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]

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