Is it time to consider Sigma lenses seriously?? competitive to Canon?
- Thread starter cellomaster27
- Start date
- Status
There were some pics taken with the 18-35 on a 5D mk II, but those images seem to have disappeared:aznable said:
http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-18-35mm-f18-with-5D-Mark-II
As far as I remember they were only thumbnails, and it only gave coverage of the whole sensor near 35mm. I guess a 1.3x crop would get full coverage around half way through the zoom.
Do bear in mind that this lens is not designed to cover a sensor larger than APS-C. I've tried out my 10-22 with the rear cap popped off on FF, and the corners aren't black from about 13mm onwards. However, even stopped down to f16 at any zoom setting between 13mm and 22mm, the corners are complete mush.
Upvote
0
This thread title made me very angry - it's Canon fanboys like OP that drive the insane Canon glass prices up. 3rd party lenses can be just as good as Canon's at fraction of the cost. Don't blindly recommend Canon's glass against Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang etc. - they all have some outstanding products, while having to reverse-engineer the AF communication.
/rant
/rant
Upvote
0
Like others here, I have been a long time Canon lens shooter. The new Sigma 35mm is the first lens that had me thinking outside the Canon 'box'. I'm hoping they come to market soon with a new 24-70 f2.8 that is stabilized at a terrific price around $1K. The Sigma brand appears to have stepped up their offering significantly. It can only be seen as a good thing for us, the consumer. Instead of feeling like the only lens available to us is "L" glass, it's good to finally have an alternative that comes in significantly less.
Upvote
0
JurijTurnsek said:
The flip side is to get angry at Sigma, etc. fanboys for not being picky enough. This keeps the QC of the Sigma, etc., low; and allows Canon to keep high prices!
Upvote
0
Pi said:
I hear both sides of this debate. Canon does prey on our wallets, but they've done that from the high ground of providing an all-around high quality product. Sigma has only starting providing such quality recently.
Sigma's only value proposition can't just be 'same as Canon for less money' because discerning professionals will see exactly how 3rd party lenses saved that money. In many cases, things other than the brute force metrics of sharpness and widest aperture are sacrificed to keep those lenses cheaper than Canon.
Remember that for a very long time, Sigma had quality issues: paint peeling, AF issues, odd copy to copy variation, etc. I am not a fanboy saying this -- Bryan Carnathan and Roger Cicala were saying this based on using, tearing down and repairing a ton of their products.
That said, Sigma is starting to move past being a 2nd-tier manufacturer and is finally making products that out-perform the Canon lenses. I cannot say enough how a single lens -- the new 35 prime -- is changing people's opinion of Sigma.
So Sigma getting better is a problem for Canon but a gift for us. Here's to seeing more lenses like that 35 prime.
- A
Upvote
0
I can share an opinion on the new 120-300 f2.8. I got one about 2 weeks ago.
It is a good lens. Images are pretty sharp and focus is fast. I do not think it tracks as well as the Canon 70-200 f2.8 II or the 400 2.8 II and focus is not L fast, still fast. But, it cost about 1/3 of the 400L and 1/2 of the 300L. The zoom capability is really nice IMO.
I think the dock should be included with this lens, I did get it, retail is $59. I needed it to correct a back focus issue on the 1Dx. Putting it on the 5DIII after adjusting and it seems equally capable at focusing on both bodies.
I may opt to send it to Sigma as I don't tink so much adjusting should be required. I'm waiting to see if others have issues similar to mine. This is the first Sigma I've had in quite some time. It seems to be a solid lens.
Some samples are on this forum link I opened last week. (Page2 are after USB dock Adjustments) http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15291.msg280833#msg280833
It is a good lens. Images are pretty sharp and focus is fast. I do not think it tracks as well as the Canon 70-200 f2.8 II or the 400 2.8 II and focus is not L fast, still fast. But, it cost about 1/3 of the 400L and 1/2 of the 300L. The zoom capability is really nice IMO.
I think the dock should be included with this lens, I did get it, retail is $59. I needed it to correct a back focus issue on the 1Dx. Putting it on the 5DIII after adjusting and it seems equally capable at focusing on both bodies.
I may opt to send it to Sigma as I don't tink so much adjusting should be required. I'm waiting to see if others have issues similar to mine. This is the first Sigma I've had in quite some time. It seems to be a solid lens.
Some samples are on this forum link I opened last week. (Page2 are after USB dock Adjustments) http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15291.msg280833#msg280833
Upvote
0
I have two Sigma lenses. One the paint is coming off. Looks just awful. the optics are ok only compared to Canon.
The other has fair opts. I cannot sell either one? Even if the optics are good. So for me it will take more than one or two lenses for me to ever buy another Sigma lens again.
The other has fair opts. I cannot sell either one? Even if the optics are good. So for me it will take more than one or two lenses for me to ever buy another Sigma lens again.
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
Sigma can be cheaper by economics of scale, such as designing and manufacturing a lens for a variety of system users.
Canon are of course always better and thats why you pay more. How's that 1DX servicing going folks?
I can't be too saracastic of course as it appears my BG-E7 has really had a good go at breaking my 7D.
I remember trying to convince Canon that their XL zoom lenses weren't parfocal and that this made them unfit for video use.
I remember trying to convice Canon that the CCDs they were using in their video cameras were failing left right and centre before the Sony recall was widely acknowledged.
I had to buy a second DSLR body to shoot video because my 7D wasn't reliable with Sandisk UDMA cards 'no issue' 'no issue' 'no issue' until they proudly announced a firmware fix for an issue that had screwed up a couple of important jobs and relegated my 7D to back up camera body (to a rebel), my 7D which i currently getting repaired, and then getting punted asap.
Not that my path with Sigma has always been smooth. But then I'm not saying that paying extra for canon means quality control. I couldn't. Not with a straight face.
Who needs Sigma to screw up QC when Canon really do have their moments?
Canon are of course always better and thats why you pay more. How's that 1DX servicing going folks?
I can't be too saracastic of course as it appears my BG-E7 has really had a good go at breaking my 7D.
I remember trying to convince Canon that their XL zoom lenses weren't parfocal and that this made them unfit for video use.
I remember trying to convice Canon that the CCDs they were using in their video cameras were failing left right and centre before the Sony recall was widely acknowledged.
I had to buy a second DSLR body to shoot video because my 7D wasn't reliable with Sandisk UDMA cards 'no issue' 'no issue' 'no issue' until they proudly announced a firmware fix for an issue that had screwed up a couple of important jobs and relegated my 7D to back up camera body (to a rebel), my 7D which i currently getting repaired, and then getting punted asap.
Not that my path with Sigma has always been smooth. But then I'm not saying that paying extra for canon means quality control. I couldn't. Not with a straight face.
Who needs Sigma to screw up QC when Canon really do have their moments?
Upvote
0
if the current sigma 35 1.4 is anything to go on, i think they will start making some great lenses
Upvote
0
JurijTurnsek said:
Do you find yourself in fits of rage at night, yanking at your hair and pounding your fist against the desk repeatedly?
Upvote
0
Technology moves on - with todays design systems there's a careful balance of optical design and coatings
formulation, computer controlled lens grinding takes the craftsmanship out of the glassworks into the NC programming lab and the secret to a quality lens is still the assembly process and the fine tuning of the unit as a whole. That's why people pay an extreme premium for Leica lenses and why neither Sigma, Tamron, and even Canon nor Nikon can build a high quality CHEAP lens. Robots can do a lot, but not the fine adjustments necessary to consistently produce high quality optics. Look at the Canon 70/75-300 in its many current models to instantly
see the difference. Even the Canon 50mm - you want good at $100, better at $400 or best at $1200 - take your
choice - and if you want a slightly different look, try a zeiss at $800.
formulation, computer controlled lens grinding takes the craftsmanship out of the glassworks into the NC programming lab and the secret to a quality lens is still the assembly process and the fine tuning of the unit as a whole. That's why people pay an extreme premium for Leica lenses and why neither Sigma, Tamron, and even Canon nor Nikon can build a high quality CHEAP lens. Robots can do a lot, but not the fine adjustments necessary to consistently produce high quality optics. Look at the Canon 70/75-300 in its many current models to instantly
see the difference. Even the Canon 50mm - you want good at $100, better at $400 or best at $1200 - take your
choice - and if you want a slightly different look, try a zeiss at $800.
Upvote
0
dickgrafixstop said:
Well, I'm not sure I would have used the 50mm lenses as your example, but, we know what you mean.
Upvote
0
I think these are pretty exciting times for APSc folks and Sigma's lineup is just second to none in this category. If i was still shooting APS -regardless of brand- i would be really happy with pieces like the 8-16, 17-50, 50-150 & 120-300 or the prime-pack 18-35/1.8. I've seen first hand what 8-16 & 17-50 can deliver and the reviews of 50-150 & 18-35 are mostly praises.
FF is another story and apart from primes sigma has still a way to go. Tamron on the other hand seems to be doing quite well with their 24-70, 70-200 kits.
All in all I'm really happy that the 3rd party manufacturers are breaking away from the 'affordable alternative' realm and into the serious contender territory.
FF is another story and apart from primes sigma has still a way to go. Tamron on the other hand seems to be doing quite well with their 24-70, 70-200 kits.
All in all I'm really happy that the 3rd party manufacturers are breaking away from the 'affordable alternative' realm and into the serious contender territory.
Upvote
0
JurijTurnsek said:
Can be but are not up to canons quality. The only contender is Tamron due to the fact that they are only mfg. that canon has contracted with. This is why you never hear of a Tamron lens needing to be rechipped, still junk compaired to canon build quality just like all the other third party mfg.'s.
Will T.
Upvote
0
If you think so highly of third party lenses I must ask you to buy my Tokina ATX28-70 f/2.8 which although very sharp with my EOS1n and EOS620 cameras it is a nice PAPERWEIGHT on my EOS5Dx cameras.JurijTurnsek said:
So except for a case where I bought a Zeiss lens 3rd party is not an option. PERIOD.
Everyone who tries to tell me otherwise, they have to buy my nice Tokina paperweight first.
I was lucky to get rid of 2 Sigma lenses in part exchange in a shop.
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
tron said:
Is it the f2.6-f2.8 version or the constant f2.8?
If it's the first one send me some pics and I will seriously consider buying it (if it is marked pro II rather than pro SV and working to specification in good order etc) if it's the constant f2.8 / SV, you are probably right about it.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
