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

[surapon]

Yes, Before I buy my first Sigma Lens 50 mm. F/ 1.4---I compare with Canon Lens 50 mmm. F/ 1.4, and I read many Compare/ Review both Lens, And in the review tell me that Sigma Lens* in this Category is Better than Canon Lens in the Sharp area, and in the Color Contrast Area---BUT COST MORE THAN CANON = $ 50 US Dollars.
Yes, I buy this First Sigma Lens and Very Happy of this Big Babe.
Yes, I have 14 Canon Lenses, 2 Tamron Lenses, 1 Bower Lens, and 1 Sigma Lens---From 8 MM. Fish eye Lens to Canon EF 600 mm. F/ 4.0 L IS USM.
Surapon
PS. AF. for Sigma Lenses are not good or FAST as Canon Lenses*

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Those interested in Sigma may like to read this, if they've not seen it yet:

http://www.lenstip.com/136.1-article-Interview_with_constructor_of_Sigma_lenses.html

That was an interesting article. Thanks for posting the link

 

[CarlTN]

Yes, Before I buy my first Sigma Lens 50 mm. F/ 1.4---I compare with Canon Lens 50 mmm. F/ 1.4, and I read many Compare/ Review both Lens, And in the review tell me that Sigma Lens* in this Category is Better than Canon Lens in the Sharp area, and in the Color Contrast Area---BUT COST MORE THAN CANON = $ 50 US Dollars.
Yes, I buy this First Sigma Lens and Very Happy of this Big Babe.
Yes, I have 14 Canon Lenses, 2 Tamron Lenses, 1 Bower Lens, and 1 Sigma Lens---From 8 MM. Fish eye Lens to Canon EF 600 mm. F/ 4.0 L IS USM.
Surapon
PS. AF. for Sigma Lenses are not good or FAST as Canon Lenses*

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is not a good lens, don't buy it.

 

[tron]

I also own an EOS 620. First real camera I bought, brand new in 1987. I still have it but haven't used it in a long time. Regrettably, I sold off a minty 50mm purchased at the same time a few years ago.

If your 28-70 is from the late 80's, and doesn't work on camera equipment produced in the 2000's, I can't say that I would expect differently.

My 28-70 is from the late 80's and doesn't work on some camera equipment produced in the 90's (like EOS 50E). You cannot expect differently but then feel free not to expect that your super Sigma lenses will work one decade later. If you have used them a lot it will not matter much probably but a Canon 24-70 2.8 L II will still be great even then!

 

[rs]

Yes, Before I buy my first Sigma Lens 50 mm. F/ 1.4---I compare with Canon Lens 50 mmm. F/ 1.4, and I read many Compare/ Review both Lens, And in the review tell me that Sigma Lens* in this Category is Better than Canon Lens in the Sharp area, and in the Color Contrast Area---BUT COST MORE THAN CANON = $ 50 US Dollars.
Yes, I buy this First Sigma Lens and Very Happy of this Big Babe.
Yes, I have 14 Canon Lenses, 2 Tamron Lenses, 1 Bower Lens, and 1 Sigma Lens---From 8 MM. Fish eye Lens to Canon EF 600 mm. F/ 4.0 L IS USM.
Surapon
PS. AF. for Sigma Lenses are not good or FAST as Canon Lenses*

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is not a good lens, don't buy it.

I'm very happy with my Sigma 50/1.4. It's up there with my three L lenses, and easily beats them with regards to the quality of the bokeh.

 

[vlad]

Yes, Before I buy my first Sigma Lens 50 mm. F/ 1.4---I compare with Canon Lens 50 mmm. F/ 1.4, and I read many Compare/ Review both Lens, And in the review tell me that Sigma Lens* in this Category is Better than Canon Lens in the Sharp area, and in the Color Contrast Area---BUT COST MORE THAN CANON = $ 50 US Dollars.
Yes, I buy this First Sigma Lens and Very Happy of this Big Babe.
Yes, I have 14 Canon Lenses, 2 Tamron Lenses, 1 Bower Lens, and 1 Sigma Lens---From 8 MM. Fish eye Lens to Canon EF 600 mm. F/ 4.0 L IS USM.
Surapon
PS. AF. for Sigma Lenses are not good or FAST as Canon Lenses*

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is not a good lens, don't buy it.

Disagree completely. I'm using mine on full frame and it rocks. Great image quality, solid build, good AF. In the areas where Canon stagnates, Sigma picks up the slack. I'm considering getting the 15mm fisheye and the 35 1.4 next.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Yes, Before I buy my first Sigma Lens 50 mm. F/ 1.4---I compare with Canon Lens 50 mmm. F/ 1.4, and I read many Compare/ Review both Lens, And in the review tell me that Sigma Lens* in this Category is Better than Canon Lens in the Sharp area, and in the Color Contrast Area---BUT COST MORE THAN CANON = $ 50 US Dollars.
Yes, I buy this First Sigma Lens and Very Happy of this Big Babe.
Yes, I have 14 Canon Lenses, 2 Tamron Lenses, 1 Bower Lens, and 1 Sigma Lens---From 8 MM. Fish eye Lens to Canon EF 600 mm. F/ 4.0 L IS USM.
Surapon
PS. AF. for Sigma Lenses are not good or FAST as Canon Lenses*

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is not a good lens, don't buy it.

Disagree completely. I'm using mine on full frame and it rocks. Great image quality, solid build, good AF. In the areas where Canon stagnates, Sigma picks up the slack. I'm considering getting the 15mm fisheye and the 35 1.4 next.

+1!!!

 

[CarlTN]

Yes, Before I buy my first Sigma Lens 50 mm. F/ 1.4---I compare with Canon Lens 50 mmm. F/ 1.4, and I read many Compare/ Review both Lens, And in the review tell me that Sigma Lens* in this Category is Better than Canon Lens in the Sharp area, and in the Color Contrast Area---BUT COST MORE THAN CANON = $ 50 US Dollars.
Yes, I buy this First Sigma Lens and Very Happy of this Big Babe.
Yes, I have 14 Canon Lenses, 2 Tamron Lenses, 1 Bower Lens, and 1 Sigma Lens---From 8 MM. Fish eye Lens to Canon EF 600 mm. F/ 4.0 L IS USM.
Surapon
PS. AF. for Sigma Lenses are not good or FAST as Canon Lenses*

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is not a good lens, don't buy it.

Disagree completely. I'm using mine on full frame and it rocks. Great image quality, solid build, good AF. In the areas where Canon stagnates, Sigma picks up the slack. I'm considering getting the 15mm fisheye and the 35 1.4 next.

So your Sigma 50mm somehow has no AF issues at all, and is sharp to the full frame corners? Hard to believe, but ok.

 

[rs]

Yes, Before I buy my first Sigma Lens 50 mm. F/ 1.4---I compare with Canon Lens 50 mmm. F/ 1.4, and I read many Compare/ Review both Lens, And in the review tell me that Sigma Lens* in this Category is Better than Canon Lens in the Sharp area, and in the Color Contrast Area---BUT COST MORE THAN CANON = $ 50 US Dollars.
Yes, I buy this First Sigma Lens and Very Happy of this Big Babe.
Yes, I have 14 Canon Lenses, 2 Tamron Lenses, 1 Bower Lens, and 1 Sigma Lens---From 8 MM. Fish eye Lens to Canon EF 600 mm. F/ 4.0 L IS USM.
Surapon
PS. AF. for Sigma Lenses are not good or FAST as Canon Lenses*

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is not a good lens, don't buy it.

Disagree completely. I'm using mine on full frame and it rocks. Great image quality, solid build, good AF. In the areas where Canon stagnates, Sigma picks up the slack. I'm considering getting the 15mm fisheye and the 35 1.4 next.

So your Sigma 50mm somehow has no AF issues at all, and is sharp to the full frame corners? Hard to believe, but ok.

Mine has reliable, accurate AF. And wide open at f1.4, the corners are more than usable on FF. Stopped down a little, they are very sharp. The sharpness and the creamy smoothness of the bokeh put it leagues ahead of the Canon 50/1.4.

What negative experiences have you had with the Sigma 50/1.4 for you to be so vocally negative about it?

 

[CarlTN]

Yes, Before I buy my first Sigma Lens 50 mm. F/ 1.4---I compare with Canon Lens 50 mmm. F/ 1.4, and I read many Compare/ Review both Lens, And in the review tell me that Sigma Lens* in this Category is Better than Canon Lens in the Sharp area, and in the Color Contrast Area---BUT COST MORE THAN CANON = $ 50 US Dollars.
Yes, I buy this First Sigma Lens and Very Happy of this Big Babe.
Yes, I have 14 Canon Lenses, 2 Tamron Lenses, 1 Bower Lens, and 1 Sigma Lens---From 8 MM. Fish eye Lens to Canon EF 600 mm. F/ 4.0 L IS USM.
Surapon
PS. AF. for Sigma Lenses are not good or FAST as Canon Lenses*

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is not a good lens, don't buy it.

Disagree completely. I'm using mine on full frame and it rocks. Great image quality, solid build, good AF. In the areas where Canon stagnates, Sigma picks up the slack. I'm considering getting the 15mm fisheye and the 35 1.4 next.

So your Sigma 50mm somehow has no AF issues at all, and is sharp to the full frame corners? Hard to believe, but ok.

Mine has reliable, accurate AF. And wide open at f1.4, the corners are more than usable on FF. Stopped down a little, they are very sharp. The sharpness and the creamy smoothness of the bokeh put it leagues ahead of the Canon 50/1.4.

What negative experiences have you had with the Sigma 50/1.4 for you to be so vocally negative about it?

Never tried it for myself, never claimed I did...but have read what Lensrentals had to say, as well as the reviews...as well as Sigma's own MTF chart of the lens in their display of the product on their own website...which clearly shows a steep dropoff in sharpness in the image even before the aps-c crop ends...let alone to the corners on full frame.

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/sigma-50mm-f1.4-dg-hsm-for-canon

"
Roger's Take

Roger Cicala

President of LensRentals.com

It’s become apparent through many tests and online forums that the Sigma 50 is a ‘special’ lens. I was glad to find this out because it was driving me nuts. It’s a very nice lens when you use it just right, with superb sharpness and smooth bokeh. But here’s the summary:

1) It works very well on crop frame cameras and at middle (5 to 15 feet) distance, so its a wonderful indoor lens.

2) On full frame cameras and to a slight extent on crop frame cameras, the lens exhibits what I will term ‘schizophrenic autofocus’: Closer than 5 feet it will front focus, further than 20 feet it will backfocus. This is not a calibration issue, its just how it is."

Apparently yours differs from the normal production?

 

[rs]

What negative experiences have you had with the Sigma 50/1.4 for you to be so vocally negative about it?

Never tried it for myself, never claimed I did...but have read what Lensrentals had to say, as well as the reviews...as well as Sigma's own MTF chart of the lens in their display of the product on their own website...which clearly shows a steep dropoff in sharpness in the image even before the aps-c crop ends...let alone to the corners on full frame.

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/sigma-50mm-f1.4-dg-hsm-for-canon

"
Roger's Take

Roger Cicala

President of LensRentals.com

It’s become apparent through many tests and online forums that the Sigma 50 is a ‘special’ lens. I was glad to find this out because it was driving me nuts. It’s a very nice lens when you use it just right, with superb sharpness and smooth bokeh. But here’s the summary:

1) It works very well on crop frame cameras and at middle (5 to 15 feet) distance, so its a wonderful indoor lens.

2) On full frame cameras and to a slight extent on crop frame cameras, the lens exhibits what I will term ‘schizophrenic autofocus’: Closer than 5 feet it will front focus, further than 20 feet it will backfocus. This is not a calibration issue, its just how it is."

Apparently yours differs from the normal production?

There is a definite QC issue with this Sigma lens. I exchanged my first copy because it had terribly inaccurate AF. It showed signs of brilliance though because manually focusing it produced some amazing results. I was expecting a similarly bad experience with the second lens, but I was pleasantly surprised to find it is consistently accurate with its AF. I do admit this is performing beyond my expectations set by reading reviews, but I certainly can't complain about owning a lens this good.

 

[Policar]

The 20mm f1.8 is the softest lens I've ever used (worse than the Nikon 24mm f2 AIS and much worse than the Rokinon 24mm f1.4, all wide open), whereas the 18-35mm f1.8 is one of the best. Oddly it won't autofocus properly on my old Digital Rebel XT, but on new cameras it's pretty accurate.

AF does seem to be an issue with Sigma lenses. My 50mm f1.4 is not very accurate with AF, but CarlTN must have a worse sample than I do by a lot to be so vocally negative about his experiences with it. It has amazing bokeh and is pretty sharp in the center, which is all that matters for that focal length and speed.

However, wide open the 50mm f1.8 Canon is my favorite lens I must admit. Just wish it had more aperture blades. It's sharp and so cute. That it's the best general-purpose 50mm available for Canon (excepting its awful bokeh) is kind of insane.

 

[mrsfotografie]

The 20mm f1.8 is the softest lens I've ever used (worse than the Nikon 24mm f2 AIS and much worse than the Rokinon 24mm f1.4, all wide open), whereas the 18-35mm f1.8 is one of the best. Oddly it won't autofocus properly on my old Digital Rebel XT, but on new cameras it's pretty accurate.

AF does seem to be an issue with Sigma lenses. My 50mm f1.4 is not very accurate with AF, but CarlTN must have a worse sample than I do by a lot to be so vocally negative about his experiences with it. It has amazing bokeh and is pretty sharp in the center, which is all that matters for that focal length and speed.

However, wide open the 50mm f1.8 Canon is my favorite lens I must admit. Just wish it had more aperture blades. It's sharp and so cute. That it's the best general-purpose 50mm available for Canon (excepting its awful bokeh) is kind of insane.

Wide open, the 20mm may be soft BUT it's the only 20mm f/1.8 prime for full frame - a unique lens. Stopped down a little it gives stunning results. It's an older lens in the Sigma line-up, like the 50 mm so does not have the same type of quality assurance as the newer models - the old hit and miss may apply here but I've got excellent copies of both these lenses. Now the 30mm f/1.4 I owned previously was absolutely a dud; no sharp images with AF, soft wide open and a 'dragging' noise in the focus ring. I still loved it at the time for its format and dreamy bokeh but it was as unreliable as a lens can get.

 

[CarlTN]

What negative experiences have you had with the Sigma 50/1.4 for you to be so vocally negative about it?

Never tried it for myself, never claimed I did...but have read what Lensrentals had to say, as well as the reviews...as well as Sigma's own MTF chart of the lens in their display of the product on their own website...which clearly shows a steep dropoff in sharpness in the image even before the aps-c crop ends...let alone to the corners on full frame.

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/sigma-50mm-f1.4-dg-hsm-for-canon

"
Roger's Take

Roger Cicala

President of LensRentals.com

It’s become apparent through many tests and online forums that the Sigma 50 is a ‘special’ lens. I was glad to find this out because it was driving me nuts. It’s a very nice lens when you use it just right, with superb sharpness and smooth bokeh. But here’s the summary:

1) It works very well on crop frame cameras and at middle (5 to 15 feet) distance, so its a wonderful indoor lens.

2) On full frame cameras and to a slight extent on crop frame cameras, the lens exhibits what I will term ‘schizophrenic autofocus’: Closer than 5 feet it will front focus, further than 20 feet it will backfocus. This is not a calibration issue, its just how it is."

Apparently yours differs from the normal production?

There is a definite QC issue with this Sigma lens. I exchanged my first copy because it had terribly inaccurate AF. It showed signs of brilliance though because manually focusing it produced some amazing results. I was expecting a similarly bad experience with the second lens, but I was pleasantly surprised to find it is consistently accurate with its AF. I do admit this is performing beyond my expectations set by reading reviews, but I certainly can't complain about owning a lens this good.

Well I am glad to hear that. I own the Cosina Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4, and I absolutely love it, even though it's a manual Nikon-mount lens. It very well could be the sharpest 50mm f/1.4 lens. Its bokeh isn't exactly perfect, but is more than smooth enough for me. The only other fast lenses I want now are a 24mm and an 85, or preferably a 95 f/1.0...Sigma needs to make one!

 

[CarlTN]

The 20mm f1.8 is the softest lens I've ever used (worse than the Nikon 24mm f2 AIS and much worse than the Rokinon 24mm f1.4, all wide open), whereas the 18-35mm f1.8 is one of the best. Oddly it won't autofocus properly on my old Digital Rebel XT, but on new cameras it's pretty accurate.

AF does seem to be an issue with Sigma lenses. My 50mm f1.4 is not very accurate with AF, but CarlTN must have a worse sample than I do by a lot to be so vocally negative about his experiences with it. It has amazing bokeh and is pretty sharp in the center, which is all that matters for that focal length and speed.

However, wide open the 50mm f1.8 Canon is my favorite lens I must admit. Just wish it had more aperture blades. It's sharp and so cute. That it's the best general-purpose 50mm available for Canon (excepting its awful bokeh) is kind of insane.

I never claimed I owned that Sigma. I have owned the Canon f/1.8 in the past. It was fine for the money. I like the 40mm f/2.8 pancake a lot more. I've owned other Sigma lenses, and own one of their telephoto zooms now. It is quite nice. The only time I've been published, the image was shot with an older Sigma 17-70 on my old 50D...

I am far from biased against Sigma.

 

[CarlTN]

The 20mm f1.8 is the softest lens I've ever used (worse than the Nikon 24mm f2 AIS and much worse than the Rokinon 24mm f1.4, all wide open), whereas the 18-35mm f1.8 is one of the best. Oddly it won't autofocus properly on my old Digital Rebel XT, but on new cameras it's pretty accurate.

AF does seem to be an issue with Sigma lenses. My 50mm f1.4 is not very accurate with AF, but CarlTN must have a worse sample than I do by a lot to be so vocally negative about his experiences with it. It has amazing bokeh and is pretty sharp in the center, which is all that matters for that focal length and speed.

However, wide open the 50mm f1.8 Canon is my favorite lens I must admit. Just wish it had more aperture blades. It's sharp and so cute. That it's the best general-purpose 50mm available for Canon (excepting its awful bokeh) is kind of insane.

Wide open, the 20mm may be soft BUT it's the only 20mm f/1.8 prime for full frame - a unique lens. Stopped down a little it gives stunning results. It's an older lens in the Sigma line-up, like the 50 mm so does not have the same type of quality assurance as the newer models - the old hit and miss may apply here but I've got excellent copies of both these lenses. Now the 30mm f/1.4 I owned previously was absolutely a dud; no sharp images with AF, soft wide open and a 'dragging' noise in the focus ring. I still loved it at the time for its format and dreamy bokeh but it was as unreliable as a lens can get.

I rented the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 back in 2009. It may have been a bit better sample than the one you describe above. I recall its AF was a bit hit or miss, and certainly it had a curved plane of focus...but then so does my Voigtlander 58mm...it's just a lot closer to flat. I loved the color from that 30mm Sigma...

They have a new 30mm f/1.4 for aps-c...not sure how much better it is than the old one. I have no doubt it is better, though. As for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 being "old", the design is quite a bit newer than the 20mm f/1.8. I believe the Sigma 50mm came out in '07 or '08? Not sure...might have been '09. The 20mm came out in the early to mid 2000's...or else in the '90's...not sure. That narrows it down for you doesn't it?

 

[mrsfotografie]

The 20mm f1.8 is the softest lens I've ever used (worse than the Nikon 24mm f2 AIS and much worse than the Rokinon 24mm f1.4, all wide open), whereas the 18-35mm f1.8 is one of the best. Oddly it won't autofocus properly on my old Digital Rebel XT, but on new cameras it's pretty accurate.

AF does seem to be an issue with Sigma lenses. My 50mm f1.4 is not very accurate with AF, but CarlTN must have a worse sample than I do by a lot to be so vocally negative about his experiences with it. It has amazing bokeh and is pretty sharp in the center, which is all that matters for that focal length and speed.

However, wide open the 50mm f1.8 Canon is my favorite lens I must admit. Just wish it had more aperture blades. It's sharp and so cute. That it's the best general-purpose 50mm available for Canon (excepting its awful bokeh) is kind of insane.

Wide open, the 20mm may be soft BUT it's the only 20mm f/1.8 prime for full frame - a unique lens. Stopped down a little it gives stunning results. It's an older lens in the Sigma line-up, like the 50 mm so does not have the same type of quality assurance as the newer models - the old hit and miss may apply here but I've got excellent copies of both these lenses. Now the 30mm f/1.4 I owned previously was absolutely a dud; no sharp images with AF, soft wide open and a 'dragging' noise in the focus ring. I still loved it at the time for its format and dreamy bokeh but it was as unreliable as a lens can get.

I rented the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 back in 2009. It may have been a bit better sample than the one you describe above. I recall its AF was a bit hit or miss, and certainly it had a curved plane of focus...but then so does my Voigtlander 58mm...it's just a lot closer to flat. I loved the color from that 30mm Sigma...

They have a new 30mm f/1.4 for aps-c...not sure how much better it is than the old one. I have no doubt it is better, though. As for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 being "old", the design is quite a bit newer than the 20mm f/1.8. I believe the Sigma 50mm came out in '07 or '08? Not sure...might have been '09. The 20mm came out in the early to mid 2000's...or else in the '90's...not sure. That narrows it down for you doesn't it?

I'm sure my '30' was an outlier, on the bad side. The 20 and 50 I love, but I'm hesitant to get the 35 too; it's absolutely fabulous from what I've read, but at the moment I can't justify the price for the occasional use it'll get. Maybe when the days shorten and light gets dim I'll reconsider...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

These days, everyone expects a lot more out of pro lenses than they did even 5 years ago. If Sigma had made their current range 5 years ago, with the proper service levels, they would have a much larger market share.
In that respect, they are a little late to the party but most welcome anyhow!

Who would have expected Sigma to crack out a fantastic 35mm f1.4? Or their 50mm?

No one has made the definitive 50mm fast prime on the Canon mount yet. Sigma are close but the Canon 50mm f1.2 L still is a peerless but faulted king. This should not be!

It would be wise for Sigma to build a 500mm f4 lens which is light and can take 1.4 and 2x TC's....while being sharp and with excellent AF abilities.

 

[surapon]

Dear Friends.
I am sorry to Answer the Sigma Lens Question, Which I have the Fist Sigma Lens in my Life ( And Seem to get the Best one from The Batch/ From MFG. too)---Yes, Some time, My Friends who have Sigma Lens Complaint about Sigma Lens for Canon have a slow or Miss AF---But May be the Quality control of Their MFG. And more than 5 years ago, One of my Dear Friend from Japan, The Optical Engineer, Who work for Canon, he told me that, Sigma company try to save their money, not to buy the Patent of AF/ EOS from Canon, But They Use Reverse Engineer to Make their Lens work with Canon EOS, Yes Tamron Company Buy the AF / EOS patent from Canon, and have a great AF to Match Canon too----Sorry, That is the Truth or not, Or Just Canon Company try to make me Feel Good ???, and Want Me to buy only Canon Lenses.
Sorry again that I start to Make two fan Clubs= Ford and Chevy , try to tell another side that their truck a lot better than another brand name Truck.
Yes, If Your AF. ( for Canon EOS Body) of Sigma Lens are not Perfect, Please try to Adjust the Back Focus/ AF. Microadjustment = C. FN III-8.
Yes, Sigma 50 mm. F/ 1.4 ( $ 460 US Dollars), are not Perfected Lens as Canon EF 50. MM. F/ 1.2 L ( $ 1600 US Dollars), But I need a Good Lens for 50 mm, and Save some money to buy Canon Lens EF 1200 mm ( $ 120,000 US Dollars)---That is my Dream before I die ( my Wife might Kill me---Ha, Ha, Ha ).---JUST KIDDING.
I am very glad to be your friend in CR. Yes, I read most of your Answers and Learn a lot of Things = New infor/ New Ideas from you.
Thousand Thanks.
Surapon.
Apex, NC., USA.

Here are the comparision Between Canon 50 mm, F/ 1.4 and Sigma 50 mm f/ 1.4---Just move your mouse to left and right , to see the difference.


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=473&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[roadrunner]

I think Sigma should have always been taken seriously. Don't get me wrong, I've never wanted a sigma lens prior to the art 35mm (Which I now own) as I would prefer Canon, but that doesn't mean I didn't take Sigma seriously. I seriously considered a couple of their lenses. Mainly the 50mm f1.4 and the 150mm 2.8 OS Macro lens.

In the end, I didn't want to struggle with the QC issues of the Sigma 50mm (Though, by most accounts, it is the better lens on paper when compared to Canon's offerings) and I wanted the weather sealing, smaller, lighter 100mm Macro L. So I have always seriously considered Sigma, I just never actually chose them until the current 35mm. I am definitely looking forward to an art version of their 50mm though.