GMCPhotographics said:
Radiating said:
cellomaster27 said:
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!
The sigma 10-20mm is a horrible lens and should never be used.
Sigma doesn't just make "good lenses" they make lenses that in some cases are the best in the world for their focal range and aperture, and much better than Canon's Nikon's Sony's or Zeiss's lenses.
The Sigma 35mm 1.4 for example is light years ahead of Canon's offering. It's like night and day. The 85mm 1.4 is also light years ahead of Canon's offerings and is literally one of the top 4 sharpest lenses ever made by any company period, it's mind blowing, while Canon's 85mm 1.2 II suffers from almost twice the purple fringing at f/1.4, and while most people talk about how good the Canon 85mm 1.2 II is, the Sigma is much sharper. Furthermore Sigma's 18-35mm f/1.8 for crop is light years ahead of anything offered by any brand. It's amazing. The 120-300mm f/2.8 is also one of the best lenses in the world. Sigma's 8-16mm crop lens is also one of the best in the world delivering better image quality than Canon's 15-85mm which itself is one of the best lenses you can get for crop.
Sigma is no joke, in certain categories they offer products which are simply unmatched by any other brand.
The problem is that other than the products I listed, no other Sigma lenses are the best in their class, while some may be a "good" most are just half baked bargain lenses, meaning "half the image quality at best for a 30% lower price". Not a good trade off.
So Sigma used to make lenses that were absolute junk, and in the last 2-3 years they've made some of the best lenses in the world. I really like their new lenses and I'm hoping they make a 55mm f/1.4 next like Zeiss's new lens.
I'm not sure you've even used a Canon 35mm f1.4 L or 85mm f1.2 II L. I use both of these day in day out in a professional basis and they have produced some of the best photographs in my portfolio.
I've owned multiple copies of both of the Canon 35mm 1.4 and the Canon 85mm 1.2 II, as well as 2 copies of the Sigma 85mm 1.4, and 1 copy of the Sigma 35mm 1.4. The Sigma versions are simply put sharper and have other advantages. While the Canon versions have produced SOME of the best images I have ever taken. The Sigma versions produce THE best images I have ever taken and redefine what is possible in photography.
The biggest advantage of the Sigma 85mm 1.4 over the Canon 85mm f/1.2 II is reduced purple fringing and the second greatest difference is improved sharpness and reduced haziness. You can see this comparison demonstrates both of those factors:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=756&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1
Sharper less hazy and most of all the Sigma has much less purple fringing. Most photographers dismiss PF as an afterthought because it's usually not a great issue, with the 85mm f/1.2 II, the PF is so far off the charts that many times you cannot not remove it in post without hours of work by hand, and remember many agencies and stock photo companies will not accept photos with PF. The issue with the Canon is especially common when shooting models with brownish purplish hair against bright backgrounds. The purple fringing of many short telephoto primes is very high, The Canon 85mm f/1.2 II's PF can be literally off the charts and very annoying in many situations, nobody likes to be surprised by several days of post work that they thought they didn't have to do, and again there is a quite significant difference in sharpness in favor of the Sigma.
Don't even mention autofocus. With the Sigma 85mm 1.4 I've shot basketball, and BMX biking with tight framing and split second focus. The Canon is one of the slowest lenses I've ever seen.
The differences are equally profound with the 35mm, especially slightly stopped down from wide open where I like to shoot. The Sigma version has much less chromatic aberration and is sharper.
I have found them both to be more than sharp enough....and my particular copy of the 85mm f1.2 II L is one fo the sharpest lenses I have ever handled. Purple fringing is strong against strong contrasted background but it is easily correcting in LR...it's a single slider.
LR won't remove PF from brown hair against a sky if it's significant enough, which is one of the most common shooting scenarios. The PF of the 85mm 1.2 II is so over the top of that even when converting using DXO mark, that program doesn't even have a setting that's high enough in the remove PF tool to deal with the 85mm 1.2 II.
It's AF might be slow, but it's more accurate and consistent than anything I've ever tried from Sigma. The 12-24mm is a truly remarkable but flawed lens. The 120-300 is not a world beater....sorry but it's also got some great benefits, but some serious flaws too. It's good but it's not a world beater. Compared to a mkI Canon 300mm f2.8 LIS it falls short in every area.
You're comparing a prime against a zoom, of course the Sigma 120-300mm isn't as good. You have to compare it to other zooms and in that regard you get an amazing focal range and a top of the line lens. The 200mm f/2.0 can beat the Canon 70-200mm II as well in every conceivable way too, but that doesn't mean the 70-200mm II is not one of the best zoom lenses you can buy. In fact the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II are fairly similar in performance across the board.
I sold my copy months after obtaining it due to it's focal length drop at MFD, excessive size and weight and bad focus inaccuracy. It's a nice lens but it's not a white lens competitor.
All lenses severely drop their focal length at MFD. The Canon 70-200mm actually achieves only 2/3rds it's maximum focal length at MFD.
Sharpness wise the 120-300mm f/2.8 from Sigma is very close to the Canon, to the point where copy variation plays a role between comparisons at most focal length. However the Sigma's bokeh is significantly better in many situations than the Canon as the Canon suffers from very busy background blur, especially around trees:
Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8:
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II:
While you can't argue that the lens is small, and that some copies have issues with AF, the Sigma is still a fantastic lens if you want a 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom, a copy without flaws is in the same league as other top telephoto zooms, which wasn't true of Sigma in the past.
I've already stated my feelings and obserations on this lens in previous threads, so I'm not going to repeat myself here. It's marketed to people who don't want the expense of a Canon White lens but want to kid themsleves that it's just as good. It's not, it's a good lens but it's not in the same league.
How? Compared to the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II, the Sigma has better sharpness at 200mm and 150mm and slightly worse at 120mm. Better bokeh, can provide great focus accuracy with a good copy and has equal or better chromatic aberration and both of those lenses have serious zoom fall off at MFD. It's every bit in the same league as a 70-200mm f/2.8 II, just serving a different focal range.
Sigma do make some great lenses, but they are still a little short of Professional use and still a bit behind Canon's finest. Their 35mm f1.4 might be slightly better at shooting lens charts, but there's more to a lens than sharpness. Both the Canon 35L and 85IIL make such beautiful photos, they have a charectoristic look to the photos they produce.
I think that both Sigma and Canon are producing optical designs that are the absolute top of the line, and both suffer from issues with shooting lens charts versus the real world. The 24-70mm f/2.8 II and 70-200mm f/2.8 II both suffer from weird bokeh issues, which is why I keep a 24-105mm and 70-200mm f/4.0 IS on hand. On Sigma's side, the Sigma 35mm 1.4 suffers from weird bokeh issues which is why I keep a Rokinon 1.4 on hand, and the Sigma 85mm 1.4 is just flawless, while the Canon version is deeply flawed.
Sigma makes pro lenses, in fact you'd be crazy not to use Sigma as a pro because their stuff is better than Canon's in many regards.
paul13walnut5 said:
Radiating said:
The sigma 10-20mm is a horrible lens and should never be used.
Which version? My f4-5.6 was fine.
The f/4.5 to f/5.6. The problem with it is that it's not a 10-20mm lens. It's 10mm OR 20mm lens, any focal range in-between has poor image quality. The 8-16mm is a much better bet.
Radiating said:
Sigma's 8-16mm crop lens is also one of the best in the world delivering better image quality than Canon's 15-85mm which itself is one of the best lenses you can get for crop.
These lenses are not comparable, other than by charts. You would choose the FL you needed, not one instead of the other.
I agree that you wouldn't pick between those lenses I was just making a point to establish that the 8-16mm is regarded as better than a well regarded lens. The Sigma 8-16mm is also better then Canon's 10-22mm, although that lens isn't regarded as being very good. Suffice it to say the 8-16mm blows the 10-22mm Canon out of the water.
Radiating said:
The problem is that other than the products I listed, no other Sigma lenses are the best in their class, while some may be a "good" most are just half baked bargain lenses, meaning "half the image quality at best for a 30% lower price". Not a good trade off.
You missed out the 70mm Macro. Better than the equivalent Canon and Nikon lenses. At the time of launch it was the sharpest lens some reviewers had seen. The Bigma is quite unique.
Yep you're right I missed the 70mm Macro. I also missed Sigma's 105mm OS Macro which is both sharper and has better bokeh than Canon's 100mm IS Macro.
I wouldn't consider the Bigma a lens worth getting for myself. It offers a very unique set of features but it's very soft.
Pi said:
GMCPhotographics said:
Radiating said:
The Sigma 35mm 1.4 for example is light years ahead of Canon's offering. It's like night and day. The 85mm 1.4 is also light years ahead of Canon's offerings and is literally one of the top 4 sharpest lenses ever made by any company period, it's mind blowing, while Canon's 85mm 1.2 II suffers from almost twice the purple fringing at f/1.4, and while most people talk about how good the Canon 85mm 1.2 II is, the Sigma is much sharper.
I'm not sure you've even used a Canon 35mm f1.4 L or 85mm f1.2 II L.
+1. He is way over the top. The Sigma 85 is not really sharper than the Canon, when it can focus, which is almost never. The 85L is designed for its bokeh, and sharpness is not everything, but it is sharp. I used them both, and the Sigma is a 85L wannabe but not there yet.
It's a well known fact that Sigma's initial run of the 85mm 1.4 had focus hunting issues due to a software defect that was covered under warranty. I had 2 copies one with the issue and one without. With the fix the Sigma focuses dead on every single time.
Sharpness wise the Canon looks like a hazy blurry mess at f/1.4, the Sigma is much clearer.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=756&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1
The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is almost non-existant. Due to the way that digital sensors are designed and different from film - a digital sensor actually exponentially ignores light that hits the sensor at higher and higher angles of incident (which is how a faster lens gets more light). Meaning that the faster your lens is, the less additional light will actually strike a digital sensor's photo sites.
This effect starts to happen after f/2.8. So an f/2.8 lens will be identical to an f/2.8 lens on film. An f/2.0 lens however will actually only add maybe 70% more light on digital where as it would add 100% more on film. And an f/1.4 lens will add only 150% more light, on digital where it would add 300% more on film. To compensate for this the camera boosts the ISO rating in the background (without changing the ISO rating on the display or file) to achieve the correct exposure. You can verify this yourself by doing tests with a fast lens and comparing noise vs exposure time (ie a f/1.4 photo at 1 second 800 ISO will strangely have more noise than a f/2.8 photo at 2 seconds 800 ISO), many others have verified this as well.
So here's the difference between the magical bokeh of the f/1.2 and the Sigma:
I'm an extremely picky photographer which is why I obsessively test every lens. Many photographers tend to be deluded by brand name or price thinking that a more expensive lens is better than a cheap lens when it may be worse or a lens from a worse brand name is worse, when it's better.
I've had photographers swear up and down that their new super expensive lens is so much better than their old one, right up until I take both of their lenses and do a back to back comparison and show them that their new very expensive lens which they thought was so much better than their older cheaper one, was in reality noticeably worse in every way.
Sigma makes, in certain categories, the best lenses 35mm lenses in the world, especially with their newer releases. They also used to make some really bad lenses. Being an extremely selective photographer who is picky about the details, I would like to see many more world class and ground breaking lenses released from any manufacturer and I really respect Sigma for refusing to compromise and release another budget piece of junk.
Maybe the question should be "is canon stepping up to sigma's push?" Lol the newer lenses are showing signs of future great lenses to come in the future. 
