Discussion
Optically very good. Definitely best of the independants 
. Often quite noisy on focusing, even their quiet lenses. Optics at the top end of the range aren't as good as the Nikon/Canon equivalent, but then they're probably 1/3 of the price. Still good though.
Sigma 80-200 2.8 is exceptional for the price. Still prefer the Canon though (used to have the Sigma a few years back)
. Often quite noisy on focusing, even their quiet lenses. Optics at the top end of the range aren't as good as the Nikon/Canon equivalent, but then they're probably 1/3 of the price. Still good though. Sigma 80-200 2.8 is exceptional for the price. Still prefer the Canon though (used to have the Sigma a few years back)
Excellent value for the money.
I've got a 170-500 with Sigma's APO glass and the results are really stunning.
Mrs SMP has a 28-200 (which is likely to be for sale together with an EOS 50E and a bundle of film if anyone is interested - blatent plug) and again the results are brilliant.
I will echo Luca's comment that they can be a bit noisy when focusing, but compared to the USM Canon lenses most things are
I've got a 170-500 with Sigma's APO glass and the results are really stunning.
Mrs SMP has a 28-200 (which is likely to be for sale together with an EOS 50E and a bundle of film if anyone is interested - blatent plug) and again the results are brilliant.
I will echo Luca's comment that they can be a bit noisy when focusing, but compared to the USM Canon lenses most things are
I have a couple of Sigma lenses for my 300D. A 17-35 and a 80-400 stabilsed, both are top quality and comparative bargains against the equivalent Canon lenses.
If I could afford them, I'd buy the equivalent Canon lenses for the better handling, but I can't.
17-35 sample (@17mm)
80-400 OD sample (@400mm hand held)
>> Edited by rj_vaughan on Thursday 2nd December 17:26
If I could afford them, I'd buy the equivalent Canon lenses for the better handling, but I can't.
17-35 sample (@17mm)
80-400 OD sample (@400mm hand held)
>> Edited by rj_vaughan on Thursday 2nd December 17:26
Shy away from generalisations. Sigma as a brand produce lenses that are neither generally "crap" nor are they generally "great" (from what I gather anyway).
As with all the known brands (including Nikon, Canon, Tamron et al.) there are fantastic models in the lineup but there are also duds.
Just do your research on a particular lens model you think you want and make an informed choice, regardless of brand.
But it has to be said, the well-reviewed lenses they make offer far more bang for the buck than their Nikon/Canon counterparts.
Just be wary of bad models. Even when shopping Nikon/Canon.
D
>> Edited by -DeaDLocK- on Thursday 2nd December 19:36
As with all the known brands (including Nikon, Canon, Tamron et al.) there are fantastic models in the lineup but there are also duds.
Just do your research on a particular lens model you think you want and make an informed choice, regardless of brand.
But it has to be said, the well-reviewed lenses they make offer far more bang for the buck than their Nikon/Canon counterparts.
Just be wary of bad models. Even when shopping Nikon/Canon.
D
>> Edited by -DeaDLocK- on Thursday 2nd December 19:36
One thing to bear in mind with Sigma lenses, especially on Canon bodies is that they may work on your current body but not necessarily any future bodies. When I had my D60 I got a Sigma 17-35 2.8 which is a great lens but when I changed to the 10d the autofocus wouldn't work so Sigma said send it back and we'll rechip it for you FOC but they could never get it to work properly with the 10D and now I have the 1DMKII aswell it refuses to work on that and Sigma say there is nothing they can do about it now. I have been told it is because Canon won't license the mount to Sigma so Sigma have to 'reverse engineer' their lens every time a body changes. Of course YMMV and I'm not sure of the situation with the Nikon mount.
Cheers
Ian
Cheers
Ian
V6 - how far back were you stood to get that photo (and is it cropped)? And what camera was it on?
I also have the 12-24. Initial thoughts were that it worked nicely, but I'm starting to wonder about the quality of the image around the edges at its widest setting.
That said, I haven't played with it enough to be conclusive.
Nice picture btw.
I also have the 12-24. Initial thoughts were that it worked nicely, but I'm starting to wonder about the quality of the image around the edges at its widest setting.
That said, I haven't played with it enough to be conclusive.
Nice picture btw.
murph7355 said:
I also have the 12-24. Initial thoughts were that it worked nicely, but I'm starting to wonder about the quality of the image around the edges at its widest setting.
I think any ultrawide-angle lens struggles at the edges - central performance is always better than the edges, and the difference can vary considerably with aperture too. At least if it's a lens designed for 35mm film cameras, on most DSLRs you crop off the most affected areas.
simpo two said:I recently got a standard Hoya circular polarizer for by 18-70 DX.
At least if it's a lens designed for 35mm film cameras, on most DSLRs you crop off the most affected areas.
It's terrible! From 18mm to the low twenties there is awful vignetting - I get jet black corners. If this is what it's like with my 1.5 crop factor, I only dread to think what the results will be on a full 35mm frame!
Might try one of the Pro HMC ones, but they are mondo expensive.
D
-DeaDLocK- said:
I recently got a standard Hoya circular polarizer for by 18-70 DX. It's terrible! From 18mm to the low twenties there is awful vignetting - I get jet black corners. If this is what it's like with my 1.5 crop factor, I only dread to think what the results will be on a full 35mm frame!
The 18-70 is a DX lens - ie designed only to cover the sensor with no massive overspill to crop.
IMO the 18-70 is very close to vignetting anyway, and with a polarizer it gets worse, presumably because it just clips the corners, though maybe the polarising action has a part to play too, as the light in the corners is coming into the lens from a sharp angle and so travelling through more glass.
I've found it to be most noticeable against blue skies, but I don't get black corners like you, just a darker blue.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff