Discussion
Looking for a new everyday lense for my Canon 30D, have been using it for macro work only recently for work (dental).
The search facility doesn't seem to be working at the moment...so my question is in terms of value for money and overall picture quality, how doe the Sigma Lenses compare to Canon Lenses? Am I being a badge w
e for only wanting to go for a Canon or are Sigma comparable for everyday pics?
Any advice would be appreciated!
The search facility doesn't seem to be working at the moment...so my question is in terms of value for money and overall picture quality, how doe the Sigma Lenses compare to Canon Lenses? Am I being a badge w
e for only wanting to go for a Canon or are Sigma comparable for everyday pics? Any advice would be appreciated!
spydersingh - in general Sigma are cheaper and poorer than canon, have more QC issues and focus problems, in general.
But sigma produce some excelent lens's that often cream canon's offerings for value, sometimes for quality too.
The 17-50f2.8 macro is excelet, as is the 24-70f2.8, 70-200f2.8 , the 50-500 etc are great lenses too, love my 10-20EX , cracking lens.
They also offer some things canon dont, 100-300f4 or 120-300f2.8!! nice... HSM is (almost) as good as USM (I think its a little noisier and a fraction slower).
Take all the manufacturers on individual lens ratings.
But sigma produce some excelent lens's that often cream canon's offerings for value, sometimes for quality too.
The 17-50f2.8 macro is excelet, as is the 24-70f2.8, 70-200f2.8 , the 50-500 etc are great lenses too, love my 10-20EX , cracking lens.
They also offer some things canon dont, 100-300f4 or 120-300f2.8!! nice... HSM is (almost) as good as USM (I think its a little noisier and a fraction slower).
Take all the manufacturers on individual lens ratings.
What sort of thing are you looking for? 50mm prime? Big zoom? My experiences:
Sigma 10-20 - superb lens, quiet, fast AF, top quality images.
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 - nice lens, noisy, slow AF though. Good image quality.
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 - excellent lens, used a friend's before I bought a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM which is simply in a different league.
Generally, I think the Sigma kit stacks up well against the normal Canon lenses, but the Canon L glass is significantly better overall. But then it ought to be given the price difference.
Sigma 10-20 - superb lens, quiet, fast AF, top quality images.
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 - nice lens, noisy, slow AF though. Good image quality.
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 - excellent lens, used a friend's before I bought a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM which is simply in a different league.
Generally, I think the Sigma kit stacks up well against the normal Canon lenses, but the Canon L glass is significantly better overall. But then it ought to be given the price difference.
As has been said before Sigma's are great lenses, however I am hearing more and more reports of 'rogue' ones, bad focusing etc (this may just be the bandwagon effect).
I used to have a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX HSM, stunning lens and never gave me any problems in the 5 years I had it, recently sold it to upgrade to the 120-300mm F2.8
Also have a 20-40mm F2.8 Siggy again a cracking little lens.
Have a couple of Canons too, 28-135mm IS is a great walk about lens and a 35-350mm L which is a bit of a jack of all trades, b****y brilliant bit of kit, used for weddings, events, little bit of motorsport, watersports (no! not what your thinking), and generally anything I want to throw at it
I used to have a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX HSM, stunning lens and never gave me any problems in the 5 years I had it, recently sold it to upgrade to the 120-300mm F2.8
Also have a 20-40mm F2.8 Siggy again a cracking little lens.Have a couple of Canons too, 28-135mm IS is a great walk about lens and a 35-350mm L which is a bit of a jack of all trades, b****y brilliant bit of kit, used for weddings, events, little bit of motorsport, watersports (no! not what your thinking), and generally anything I want to throw at it
sidaorb said:
As has been said before Sigma's are great lenses, however I am hearing more and more reports of 'rogue' ones, bad focusing etc (this may just be the bandwagon effect).
Like you I have the 70-200 and find it excellent. It can miss slightly at f2.8 in low light but as I paid £350 for it and the Nikon version is £1000, I don't expect it to be totally perfect.However I did once try the 20-40mm, two in fact, and they were both miles out on focus - nowhere near. So if you have any doubts, I'd suggest you buy from a reputable place like Warehouse Express who will refund/exchange without quibble. I think Sigma offer a decent value alternative if you can't justify the big name versions. And is a lens that's 3x the price really 3x better?
spydersingh said:
Is a lens starting at 28mm going to be able to be okay for indoor shots without having to stand in the front/back garden?
For pictures of rooms or things in them? With the 30D it's a 1.6 crop body so a 28mm acts like a 45mm. Not really very wide. On the 10D (same 1.6 crop) I used the Sigma 15-30mm with good effect. Ok, the focusing isn't super fast and it's a bit noisy, but it can crank out some good images.Editted to add these pictures from the 10D @ and the Sigma at 15mm.
Edited by ThatPhilBrettGuy on Tuesday 29th April 12:41
Alot obviously depends on your budget too
Lots of rave reviews for the 10-20mm Siggy (no good for me only have a 1.3 crop factor) and hearing some good stuff about the 18-50mm F2.8
If you can afford the pennies have a serious look at the Canon 17-40mm F4 L thats next on my shopping list
Lots of rave reviews for the 10-20mm Siggy (no good for me only have a 1.3 crop factor) and hearing some good stuff about the 18-50mm F2.8
If you can afford the pennies have a serious look at the Canon 17-40mm F4 L thats next on my shopping list
Simpo Two said:
Did you use any lens correction on those Phil? The 10-20 gets a lot in but point it up and see those verticals bend and touch!
Nope, nothing at all. I don't even remember playing with the levels or saturation. Might have been a bit of sharpening but otherwise straight off the CF card.This one was off the 1Dmk2 (1.3 crop) and things still look straight(ish), although on the full res image things are starting to go wrong in the corners.
Don't think I've got any of it on the 1Ds (full frame) to hand, but I'd expect it'll just get more nasty in the corners.
My current lens line-up.
Sigma 15-30 EX DG
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG
Sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX
And the most recent addition..
Sigma 500 f4.5 EX DG. Paid £1650 for that one as opposed to 3K+ for a Canon 500.
Oh..and a Canon 240-105L IS.
I'll put my Sigmas up against anything Canon turn out at equivalent focal lengths and they haven't got anything that can touch the 120-300.
Having owned some of the cheaper lenses in both Canon and Sigmas ranges i can happily state that they're all as bad as each other, with the occasional exception.
Sigma 15-30 EX DG
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG
Sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX
And the most recent addition..
Sigma 500 f4.5 EX DG. Paid £1650 for that one as opposed to 3K+ for a Canon 500.
Oh..and a Canon 240-105L IS.
I'll put my Sigmas up against anything Canon turn out at equivalent focal lengths and they haven't got anything that can touch the 120-300.
Having owned some of the cheaper lenses in both Canon and Sigmas ranges i can happily state that they're all as bad as each other, with the occasional exception.
sidaorb said:
MonkeyHanger said:
Oh..and a Canon 240-105L IS.
Does the zoom ring go the other way on that one 
It makes me laugh when people raise that as an issue. If they're incapable of remembering how each lens works i suspect they also have trouble walking & talking at the same time.
IMO Both have a massive spread of quality from the consumer to the pro lenses. At the very low end and top pro lenses the canons may be slightly better, but the vast majority are like for like.
Avoid older sigma lenses on Canon bodies (S/H), some weren't AF compatible.
Personally wouldn't buy a non-EX sigma lens, but the EX lenses are great, and good vfm. Don't ever buy a non-red ring (usually non-apo) sigma lens, they are utter tripe. I've owned both the APO and Non-APO 70-300 F5.6 lenses. The non-apo ruined so many photos it's heart breaking.
Avoid older sigma lenses on Canon bodies (S/H), some weren't AF compatible.
Personally wouldn't buy a non-EX sigma lens, but the EX lenses are great, and good vfm. Don't ever buy a non-red ring (usually non-apo) sigma lens, they are utter tripe. I've owned both the APO and Non-APO 70-300 F5.6 lenses. The non-apo ruined so many photos it's heart breaking.
[quote=MonkeyHanger]
I'll put my Sigmas up against anything Canon turn out at equivalent focal lengths and they haven't got anything that can touch the 120-300.
quote]
Spoke to Canon at Focus and they said they were amazed that so many people have asked them for a 'L' equivalent, no plans for one in the distant future as far as they know.
I'll put my Sigmas up against anything Canon turn out at equivalent focal lengths and they haven't got anything that can touch the 120-300.
quote]
Spoke to Canon at Focus and they said they were amazed that so many people have asked them for a 'L' equivalent, no plans for one in the distant future as far as they know.
Just picked up a Sigma 18 - 200 DC OS Lens today! Woopee!
Thanks for the advice but I felt after looking at a few, this one really suited my needs.
So far, very versatile range, haven't had the chance to check the pics on Aperture yet but will do this weekend. The only downside I can think of so far is the slow AF and noise it makes whilst doing so! IF only Canon made a lens like this with USM and L and that would have been a done deal!
Thanks for the advice but I felt after looking at a few, this one really suited my needs.
So far, very versatile range, haven't had the chance to check the pics on Aperture yet but will do this weekend. The only downside I can think of so far is the slow AF and noise it makes whilst doing so! IF only Canon made a lens like this with USM and L and that would have been a done deal!
)Sigma (and Tamron) are better VFM in the UK than the equivalent Canon lens, and quite a number of their lenses will match the performance of the equivalent (but £££ more) Canon lens, occasionally bettering these pricier Canons...
...except for in build quality and QC, I understand, which tend to lag behind even the consumer-level Canon lenses. Something to be aware of...
...and of course if you have the money then L-series are uber-
As for wide-angle, I've just ordered the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 to complement my Canon 28-135IS, as 28 ISN'T wide enough on a 1.6x sensor. To get the performance and quality of the Tamron in a Canon lens I'd have had to spend ~£600, not £250!
...except for in build quality and QC, I understand, which tend to lag behind even the consumer-level Canon lenses. Something to be aware of...
...and of course if you have the money then L-series are uber-
As for wide-angle, I've just ordered the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 to complement my Canon 28-135IS, as 28 ISN'T wide enough on a 1.6x sensor. To get the performance and quality of the Tamron in a Canon lens I'd have had to spend ~£600, not £250!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff