Are Sigma lenses good?

My ex-girlfriend's dad used them and he seemed to like them, but

maybe they perform better on a better setup. I know he had better

gear than I do.

That's like asking if Fords are good. Some are. Some aren't.

 

Some Sigma lenses are excellent, and priced fairly well for what they are. Some are horrible but don't cost much. Most of the ones in the middle are okay, and are a good value for the low cost, but some of their mid range lenses are still poor. Their EX series are generally decent performers.

 

Which Sigma lenses are you considering? And what camera will you be using them on?

Not really.

 

If that didn't answer your question, read on...

The best way to look silly is to get a Nikon F100 and stick a third party lens (Sigma, Tamron...)on it. Better to get the cheaper body and spend the real money on a good lens.

 

When you say perform do you mean optical performance? They will be the same regardless of camera you use. If you mean focusing speed, the camera body might make a difference.

People get third party lenses like Sigma because they can't afford the name brand version of the lens. Also third party lenses don't hold their value nearly as well as the name brand versions. If you ever want to sell it, you will get nothing for your Sigma.

Don't promote the false economy of third party lenses.

The general attitude here seems to be that they are okay, but not as good as the camera manufacturer's lenses, and not as durably made. But you'll find lots of conflicting information.

 

I remember when Sigma came out with the first 14mm lens, reading all the rave reviews about how wonderful it was. Of course, now, you can go read how it's so crappy compared to the Canon 14mm lens.

 

The durability seems to be an issue mainly with people that use their cameras all the time (unlike myself). You would assume that their professional-type lenses (IE, expensive ones) are made with correspondingly high mechanical quality.

 

Anyway, I've got a 24mm f/2.8 lens that I really like. The depth-of-field scale is about gone on it, though, just silk-screened on the barrel.

 

Summary: It's a heck of a lot better to have a Sigma lens than not having a lens, which is often the other alternative.

 

Pretty much the same could be said for Tokina and Tamron, by the way.

Here is a repost of my answer from a similar question on Nikonians (with some editing for context):

"I found the Sigma 70-200 HSM to be just as solid as my 80-200. I have found all of my Sigma EX HSMs (180 f3.5macro, 100-300 f4, 50-500HSM, and 105EX) to be that way. That's just my experience. Sigmas must have really been junk at one time before I started using them because the idea that they are inferior is still going strong, and I have found (through personal experience) the the opposite to be quite true. I still see plenty of comments about inferiority of these lenses, and the only thing I am aware of is that some early release HSMs had compatability issues with certain bodies. I don't even think that is happening much anymore. I have been shooting pro Nikkors alongside Sigma HSMs for three years and have found them to be every bit as good. No field failures, no optical deficiences, no focusing issues. I may be lucky, but I think not. I'm sure there are lemons out there, but they exist for all brands. They may more slightly more prevalent in third party lenses, but I think the gap is smaller than some think. Please don't misunderstand me, I love my Nikkor lenses, but I just think it is a shame that there are some superb lenses out there that folks are missing out on because of a reputation that won't seem to die (often perpetuted by those with no hands-on experience). That is a lesson all businesses can learn from. Once you get branded, it is hard to shake the stink no matter how good your product is. Anyway, that's probably more of an answer than you asked for but I hope it helps."

Your ex-girlfriend's dad probably likes them because they do a good job. Like the first poster said, investigate the exact model(s) you're interested in, not the entire brand. I have a Tokina 100-300 f/4 that I wouldn't even consider selling. Many professional sports photographers (go to www.sportsshooter.com) love Sigma's 120-300 f/2.8, which is a fantastic performer for less than a 300 f/2.8 prime. Each of these brands has good examples and bad examples, just like Nikon, Canon, and company.

The lens I was thinking of is the 'Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 Macro Super Tele-Zoom Lens'. I am operating on a Canon Rebel 2k. I am mostly a newb, so this isn't for professional use or anything; Just recreational photography. And while I am here...Know where I can get like...diced foam? I have a nice aluminum case, but I want good foam to cut out for it rather than the eggshell inside. Closest I can find is replacement foam for Pelican cases.

I have a manual focus, 24/2.8 in the C/Y mount. I really like it. I think it is the exception rather than the rule - which is why I bought it.

Many people actually prefer this Sigma lens to its Nikon counterpart. It has a good reputation as the 70-300 variable aperture lenses go. Plus, it goes down to 1:2 (half life-size) magnification, which the Nikon does not. It's cheap as SLR lenses go, so buy it and have a blast.

I have several Sigmas; the old manual focus 14mm, a slow 28-70 some 20-300APO macro and maybe a 28-85. I wouldn't call them "good". The 28-70 has a loose focusing mechanism which makes it slower than a cheap consumer Pentax lens. The 70-300 isn't sharp enough in my opinion; I prefer primes a lot on my DSLR. The 14mm works. It isn't impressive but extreme WAs are a challenge, so it's acceptable. I don't call Sigma "bad" their primes are competitive according to test I read from time to time and it doesn't seem fair to me to compare a zoom which I got damn cheap used on ebay with good pentax primes. Even the crappy SMC-A 135 f2.8 which has the reputation of being a bit soft is obviously sharper than the Sigma, even with extension tubes.

 

Consumer zooms do their job somehow for a moderate time. When they are worn out better ones will be available. If you like quality go for primes, but zooms take better pictures than any gear that you left at home. My critique is based on pixelpeeping. I suppose even Sigmas produce acceptable 5x7" prints.

 

Recreational photography can mean anything; even carrying a 8x10" with premium lenses...

 

About foam: I filled my suitcases with foam I had cut to outer shape at some Mattress-shop and cut out the shapes of my gear with some electric kitchen knive. Maybe this way is cheaper.

"Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 Macro Super Tele-Zoom Lens"

<P>This particular model is not very good.

<BR>Or more precisely,it is sort of OK at best.I've seen many really bad reports on that model and got a bad one myself-maybe it has quality control problems?

<P>The model you SHOULD buy is the APO version of that lens-it is universally praised as a very decent telezoom lens

<BR>It and the canon 100-300 usm are the best of the consumer zooms available for canon EOS.The sigma has very good macro performance (1:2 ratio) while the canon has seriously good focus speed

<p> Optically, your best bet is 70-200/4 USM L + Canon 1.4X TC. Your second best bet is the 100-300/5.6 L. </p>

 

<p> See <a href="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox3.htm">http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox3.htm</a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300.html">http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300.html</a> , <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon/70-200">http://www.photo.net/canon/70-200</a>, <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/telefoto.htm">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/telefoto.htm</a> and <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#telephotos">http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#telephotos</a>. </p>

 

<p> If your budget is <b>very</b> tight than the <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#compatibilitythirdparty">Sigma</a> 70-300 APO <b>II</b> is optically the best of all x-300 cheap zooms. </p>

 

<p> <a href="http://www.adorama.com/SG70300SEOS.html?searchinfo=sigma%2070-300%20canon&item_no=1">http://www.adorama.com/SG70300SEOS.html?searchinfo=sigma%2070-300%20canon&item_no=1</a> </p>

 

<p> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </p>

Jonathan,

As I read the posts here I can't help thinking that there is some....ahem.....snob appeal as to one brand lens over another, namely the "big 2". I personally use Sigma lenses and can say that for what I do photographically, they are great. Especially the EX series. Just ask any advanced or pro shooter who owns some of the "L" lenses, and your answer will be greatly swayed in the direction of, "Sigma lenses suck" yada yada. Being a newb, as you say, just look into the better Sigma's, such as the EX's and you will be fine.

This is more like asking if "Yugo's" are good cars.Both Yugo's and Sigma's are poorly made crap IMHO.

 

I bought a Sigma 18mm f3.5 in Nikon AI mount in 1998.Within 8 months it clouded up inside.Two trips to SIGMA,and $120 later it now sits in my bottom file drawer(purgatory for lost camera souls).I wouldnt buy anything from them again.

 

I should point out that this lens was stored with a dozen NIKKORS,when it clouded up.The NIKKORs all still work fine.

See what I mean, Jonathan? Steve, my new Sigma 70-200 EX is far from a piece of crap. Sorry to hear about your "old" Sigma. My advice is to never buy a Sigma again, but in the meantime, don't condemn what you don't own.

Pretty much everything that Jonathan Buffaloe said was incorrect.

 

Just try buying a Sigma lens on eBay for "nothing."

One thing to keep in mind is the uncanny need for Sigma lenses to be "rechipped" in order to stay compatible with Canon bodies.

That is quite true, Daniel, for the older Sigma's. However the new EX lenses are quite compatible with EOS. I have a DRebel and the EX works fine.

While most of my lenses are Nikkors, I have had a couple of Sigma lenses that were optically fine: 70-210 f/3.5-f/4.5 APO, and the 400 f/5.6 APO. While I had heard that the 400 had tripod mount problems in that it could become disconnected at inopportune moments, it never happened to me. On the other hand, the 70-210 optics did come out of its mount when I was riding in the hills above Sedona. This required sending it back for repair to the tune of about $90. The slides and prints obtained with these lenses are quite sharp even wide open. Incidently, I project the slies onto an 84X84 matte screen with a Leica Pradolux and Colorplan lens where you can see every detail. I still use the 70-210 today, but gave the 400 to my son when I acquired my 500mm.

I have had quite a few Sigmas - I used to have 24-50 and 24-70 cheapies - both fell apart. I also had 18mm f3.5 and 75-300 UC APO - neither usable on my current camera, but both reasonable optically, but which have lasted very well.

Then I have the EX 70-200 f2.8 HSM, 12-24 and 18-50 f2.8, all of which are pretty well made and optically very satisfactory - only a snob would reject them.

At the time I bought my "crappy" 18mm Sigma,it set me back $350 at B&H.The Nikkor 18mm was almost $200 more,but the Sigma looked great,so I bought it.As I said within 6-8 months it needed to go back to Sigma twice.They charged me twice too!They claimed they fixed it too.I have Nikkor lenses that were made in the early 1960's,that I had AI'd.These still work fine after 40 years.If you think that 6 months is a reasonable life span for a professional lens,then buy a Sigma.

I once had a fortune cookie that read...

 

You may never know if the Sigma is as good as a Canon, but will you know for sure the Canon is as good as the Canon.

Just thought I'd throw my two cents in...

 

I've never totally understood the attitude summed up by Jonathan earlier on this thread with "The best way to look silly is to get a Nikon F100 and stick a third party lens (Sigma, Tamron...) on it." Just because a lens isn't made by the camera manufacturer does not mean it cannot be a good lens - and just because a lens is made by the camera manufacturer doesn't necessarely mean it is a good lens. Every line has good performers and they all have dogs.

 

I just picked up a Tamron lens, for instance - their AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di lens. I find this is an excellent lens, though my experience with it is brief, and compared to similar lenses by Nikon and Canon, it holds its own well against them and at a lower price.

 

The trick in getting a good lens isn't in buying by brand. It is in doing your research, then testing before you commit to shelling out the bucks (even if it means taking advantage of a store's return policy). BTW - check out Bob Atkin's review on this lens - it is still on the front page I believe. I don't mean ignore brand, but don't simply rule out a lens because of it. Actually see how the lens performs for you before you simply say it's bad because it isn't a "Nikon/Canon/Etc..."

I don't mean to sound biased if I do, ya know. But I really didn't know about all the different brands of lenses. I had only really seen the Canon, Sigma and a few Pentax my ex's dad had. I was looking at Tamrons online, but I saw mostly for Digital and wasn't sure if they'd work on my 35mm.

Jonathan - the comment I was referring to was actually Jonathan Buffaloe's. :-)

 

Tamron's Di lens line will work for full-frame and should be fine on your film cameras - these are lenses "featuring optical systems designed to meet the performance characteristics of digital SLR cameras" - whatever that means. :-D

 

But at least on the lens I got, it works well. I cannot speak for all of Tamron's Di lenses, of course.

 

They also have a few lenses designated Di-II - these lenses are made for the APS-sized sensor on most digital SLR's and do not work on full-frame digital or film cameras, so if that's important to you, you may want to steer clear of them.