Sigma lenses, are they worth it.

<p>Can anyone please give me any opinions on shooting with Sigma Lenses. Are they worth their price? I shoot with a Canon 400D, mostly people and some portraits. I am not a professional photographer, but would still like good quality photos when I take them/order them. I just cannot afford Canon with their prices. But I don't want to sacrafice good quality images that I get from my 50mm 1.8 So I was wondering if anyone shoots with a Sigma, and if so, how is the quality of the images, vs. a Canon lens. I just want a good prime lens for now, and would like to also step up to a good wide angle/zoom if I can afford it because I do shoot outdoors sometimes.<br>

I just don't know anyone who personally uses Sigma lenses, but I just can't afford Canons high priced lenses. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks all.....</p>

<p>Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina all make some excellent lenses. What specifically are you interested in?</p>

<p>Sigma makes some really nice lenses. They are getting as expensive as Nikkor counterparts, and good quality Nikon lenses are consistently similar in appearance, across the line. With digital, you have the option of modifying shots to make them sharper, more contrasty, or adjust saturation.</p>

<p>Both Sigma and Canon make inexpensive consumer lenses, and both make some very nice pro lenses. It's rather hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison of exact lenses because they're all over the map in terms of the features and budget each manufacturer has in mind for a given market segment. <br /><br />There are Canon and Nikon lenses I'd absolutely prefer over their Sigma counterparts, and there are some Sigma lenses I'd take (regardless of price) over their C & N counterparts. So to really answer your question, it would help to know what sort of shooting you're talking about, and what sort of budget.</p>

<p>Matt +1<br>

The OEM manufacturers are pretty consistently good to excellent, but the third-party makers like Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron are merely good to excellent. ;)</p>

<p>I would guess it would depend on which lens you are interested in...The Tamron 17-50 and the Sigma 150 Macro seem to have good reps. I'm sure there are others that are good and still others that are not. The point is you probably need to do a lens by lens comparison.</p>

<p>I've only got the Sigma 50/1.4. Some people have reported focus problems with that lens, but I haven't experienced any.<br>

The lens is very well made and sits well on my 5D, producing some excellent results. Although it costs more than the Canon 50/1.4, I would say it is worth the money I paid for it. I have no experience of any other Sigma lens and my only experience with Tamron was a manual focus 28 mm lens I bough in 1980.</p>

<p>Sigma has a well-deserved reputation for making superb macro primes, the 70/2.8, 105/2.8, and 150/2.8, for example. I have the 70/2.8, and don't believe I've ever used a sharper lens.</p>

<p>I don't have any experience using Sigma lens for portraiture, but I have used many of the EF L and non-L primes. Based on the reviews I've read, it seems that the Sigmas aren't as good as the Canons for this application.</p>

<p>In any case, several of the non-L primes, such as the 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 100/2, deliver outstanding image quality for relatively little money.</p>

<p>You ask 'are they worth their price' to which the answer is undoubtedly yes in most cases, but 'are they as good as their Canon/Nikon counterparts' is a whole different question to which the answer is possibly no if their counterparts are significantly more expensive and hence better made.<br>

You've really got to look at this on a lens-by-lens basis not just one manufacturer versus another.<br>

I happen to have the Sigma 105 macro lens (on a Nikon) and it's pretty much my favourite lens - I cannot fault it. On the other hand I tried a Sigma tele lens and found it nowhere near as good as a Tamron at similar price.</p>

 

<p>My experience with Sigma leses has not been a good one, years i go i had several Sigma lenses of varying Focal lengths, never goot good optical results, they may have improved nowdays, however once bitten twice shy.</p>

<p>The fixed focal lengths are usually good such as the macros and 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.4. But many of the zooms can be decentered. So if you do decide to buy one check it out for decentering as soon as you buy it and return it if it is decentered.</p>

The Sigma 17-70 f2.8/4.5 D DC Macro is an excellent lens, very sharp. I have taken several shots with this lens that did not need even a hint of post processing. Reasonably priced too.

<p>I have several Sigma lenses and I don't buy them because they are less expensive; I buy them because they offer more flexibility than lenses from Canon or Nikon. Only Sigma has a DX 8-16 rectilinear wide angle zoom, or DX 50-150 F2.8, or 120-300 F2.8, or 300-800 F5.6. All are excellent quality lenses that the other lens makers can't match. For something more normal for DX bodies, check out the new 17-70 F4 OS. </p>

<p>I have had mixed results. I have the 800 5.6 and the 150-500 OS and I like them. I had some issues with the 50-500 and when I sent my first 800 5.6 nonDG back for repair (AF stopped working) they said that it couldn't be repaired (kind of crazy for a $8000 lens.) I also have the 10-20 (older version) and prefer the tokina 11-16. The 120-300 OS2.8 is very alluring. I agree with the others that the primes are very good. Customer service isn't good in my experience.</p>

<p>I have one Sigma lens, the 10-20mm f 4.0 - 5.6, use it mostly for shooting the night sky. Bought it back in May and have been very pleased with it.</p>

<p>I have one Sigma lens. It is a 14mm f2.8 Aspherical super-wide angle lens, the one with the curved front glass. No lens cap was made for it, I use a ziploc bag. Is great from f5.6 and up, pretty poor below that. I thought it was a good deal for the $245 I paid for it on the auction site.</p>

<p>I have the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro and 85mm f/1.4. They are really sharp and work flawlessly on my Nikon D700. I am happy that I did not spend a lot of money on their Nikon counter parts.</p>