I prefer the Sigma lenses to Canon EF...am I mad?

[steven_moseley1]

Hi,

 

I am a new EOS DSLR (1.6X) user and so am trying both the Canon EF lenses and

so far, Sigma ones. I cannot justify the L prices, but so far I certainly

prefer the Sigma lenses..they seem better built and also nicer to handle, with

better 'feel' than the Canon non 'L' lenses...and so far the IQ is dandy :)

(having tried the 30/1.4 and 50-150/2.8) to go with the EF-S 10-22, which does

not inspire confidence in the build quality stakes.

 

...does this put me in a minority of one?

 

cheers Steve.M.

[bryan_lardizabal]

No....maybe ;)

[photo_dark]

I've never owned a sigma, and really haven't spent enough time with them to formulate an accurate opinion but...

 

... Canon lenses are definitely, significantly better ;)

[ken munn]

A minority of two maybe. I'm a huge fan of the Sigma 10-20, and a moderate fan of their 18-

50 f2.8.

[bueh]

Yes. SIGnificant MAlfunction.

 

But since you have only "tried" Sigma lenses instead of buying, no harm done yet.

[anov]

What other non-L lenses have you tried besides the kit lens EF-S 10-22? Have you tried the Canon primes? Have you tried the mid-grade zooms, such as 24-85/3.5-4.5 or 28-105/3.5-4.5 etc?

 

Those have reasonable quality and price.

 

I think it's great that Sigma makes quality lens, that will keep Canon honest. I for one has no complaint about Canon lens, although the new 50mm/1.4 HSM looks very tempting.

[kin_lau]

Canon doesn't make a 30/1.4 or 50-150/2.8, so it's a good market for Sigma to cover a range at a price point that Canon or other OEMs don't.

[wayne_campbell]

The Sigma 15-30mm will knock your socks off. So sharp it hurts your eyes.

[JohnMWright]

I had terrible luck with a Sigma, and I will never try again. The aperture rings were sticky with some kind of goo from the factory and it would not stop down, at least not fast enough. I sent it back for repairs twice and it was never fixed.

[patrick.mason]

Coincident to the purchase of my camera, I also ordered a Canon ER 85mm f 1.8 USM lens.

Subsequently also ordered two Sigma lenses: 24-70mm f 2.8 DG Macro and the Sigma 70-

200 mm f 2.8 Tele. The Canon lens has been a disappointment from the instant I opened

the box. As you said, the build, in my opinion, is crap, it's soft through f9...totally useless at

f2.8. The two Sigma lenses on the other hand, are beautifully designed both mechanically

and optically. No lens is perfect, but these two damn near are. I can only speak to these two

lenses, the two I received from Sigma. The 70-200mm is as good as Canon L glass...at least

the copy I got. 8-)

[bryan_lardizabal]

"The Canon lens has been a disappointment from the instant I opened the box" --- Really? Mine is wonderfully sharp

[m_barbu1]

No, you're not mad. You're cheap. ;-)

[andy_witkowski]

Dunno, the Sigma 30 1.4 is pretty sweet.

[PuppyDigs]

In the 1990s I owned 6 Sigmas and really liked them. The last one was a 1999 50 2.8 EX.

Alas, all stopped working every time I bought a new EOS, needing a new ROM installed. I

would have kept sending them in for upgrades but Sigma abandoned supporting 5 of the 6

lenses, some only a couple years old at the time. I gave up and stuck with Canon and they

always work, even my 1988 vintage models.

[anthony_zipple]

Will Sigma lenses deliver fine photos? Sure. I have owned 2 and have generally liked them, except when I had to send one back to be upgraded for compatibility with a new body. But are Sigma lenses preferable to Canon? Not very often. The ones that you mention have no Canon equivalent so it is hard to compare. But nothing in my experience makes Sigma preferable.

[jason_hall4]

>>>"Canon ER 85mm f 1.8 USM lens...the build, in my opinion, is crap, it's soft through f9."<<<

 

Are you sure you did not lose a contact that day? That is one of my favorite portrait lens and is plenty sharp at f1.8. Other than a little bit heavy on the CA but in terms of sharpness it right there with my 24-105f4 and 70-200f2.8LIS.

 

Jason

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I don't know the Sigma line very well, but as far as I know, the two lenses you cite are EX lenses, which are Sigma's top-of-the-line lenses. If you reversed the comparison, comparing Canon's L lenses to Sigma's consumer lenses, you'd probably say you were more impressed by the optics and mechanics and build quality of Canon's lenses than of Sigma's.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

You're "new"...You're very "NEW."

[KenPapai]

"The Sigma 15-30mm will knock your socks off. So sharp it hurts your eyes."

 

It is slow, and also slow focusing, otherwise a nice WA zoom. Compared to the EF 16-35, the Canon blows away the Sigma. Been there done that.

[KenPapai]

And yes, the EF 85 1.8 is a wonderful lens, sharp throughout, and built very well. I love it. And I always shoot with my contact lenses in place (as recommended). :0)

[alan_myers]

I'm afraid I'm negatively biased from some not-so-great experiences with older, manual focus Sigma. Back in the good/bad old days they seemed to make really good wide angle lenses, but their tele zooms and primes weren't all that special. I haven't sampled their lenses in so long, I really can't say what the current crop are like.

 

Then there have been those compatibility issues between older Sigma auto focus lenses and newer EOS cameras. To their credit, Sigma has often re-chipped lenses to correct this, often at no charge to the consumer.

 

But lately I've heard of three instances of brand new, fresh out of the box Sigma lenses frying the electronics of EOS cameras. Best guess is mis-wired electronics in the lenses shorting out the cameras. That's not very reassuring!

 

Still, third party manufacturers serve a real purpose, filling in gaps in the OEM lens line and helping keep prices competitive. They often come up with innovative new designs and in some cases have changed the marketplace dramatically. Sigma has been in the mix doing that for a long, long time now, and is far and away the largest of the third party makers today.

 

I was interested to hear of Sigma's new 50/1.4 HSM just announced this week, and am waiting for more details about it (street price, filter size, close focusing ability, number of aperture leaves, image quality, etc.) It would be interesting if it helped urge Canon up off their collective butts to upgrade their own 50/1.4 into the lens it could and should be!

[anthony_hicks]

My Sigma 70-200/2.8 was an absolute belter, I wish I had never sold it now! My Canon 85/1.8 is superb too.

 

There are excellent lenses and there are average lenses, Canon and Sigma make examples of both.

[freelance]

I bought the SIGMA 12-24, the first (and the last) Sigma I have, and I have to use it in MF. In AF is out of focus. Not bad lens after all, but not wider that the Canon 15mm eyefish. And of course, not so sharp.

[ant_nio_ferreira]

I own an old 70-300 apo from sigma, quite good until 220mm, then it gets just decent, and

the 15mm fisheye, which is wonderful. In the later there is a definite problem when used with

a 20d as the autofocus is not accurate, but on the Ds works fine. The old zoom will not work

with later bodies unless I use it wide open (e.g. at max aperture), but it can be upgraded.

IMO if you can pay Canon, do it (both my 28-70 and 70-200 are tack sharp) but Sigma has

some excellent lenses indeed.

[wayne_campbell]

Ken Papai - Marin County, Calif. , Mar 20, 2008; 03:35 p.m.

 

"The Sigma 15-30mm will knock your socks off. So sharp it hurts your eyes."

"It is slow, and also slow focusing, otherwise a nice WA zoom. Compared to the EF 16-35, the Canon blows away the Sigma. Been there done that."

 

But.....consider this:

 

Canon 16-35mm $1378.98

 

Sigma 15-30mm $239.95

 

That couldn't influence anyone's decision could it?