Does any one use the Sigma line of lenses

[mike_m23]

<p>Hello new to the forum and I am thinking about purchaseing the Sigma line of professional lenses. Does any one use these and how do they perform compared to Nikon brand name. I am refering to the 2.8 version of the lens i.e 24-70 2.8, 70-210 2.8 and 17-35 2.8</p>

[colin carron]

<p>I have used a couple of the Sigma EX lenses - 12-24, 24-70. I found they work pretty well on Canon gear. You can find reviews and opinions here :</p>

<p> <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/">http://www.fredmiranda.com/</a></p>

<p>and here :</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/">http://www.photozone.de/</a></p>

<p>Generally, although they work well I have found in practice that I tend to end up replacing them with their Canon equivalents when the opportunity permits. This is for a variety of reasons - for example the 24-70 2.8 has a strange filter size and the AF makes a lot of noise - not crucial but enough to make me keep looking for a replacement.</p>

[mark_loader]

<p>Sigma has a new 24-70 f2.8 with HSM and it's getting great reviews. It's much more expensive than the non-HSM version but still cheaper than the Nikon equivalent.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>I have the Sigma EX 20mm f/1.8, EX 24-70 f/2.8 (origianl one), EX 70-200 f/2.8. I would suggest only buying the EX line, that's when Sigma go serious in my opinion. The 20mm is excellent, plus it's the only really fast lens in the 20mm variety for Canon. The 70-200 f/2.8 in my opinion is as good as it's Canon counter part, and a heck of a lot cheaper. The 24-70 f/2.8 is horrible in low light....the reason I bought it. It focus hunts like crazy. Takes longer than P&S to find focus in low light. During the day it is great though. I eventually bought the Canon 24-70 f/2.8....much better. i still own both the other Sigma's and have no cause to replace them. They work extremely well.</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>Older, but I have the 70-210mm f/2.8 in manual focus for Olympus OM. It works wonderfully. Quite sharp even wide open. I'm having some issues with an older Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 (also for Olympus OM), but mine is almost certainly a bad apple as it has focusing travel issues (not reaching infinity at some focal lengths and going well beyond at others). I have to play with it some more to try to get it working right (since Sigma won't touch anything that old with a 10ft pole sadly...it was made around 1992). I also have an older 28mm f/1.8 that works fabulously (pre-DX). Its good wide open and very sharp stopped down a stop or two. Same goes with a Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro.<br>

Of course, none of these are any newer then mid 90's lenses, but they (almost) all work great.<br>

The biggest complaint I hear is that Sigma seems to, at least now a days, have bad quality control. When you get a good lens it is really quite good, but that too high a number of bad ones slip through QA (1 in 10? 1 in 50? 1 in 4? no idea, you always hear more about the bad apples then the good ones).</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Can't comment on their 24-70/2.8. I make regular use of their 10-20 HSM ultrawide, and their 30/1.4 HSM prime. They're both excellent lenses. Rugged, fast and quiet to focus, solid and smooth to handle, and I have never had a single focus issue of any kind.<br /><br />Yes, I also love my Nikon-made lenses! But it's just a matter of right tool for the job and the budget. I wouldn't hesitate to buy certain of Sigma's EX line, if the budget is keeping you from touching Nikon's 70-200 or 24-70 2.8's.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I have the Sigma 10-20 EX HSM and 50-150 f/2.8 EX II HSM. Both are excellent lenses. They are very sharp with good contrast. The HSM motors focus very fast, and the build quality is very good.</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>I had a couple of Sigma APO lenses which were excellent optically, but suffered from mechanical problems. One actually came apart while I was holding it tightly on a "Pink Jeep" trip into the hills above Sedona. </p>

[mike_sinquefield]

<p>I have the first version of the 24-70 and 70-200, both f2.8 (for Canon). I agree with Thomas, the 24-70 is really good in good light. It is slow to focus in dimmer light (also why I bought it). THe 70-200 couldn't be better! I don't find IS (OS in the case of Sigma) really necessary for 99% of my shooting, so it wasn't worth the investment for me. I do carry a monopod for it though. I also use it with the Sigma 2X converter, and have had some pretty decent results in decent light. If I could, I would replace the 24-70 with the version II or the Canon, but the Version I was MUCH cheaper!</p>

[HuskyMason1]

<p>Mostly Nikkors but I have the Sigma 70mm Macro, the 8mm fisheye, and the 50-150HSM great for weddings...lightwieght and 2.8</p>

[mike_m23]

<p>Does anyone have experience with their flashes as well...</p>

[John Sully]

<p>I have both a Sigma 15 f/2.8 EX HSM and a Sigma APO 400 f/5.6 EX HSM. Both were very good to excellent in optical quality and the build quality was excellent. The HSM motor focuses very quickly and quietly, though not quite as fast as the Canon Ring USM motor. At 1/2 the price of the equivalent Canon lenses I feel that these represent a very good value for the money. Personally I would stay away from the non-EX lenses, both the build and optical quality of these lenses is not really up to snuff.</p>