Matt Golowczynski
Ex Writer
Reged: 07/08/2007
Posts: 197
Loc: Harrow
|
|
Hi all,
In a continuation of our DSLR systems feature, we are looking for some comments on users' experience of Sigma lenses. Do you have any personal favourites? Or any gripes? What are their best and worst aspects? Why did you choose Sigma over the manufacturer's equivalent, if there was one? Selected comments will be published in the February issue of What Digital Camera and the lucky entrants will not only recieve a complimentary copy of What Digital Camera but also a free hotshoe spirit level, worth £10. So get posting! Closing date will be in the first week of January; come on people, we need you! Post, post, post!
Matt
|
huwevans
The 'Not Really Here' Dude
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 17157
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Optically speaking, I think Sigma make some excellent lenses. I have a 15-30mm EX and a 70-200mm EX in Nikon fit. I might well have gone for the Nikon equivalents, but frankly I didn't have the money for them at the time.
I've found the 70-200 particularly good, and it scores over Nikon's current offering by being significantly more compact. The 15-30mm is very sharp, but it does suffer from severe ghosting if you get any strong highlights in the frame.
My one general criticism is that I'm not totally convinced that Sigma's quality control is up to scratch. I had to return the first sample of the 70-200mm because the aperture mechanism was inaccurately calibrated, and whilst the replacement is adequate enough, it still shows some deviation from the intended setting. The 15-30 is better, but still not perfect. I've not seen discrepancies like that in new lenses from any other manufacturer.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
     
|
BigWill
Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff
Reged: 08/09/2000
Posts: 36387
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Do I rate Sigma lenses? Well, yes and no I suppose is the short answer to that. My only experience with a Sigma lens relates to an 18/50 f3.5/f5.6 "kit" lens which I bought for my then newly acquired Canon 10D digital SLR body. Why did I pick the Sigma instead of the Canon optic? Well the answer was quite simple and I suspect may be a major influencing factor in many photographers decision to go the Sigma route..................PRICE. There simply was no equivalent Canon optic in that focal range at the Sigma price point. Yes, Canon did have a similar "kit" optic but it was only available in EF/S fitting and thus not suitable for my EF only fitting 10D body.
Perhaps I should elaborate on the term "kit" lens for those not familiar with the term but basically this is a lens built down to a price and often bundled as a "kit" along with a new camera body to provide the new DSLR owner with a "starter" lens. Why a "starter" lens? Well I suspect that a DSLR purchase is often a major drain on a camera purchasers financial resources and so the "starter" or "kit" lens is there as a "fill in" until a "better quality" optic can be purchased at a later date.
However, I digress slightly, back to the Sigma lens. How do I rate it? Well optically it was pretty abysmal at the extremes of aperture but started to "come good" when stopped down a couple of stops. To be honest, I reckon you could say that about almost any "kit" lens and I don't think the Sigma was any better or worse in that respect. Build quality I rated as pretty good actually with a nice finish and a "solid" feel to the lens. The AF was accurate and fast but noisy in comparison to a Canon USM lens but about the same as a Canon MM (Non-USM)lens.
Would I buy another Sigma lens? Well again I find myself answering yes and no. Yes, if money was tight and I couldn't afford the Canon equivalent and no if I could afford the Canon version. So why then given no financial constraints would I still go for the Canon? Well here we come to an important second factor in choosing the brand lens over the Sigma. It is my firm belief that the Canon optics are just that bit better in optical performance, construction and compatibility, particularly their professional "L" range of optics which are designed for and used by professional photographers. If a lens can stand up to the rigorous demands that a professional can put on an optic then it inspires confidence that it is a tested and proven choice for the keen amateur as well. This is the ace that Canon and Nikon have up their sleeves in that their own make lenses are used widely by professionals and it's one of the important factors that makes me believe that it is worth saving that bit longer and bearing the inevitably extra expense of the makers lens as opposed to the Sigma.
So in summary I'd say, close Sigma, but no cigar.........................when professional photographers start to use your lenses extensively instead of the Canon versions then maybe I'll reconsider my position, but until that day comes I'll remain a Canon man through and through......................funds permitting of course! 
BigWill
--------------------
I'm sailing like a driftwood on a windy bay.
Edited by BigWill (19/12/2007 10:34)
|
Straightarm
Reged: 02/05/2001
Posts: 1158
Loc: Exiled in the Beautiful South
|
|
Very happy with Sigma. I previously had a 135-400 which was very good value. Sigma's customer service was exceptional; the lens was in Canon EF fit and needed rechipping to work with an EOS3. Sigma wanted only a £5 contribution towards this.
I currently have a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 lens, which is very useful for sports photography. I chose it as there is no direct Canon equivalent. Optically, this lens is superb, although it is big and heavy. I would definitely recommend it.
--------------------
Simon
|
spinno
Curmudgeonly Fellow
Reged: 07/02/2007
Posts: 4710
Loc: Meat and Fish
|
|
I have 2 Sigma lenses for my K10D at opposite ends of the zoom range.
I have a 12-24 and also a 170-500.They are designed not only for APS C sensors but can also be used on full frame Film SLRs such as my *ist, which was the main reason for me buying them (plus I had a little bit of cash at the time..)
The 12-24 is a lovely lens - now I've learned to use it- I don't stop it down all the way as it makes the images slightly soft about F16 is ok for most things. It's fairly robust and not too heavy.
The 170-500 I've used mainly for sport/wildlife and I love it. The results even at F6.3 are pretty good. I find the build ok and I'm happy with it.
Would I buy Sigma again - yes because they provide excellent value for money.
--------------------
David
-----------------------------------------------
I may not have been the best manager in football but I was in the top one -Brian Clough OBE..old big 'ead
|
Gordon_McGeachie
Joke Historian
Reged: 19/01/2007
Posts: 4854
Loc: East Yorkshire,
|
|
This has already been asked in the WDC announcements thread
--------------------
She (Avro Vulcan XH558) Took To The Sky Like A Lovesick Angel.
|
Matt Golowczynski
Ex Writer
Reged: 07/08/2007
Posts: 197
Loc: Harrow
|
|
yeeessss......
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 10750
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
I think I'd have to say yes, I rate Sigma lenses though with some reservations...
Currently I own 5 Sigmas: A 24mm f2.8 SuperWide II in Nikon AIs manual, the same 24mm in Canon EF AF, a 90mm f2.8 Macro, the 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 zoom and the 10-20mm f4-5.6 zoom. I also used to have the 18-50 f3.5-5.6 'kit' lens...
The two 24mm lenses are very good to excellent in terms of image quality and seem to be on a par with my Nikon and Canon 28mm primes. The Canon fit lens is a bit old and the AF is slow, graunchy and noisy - I suspect a previous user has slightly damaged the AF mechanism. Nonetheless it's acceptably responsive over normal operating distances and seems accurate.
The 90mm is also beautifully sharp, so much so that even used with a 2x converter the images are still crisp. On the downside it's another old lens so AF is not the worlds fastest or quietest.
The 18-50mm 'kit' lens was actually a pretty adequate performer when stopped down - not tack sharp but certainly nothing to be ashamed of. In some respects I regret getting rid of it, especially in terms of overall size...
My 17-70mm replaced the 18-50mm - what a revelation! Until I bought this lens I'd never have believed a zoom could be so good. I find the image quality to be very high throughout the whole zoom range, particularly so at the long end, plus the 28-100mm equivalence makes it a very usable all-round lens (I always found the 18-50 lacking in reach). The macro facility is very handy - though one needs to be mighty close to the subject for maximum reproduction ratio. This is a lens that punches well above it's price and I have been more than happy to extol it's virtues here and elsewhere.
The Sigma 10-20mm is the only one about which I have issues. My first example had a bad case of decentering - the left side if the images blurred very badly toward the edges - and Sigma were a little slow sorting it out, though to be fair to them when I pointed out the length of time it was taking to fix it I was very promptly supplied with another. In terms of image quality I'm not sure it's quite up to the standard of the other Sigmas I have but having made some brief comparisons with the equivalent Canon I think this may have more to do with the type of lens it is rather than it's assembly or design - the Canon looks marginally sharper but the Sigma exhibits less fringing, particularly at the corners.
Would I buy another Sigma? The answer is yes - if it offers something I want that isn't available, or at least not available at the right price, on an OEM lens. A particular reason I bought the 17-70mm & 10-20mm lenses in preference to the Canon equivalents (17-85 & 10-22) is that the Canons, being EF-s lenses, cannot be used with my old D30 (which, despite being slow and limited in pixels, I still use frequently) with the added bonus that they were a bit cheaper into the bargain. The decentering problem with the wide zoom, coupled with occasional similar issues comment on by other forum members, does make me suspect that Sigma QA isn't all it could be. But then in the field of quality control, as with everything else, you will only get what you pay for...
One issue that I will consider against future purchases is the compatibility question. To the best of my knowledge the 17-70 and 10-20 should be OK with the 40D - which will probably be next upgrade - but I do have compatibility issues with the older 24 and 90 lenses, neither of which will function with my 20D though they are fine on the D30 and my film EOS bodies...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
Terrorist?............or potential photographer?....... 
There are no people more opressed than those who willingly opress themselves
|
Gordon_McGeachie
Joke Historian
Reged: 19/01/2007
Posts: 4854
Loc: East Yorkshire,
|
|
Quote:
yeeessss......
I was under the impression that having a duplicated post was not permitted.
Obviously I was wrong.... 
--------------------
She (Avro Vulcan XH558) Took To The Sky Like A Lovesick Angel.
|
BigWill
Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff
Reged: 08/09/2000
Posts: 36387
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
yeeessss......
I was under the impression that having a duplicated post was not permitted.
Obviously I was wrong....
................no you wasn't....................just wait till Myk spots it........................why he'll kick Matt's lilly ass!
BigWill
--------------------
I'm sailing like a driftwood on a windy bay.
Edited by BigWill (20/12/2007 01:17)
|
Matt Golowczynski
Ex Writer
Reged: 07/08/2007
Posts: 197
Loc: Harrow
|
|
but people, tis for the good of the magazine! for the enjoyment of many, for our photographic passions to be enriched and to flourish and bear fruit (or something), for your subscription costs to be met with greater value! surely we may turn a blind eye such a trivial technicality at this festive time, no?
|
mike_j
nobbut a beginner
Reged: 23/08/2005
Posts: 1520
|
|
Sigma - some good experiences, some less so. I won't bother going through them all, I doubt if I can remember them now anyway. The two worst experiences were a 70-210 zoom which came with a Minolta 7000i kit (it was as rattly as a tin of nails and eventually came apart in my hands) and a 75-300mm tele which was never sharp and couldn't work with, or be rechipped for, my Konica Minolta 5D. On the other had I loved the 24mm f2.8 and the 105mm Macro is an excellent lens. It was probably the sharpest lens I owned for my KM system.
Generally they have been well enough constructed and performed well enough in their respective price bands. I never really liked the 'Zen' finish on some of the more expensive lenses though.
|
BigWill
Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff
Reged: 08/09/2000
Posts: 36387
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Quote:
but people, tis for the good of the magazine! for the enjoyment of many, for our photographic passions to be enriched and to flourish and bear fruit (or something), for your subscription costs to be met with greater value! surely we may turn a blind eye such a trivial technicality at this festive time, no?
Festive smestive, Myk's so mean he told his kids Santa had been killed in a sleigh crash just to avoid buying them presents!
BigWill
--------------------
I'm sailing like a driftwood on a windy bay.
|
huwevans
The 'Not Really Here' Dude
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 17157
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
but people, tis for the good of the magazine! for the enjoyment of many, for our photographic passions to be enriched and to flourish and bear fruit (or something), for your subscription costs to be met with greater value! surely we may turn a blind eye such a trivial technicality at this festive time, no?
Sounds good to me. :-)
We do generally try to stop people posting questions on multiple boards, but that's basically because some people sign up here and then proceed to ask the same thing in half a dozen different places, which fills up the forums without actually being terribly helpful to anyone. But when it's the magazine staff looking for members' input or feedback I'd say that's rather different.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
BigWill
Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff
Reged: 08/09/2000
Posts: 36387
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
but people, tis for the good of the magazine! for the enjoyment of many, for our photographic passions to be enriched and to flourish and bear fruit (or something), for your subscription costs to be met with greater value! surely we may turn a blind eye such a trivial technicality at this festive time, no?
Sounds good to me. :-)
We do generally try to stop people posting questions on multiple boards, but that's basically because some people sign up here and then proceed to ask the same thing in half a dozen different places, which fills up the forums without actually being terribly helpful to anyone. But when it's the magazine staff looking for members' input or feedback I'd say that's rather different.
Ok then, I'll I tell Myk to cancel the contract he put out on him!
Big(He sleeps with the fishes! )Will
--------------------
I'm sailing like a driftwood on a windy bay.
|
Gordon_McGeachie
Joke Historian
Reged: 19/01/2007
Posts: 4854
Loc: East Yorkshire,
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
but people, tis for the good of the magazine! for the enjoyment of many, for our photographic passions to be enriched and to flourish and bear fruit (or something), for your subscription costs to be met with greater value! surely we may turn a blind eye such a trivial technicality at this festive time, no?
Festive smestive, Myk's so mean he told his kids Santa had been killed in a sleigh crash just to avoid buying them presents!
BigWill
NO?
I got told something similar about 40 years ago.
--------------------
She (Avro Vulcan XH558) Took To The Sky Like A Lovesick Angel.
|
Gordon_McGeachie
Joke Historian
Reged: 19/01/2007
Posts: 4854
Loc: East Yorkshire,
|
|
Quote:
Sigma - some good experiences, some less so. I won't bother going through them all, I doubt if I can remember them now anyway. The two worst experiences were a 70-210 zoom which came with a Minolta 7000i kit (it was as rattly as a tin of nails and eventually came apart in my hands) and a 75-300mm tele which was never sharp and couldn't work with, or be rechipped for, my Konica Minolta 5D. On the other had I loved the 24mm f2.8 and the 105mm Macro is an excellent lens. It was probably the sharpest lens I owned for my KM system.
Generally they have been well enough constructed and performed well enough in their respective price bands. I never really liked the 'Zen' finish on some of the more expensive lenses though.
I had the 75-300 APO which was used on my 7000i,7xi and worked perfectly.
It did not have to be rechipped to work on my 7d either.
--------------------
She (Avro Vulcan XH558) Took To The Sky Like A Lovesick Angel.
|
Benchista
Which Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 42222
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Sigma - some good experiences, some less so. I won't bother going through them all, I doubt if I can remember them now anyway. The two worst experiences were a 70-210 zoom which came with a Minolta 7000i kit (it was as rattly as a tin of nails and eventually came apart in my hands) and a 75-300mm tele which was never sharp and couldn't work with, or be rechipped for, my Konica Minolta 5D. On the other had I loved the 24mm f2.8 and the 105mm Macro is an excellent lens. It was probably the sharpest lens I owned for my KM system.
Generally they have been well enough constructed and performed well enough in their respective price bands. I never really liked the 'Zen' finish on some of the more expensive lenses though.
I had the 75-300 APO which was used on my 7000i,7xi and worked perfectly.
It did not have to be rechipped to work on my 7d either.
Mine won't work on any of my modern EOSs, though, and can't be rechipped. Shame, as it was a fairly decent lens. I sold my 18mm, which fell into the same category - even more of a shame, I loved that lens.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
nspur
addict
Reged: 20/07/2005
Posts: 534
Loc: Derbyshire
|
|
Since a few years now, Sigma's EX lenses have mostly been equal to, and sometimes better than, those of the camera manufacturers. I can only speak for Canon lenses versus Sigma ones and after trying the Canon equivalents (where there was one) I ended up with a complete Sigma line-up of zooms 12-24, 20-40, 24-70 and 70-200. I have to say that the Sigma 24-70 is not as good as the equivalent Canon L but I like it nonetheless.
But I've never been bowled over by Sigma's prime lenses and don't own one.
--------------------
Nick
|
jeffA
member
Reged: 30/01/2007
Posts: 155
Loc: Sheffield
|
|
I have a full range of Sigma EX lenses mainly zooms covering 10mm 400 mm plus 1.4 & 2x converters plus a 70mm macro. Recently I sold my Canon 17/85 IS and replaced it with a Sigma 24/60 f2.8. I am more than happy with all of them on the grounds of quality and cost, they all work great with my 30d and 300d, incidently I also have a Sigma ring flash which has also caused me no problems at all.
Big thumbs up from me.
Jeff
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
