Sigma Lenses

I am hoping to buy a few lenses for my Canon 500D. Canon has lenses with very good reviews. Sigma has a few also with good reviews for much less money.

The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD looks good for $1400 compared to the Canon for $2300.

And the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Large Aperture Medium Telephoto Prime Lens for $900 compared to the Canon 18mm F/1.2 for $2100

Does anyone have any experience with these or any other Sigma product? Are they worth investing in or should I save for the Canons.

I like to shoot street style portrait photos but also like to shoot quiet scenes like landscapes, barns, bridges, flora and fauna.

Thanks in advance

Can anyone offer some direction?

I also have been looking into alternative lenses and would be interested in this option.

Absolute Beginner said:

I am hoping to buy a few lenses for my Canon 500D. Canon has lenses with very good reviews. Sigma has a few also with good reviews for much less money.

The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD looks good for $1400 compared to the Canon for $2300.

And the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Large Aperture Medium Telephoto Prime Lens for $900 compared to the Canon 18mm F/1.2 for $2100

Does anyone have any experience with these or any other Sigma product? Are they worth investing in or should I save for the Canons.

I like to shoot street style portrait photos but also like to shoot quiet scenes like landscapes, barns, bridges, flora and fauna.

Thanks in advance

Click to expand...

Over the past 7 years, I've owned 3 Sigma Lenses: 10-20mm f/4-5.6, 120-300mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8. Of the three, I recently sold all but the last.

The two I sold were actually the sharpest in my bag, I just sold them to fund some new gear purchases. The 120-300mm in particular, was the sharpest lens I've ever owned across all apertures and focal lengths. And the 10-20mm was very sharp too.The 24-70mm is also very good, but soft wide open, and has to be stopped down to f/4 for critical sharpness.

Regarding the above, sharpness is a primary consideration for me, when buying a lens. To some people, it may not be their main consideration. And everyone has a different idea of what is sharp. So what lens you ultimately buy will depend on individual needs.

For example, I will be purchasing the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 before the end of the month. I have been pleased with Sigma lenses, but chose the Nikon over the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 because of the reviews of both of these lenses. Long story short, the Nikon wins in sharpness, so I will pay the extra $$$ to get what I want.

So my advice is to determine what is important to you in a lens, educate yourself on the lenses you are considering, then buy what fits your particular needs. I realize, that is what you are trying to accomplish by your post. But also take advantage the reviews of those who test lenses. Dpreview is a good place to start. Click on "Reviews" in the top navigation bar, and see if the lenses you are considering are there. Then use Google to find more professional reviews, i.e., not just the opinion of this photog or that photog, but reviews by those who shoot test patterns, testing sharpness, distortion, light falloff, chromatic abberation, distortion etc.

Of course, depending on your budget, this may require saving up a little longer to get what you want, but if that's what you have to do, it will be worth it in the long run. I think the worst thing you can do is to buy a lense that you ultimately will want to replace, because you settled for less.

There's nothing wrong with Sigma lenses. In the past, sample variation has been a problem, but it also has with Canon. I think Sigma's new 85 f/1.4 is looking very good. I'm not sure the 70-200 OS is. I would probably consider Canon's 70-200 f/4 USM IS instead. It might be one of the finest lenses in existance, IMO.

What bothers me is the part about what you want to shoot; country sides, barns and such. It seems to be that if you can't do this with the lens you have now, you won't be able to with a new lens. I love my Nikon 85 f/1.4 for most everything but it excels at head and shoulder portraits.

Before you run off on a lens buying spree, decide what you wish to do and how a new lens is needed because the existing lens won't do it. Soft pretty pastoral scenes are probably best shot on a tripod with a smaller aperture, something your kit lens does very well and stopped down like that will perform as good as anything you might buy.

For most of what you're talking about and if you really want a new lens, consider a prime lens in the 20 to 24mm range and stick with it for a while. Get a really sturdy tripod and get up close to that covered bridge or barn. Canon's wonderful 10-22 might also do well as would Sigma's 10-20 f/4-5.6.

--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

We've owned some of the same glass over the years and are both considering the same lens in the next month. I just thought that was interesting, not meaning to butt in.

I also really like the idea of the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8. I don't need VR and it works on my old F3hp. I'm also looking at a used 80-200 f/2.8 AFS.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

Guidenet said:

We've owned some of the same glass over the years and are both considering the same lens in the next month. I just thought that was interesting, not meaning to butt in.

I also really like the idea of the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8. I don't need VR and it works on my old F3hp. I'm also looking at a used 80-200 f/2.8 AFS.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

Click to expand...

I'm currently watching a half dozen of these on ebay, and will buy by the end of the month, to take advantage of the 10% discount ebay is offering me until then.

Used, they are going in the $800-900 range. I've never bought a used lens before, but if you are patient, you can find some very good deals--lenses that have hardly ever been out of their protective carrrying case--for a couple to several hundred $$$ under retail. And I've never had a real problem with a lens before, so warranty isn't as important to me as it once was.

Hi Craig,

From my personal experiences, I can strongly recommend the 80-200mm AFS. The focus is fast, quiet and spot on.

Others will probably dispute it, but my experiences with my particular lens is that the IQ is a little better than the renowned 70-200mm VR.

I did think of going for the 70-200mm VR (for the VR advantage), but after having tested 3 different ones against my 80-200mm AFS I found that they all produced similar, slightly less sharp and detailed shots. I should say that these differences were very small (and probably only going to become noticeable if I really needed to pick out small detail in a crop). My conclusions were that unless you REALLY need the VR, it was not worth the extra cost

This was the VRI version of the lens. I have not tested against the VRII.

Regards,

Gary

Guidenet said:

We've owned some of the same glass over the years and are both considering the same lens in the next month. I just thought that was interesting, not meaning to butt in.

I also really like the idea of the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8. I don't need VR and it works on my old F3hp. I'm also looking at a used 80-200 f/2.8 AFS.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

Click to expand...

--



http://garymurisonphotography.co.uk

Hi,

I have two Sigma lenses (100-300mm f4 and 150-500mm f5.6-6.3) and I find them both very usable. The 100-300mm f4 is quite amazing and almost competes with the 'best' of my Nikon glass, and the 150-500mm performs very well for the price and range it covers.

The one thing that I have personally found with Sigma lenses is the need to try a few copies of the same one before purchasing - as there seems to be a little more inconsistencies in quality control than some other manufacturers. This makes it a little more difficult if you are buying 'mail order'. If this is the way you purchase, I would check that there won't be problems getting the lens replaced if it doesn't perform as you would expect.

Sigma aftercare is very good (or at least in the UK, and from my experiences), which I always think is important, and they often offer very long warranties.

I have never used the lenses that you are looking at, but I would apply the same logic of trying a few before you buy to check for any IQ variations. Get a 'good one' and you can't go wrong with them, plus you have saved quite a bit of money - to put towards your next purchase

I think that sometimes you can get the 'label-junkies' who say - 'You MUST buy Canon, Nikon, etc to get the best quality lens. I haven't used Canon, but I can assure you that some Nikon lenses are a lot of third party lenses that will perform equally or better than the Nikon equivelant, so don't let that be the only factor in your decision.

Basically, if it meets your needs, then it is the right product for you

Good luck,

Gary

Absolute Beginner said:

I am hoping to buy a few lenses for my Canon 500D. Canon has lenses with very good reviews. Sigma has a few also with good reviews for much less money.

The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD looks good for $1400 compared to the Canon for $2300.

And the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Large Aperture Medium Telephoto Prime Lens for $900 compared to the Canon 18mm F/1.2 for $2100

Does anyone have any experience with these or any other Sigma product? Are they worth investing in or should I save for the Canons.

I like to shoot street style portrait photos but also like to shoot quiet scenes like landscapes, barns, bridges, flora and fauna.

Thanks in advance

Click to expand...

--



http://garymurisonphotography.co.uk

Absolute Beginner said:

I am hoping to buy a few lenses for my Canon 500D. Canon has lenses with very good reviews. Sigma has a few also with good reviews for much less money.

The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD looks good for $1400 compared to the Canon for $2300.

Click to expand...

I have and use the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO DG MACRO HSM EX. I bought it used for $600 several years ago. It's a good lens and a bargain.

Absolute Beginner said:

And the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Large Aperture Medium Telephoto Prime Lens for $900 compared to the Canon 18mm F/1.2 for $2100

Does anyone have any experience with these or any other Sigma product? Are they worth investing in or should I save for the Canons.

I like to shoot street style portrait photos but also like to shoot quiet scenes like landscapes, barns, bridges, flora and fauna.

Click to expand...

You need other lenses for these venues...try the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 for the first 3. You need a Macro lens for flora and a very long FL lens for fauna.

Absolute Beginner said:

Thanks in advance

Click to expand...

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
"The voices in my head may be crazy, but they have good ideas!"

I'd just repeat what someone else has said above. Your mileage may vary regardless of whether you choose Canon, Sigma or Tamron lenses. The lenses work with the body- so it's really up to you to try it with your camera.. Just be sure that you can either return it or swap it out for another copy.

I have two Sigma lenses so far.. A 50mm F1.4 and a 50-500mm superzoom. Haven't played with the 50mm enough to get a good feel for it. The 50-500- well, it's growing on me. for the price, Sigma has been good enough thus far. I am awaiting for their 50-150mm OS lense to come out- which I am interested in just because that is the range I see as useful.

So far, so good for the Sigmas in my collection. Knock on wood...

Just to throw in a comment; Anyone considering bidding on eBay should read Ken Rockwells guide: "How to win at eBay"

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/ebay/index.htm

And send him a contribution for all the great FREE information he provides.

JB

It seems that one of the lenses that is on my wish list was rated very good on this site. This is the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. $1400 which is $900 less than the Canon. Lets see how I do on my tax return!

Jimmytrees said:

It seems that one of the lenses that is on my wish list was rated very good on this site. This is the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. $1400 which is $900 less than the Canon. Lets see how I do on my tax return!

Click to expand...

That is the OS version of the lens. Sigma just dropped the price from $1,700 down to $1,400 last month:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1101/110131015sigma70200mmpricedrop.asp

The non-OS version is only $800. Personally, even without VR, I think that the Nikon 80-200mm is a better value. And it is $300 less than the Sigma.

The problem that I have with Sigma is in their reverse engineering of lens mounts. There are some Sigma lenses that don't work with the Sony SLT bodies. Sigma has said they will fix the problem with any current lenses but I guess if you have any discontinued Sigmas that won't work with your camera, you are just out of luck. I'm a little wary of buying Sigma lenses now for this reason. I don't want to buy one and find out after it's dicontinued that it won't work with the next camera that I buy.

I do have one Sigma, the 50/1.4 and it is an amazing lens. I wouldn't trade it but I hope that I don't have problems with it in the future with other camera bodies.

I would definitely recommend Tamron and Tokina lenses. I have two Tamron and one Tokina and they are excellent.
--
Jennifer

'Having is not so pleasing a thing as wanting, it may not be logical but it is often true.' Mr. Spock, Star Trek

Thanks all for the good info

Since there is so much photo editing in software these days, can slight flaws in lenses be taken care of in post processing? I am sure the idea is to get it right in the camera but one might save thousands of dollars on perhaps 3 lenses.

jaydensdaddy said:

Jimmytrees said:

It seems that one of the lenses that is on my wish list was rated very good on this site. This is the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. $1400 which is $900 less than the Canon. Lets see how I do on my tax return!

Click to expand...

That is the OS version of the lens. Sigma just dropped the price from $1,700 down to $1,400 last month:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1101/110131015sigma70200mmpricedrop.asp

The non-OS version is only $800. Personally, even without VR, I think that the Nikon 80-200mm is a better value. And it is $300 less than the Sigma.

Click to expand...

I assume you mean $300 less than the $1400 Sigma, not $300 less than the $800 Sigma? ;-)

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
"The voices in my head may be crazy, but they have good ideas!"

Absolute Beginner said:

Thanks all for the good info

Since there is so much photo editing in software these days, can slight flaws in lenses be taken care of in post processing? I am sure the idea is to get it right in the camera but one might save thousands of dollars on perhaps 3 lenses.

Click to expand...

There are many "defects" that can be corrected:

• Geometric Distortion
• Chromatic Aberration
• Vignetting
• Color Casts (happens automatically if you do a custom WB)

Some new cameras are doing these things, so you don't have to PP to get the benefits...manufacturers have discovered that it's cheaper to build a cheap lens and fix the problems in software.

Even for old lenses, try PTlens...it's amazing.

You can also correct perspective distortion, but that's not a lens fault.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
"The voices in my head may be crazy, but they have good ideas!"

chuxter said:

jaydensdaddy said:

Jimmytrees said:

It seems that one of the lenses that is on my wish list was rated very good on this site. This is the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. $1400 which is $900 less than the Canon. Lets see how I do on my tax return!

Click to expand...

That is the OS version of the lens. Sigma just dropped the price from $1,700 down to $1,400 last month:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1101/110131015sigma70200mmpricedrop.asp

The non-OS version is only $800. Personally, even without VR, I think that the Nikon 80-200mm is a better value. And it is $300 less than the Sigma.

Click to expand...

I assume you mean $300 less than the $1400 Sigma, not $300 less than the $800 Sigma? ;-)

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
"The voices in my head may be crazy, but they have good ideas!"

Click to expand...

Yes. Sorry, if I caused any confusion.
--

Isnt the Sigma, the 50/1.4 about as expensive as the Canon 50/1.4?