"high level" lenses: Canon vs Sigma

Adam-T · Mar 1, 2003

Stefan Schott said:
The Sigma 4.0/100-300 is the best lens presently available in

that range @ f=4

Since the only competition is an ancient L dating back to the 1980s and the soft old 100-300USM , it hasn't much competition really has it ;-)

Stefan Schott said:
The Sigma 2.8/70-200 EX is at least as good as anything Canon can

muster. It is noticably better in contrast than the "IS" version of
Canon's 2.8/70-200 L.

Exqueeze me ? - Baking Powder - did I hear you say "Better contrast than the 70-200 IS - Yeah ---------------------------------> NOT !!

For some reason, my old ancient gas powered 80-200L seemed to have better contrast than the 70-200 IS but I've yet to see anything from the Sigma which beats it, in fact match it even..

--
Please ignore the Typos, i'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

Samir Kharusi · Mar 1, 2003

Mike said:
I have already a 28-135IS which is definitively a nice
point-and-shoot and just-walk-around lens, but actually I'm at the
point to upgrade to something better ...

You are already dissatisfied with a zoom that seems to keep many people happy. IMHO just go ALL the way to primes, and keep the 28-135IS when you feel like zooming. Any Canon prime is sharper and has less distortion than any Canon zoom. If you stick to a factor 2x between focal lengths you'll also save a lot of Swiss Francs. Possible lenses to supplement, not replace, the 28-135IS:
50/1.8 for $70 (great for portraits, panoramas, etc)
See:
http://www.geocities.com/samirkharusi/mighty_50.html
100/2.8 macro USM ($470) for face shots and macro

another prime or two wider or longer, and still keep within the price of that 24-70/2.8L, the only zoom likely to make you feel that you have not wasted money upgrading from the 28-135IS...
Have fun.

Paul Pope · Mar 1, 2003

Don't feel sorry for me buddy ..... spend your sympathy on yourself ...after all your the one with the cheap nasty glass ..not me.

Hey why don't you switch to a Sigma DSLR? That way you can have a cheap and nasty camera to match your glass?

Stefan Schott said:
Paul Pope said:

No mate ... Over 100 international magazine covers as a
professional photographer tell me my eyes are just fine thanks ....
Not one of the lenses you mentioned can even be mentioned in the
same breath as its Canon L equivilent.
Its not a big deal .... don't feel bad because you own Sigma ...
your not alone in owning cheap nasty glass ... Nikon can't make a
lens to save themselves eirther.

Click to expand...

Mr. Pope,
I feel nothing but pity for you. You have my deepest sympathy for
your condition.

Regards
Stefan

michael martin morgan · Mar 1, 2003

Mike said:
but but that could be a B-I-G problem with my wife because of their
prices in Switzerland!

Mike said:
Tips and Hints welcome!
Mike

Problem solved. Take her on holiday to either Las Palmas or Tenerife in the Canary Islands and then leave her on the beach for a day while you visit a shop called MAYA which has branches in both islands. Camera gear is cheaper in Spain than most EU countries and the Canaries have even lower tax.

Have fun,

m.

Mike · Mar 1, 2003

Samir Kharusi said:
Mike said:

I have already a 28-135IS which is definitively a nice
point-and-shoot and just-walk-around lens, but actually I'm at the
point to upgrade to something better ...

Click to expand...

You are already dissatisfied with a zoom that seems to keep many
people happy. IMHO just go ALL the way to primes, and keep the
28-135IS when you feel like zooming. Any Canon prime is sharper and
has less distortion than any Canon zoom. If you stick to a factor
2x between focal lengths you'll also save a lot of Swiss Francs.
Possible lenses to supplement, not replace, the 28-135IS:
50/1.8 for $70 (great for portraits, panoramas, etc)
See:
http://www.geocities.com/samirkharusi/mighty_50.html

I've already a 50mm/1.4 USM - one of the greatest lenses I ever tried!

Samir Kharusi said:
100/2.8 macro USM ($470) for face shots and macro
another prime or two wider or longer, and still keep within the
price of that 24-70/2.8L, the only zoom likely to make you feel
that you have not wasted money upgrading from the 28-135IS...

I need 200mm at 2.8 f-stop, so the prime lens 200mm/2.7 probably could be solution ...

Samir Kharusi said:
Have fun

I will do so! Same to you

Mike · Mar 1, 2003

michael martin morgan said:
Mike said:

but but that could be a B-I-G problem with my wife because of their
prices in Switzerland!

Click to expand...

michael martin morgan said:

Tips and Hints welcome!
Mike

Click to expand...

Problem solved. Take her on holiday to either Las Palmas or
Tenerife in the Canary Islands and then leave her on the beach for
a day while you visit a shop called MAYA which has branches in both
islands. Camera gear is cheaper in Spain than most EU countries and
the Canaries have even lower tax.

THAT's THE SOLUTION!!! I love the Canaries (don't know MAYA, but the isles). But - can I leave my honey alone at the beach ... ;-)

michael martin morgan said:
Have fun,

m.

Greg M · Mar 1, 2003

They are expensive. B&H used is better. For that matter, at least here in the US, the price of used stuff is almost as high as the best new prices. I just can't see buying something used unless it's at least 20% - 25% lower then the best new price. Why pay a premium for someone's used item?

michael martin morgan · Mar 1, 2003

Mike said:
THAT's THE SOLUTION!!! I love the Canaries (don't know MAYA, but
the isles). But - can I leave my honey alone at the beach ... ;-)

OK so take her along with you, buy her an IXUS and get her hooked too. If you know the Canaries, stay in the north of Tenerife for the holiday and take a day trip to Las Palmas as the big MAYA shop is there. Just ask for the end of Triana, under ten minutes by taxi from where the ferry coach service drops you off.

A free tan with every EOS, not bad eh?

m.

Adam-T · Mar 1, 2003

THAT is where the UK differs, we get ripped off on new prices but used is better

. example on MINTERS, NOT tatty ones

28-135IS - New £330 - Used £250
28-105 - New £240 - Used £160 (or £125 from me ;-)
24-85 - New £340 - Used £199
70-200L F4 - New £599 - used £450 (LCE)

There ARE some expensive ones, such as the 28-70L is currently the same used as I paid on blowout, the 20-35L goes for only £100 less than a used 17-35L ----- and some real bargains 80-200L - £450 mint, £350-£400 for a really tatty to well used one and the 28-80L £400 to £450 .

100 Macros go for close to new price but they tend to get babied and all the ones i've seen have been boxed as new, even ancient non-USM ones in the silver an blue box !!

--
Please ignore the Typos, i'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

Stefan Schott · Mar 1, 2003

Paul Pope said:
Hey why don't you switch to a Sigma DSLR? That way you can have a
cheap and nasty camera to match your glass?

The only thing cheap and nasty is the hot air you are venting in this forum all day long.

Nothing you ever wrote has any merit or demand any respect.

Regards
Stefan

Mats-Ake Larsson · Mar 1, 2003

Paul Pope said:
Wrong Sigma make total $hit !
Bull$hit
Total complete Bull$hit
Absolute total complete Bull$hit

Truly sad. But then again, I didn't expect more from you.
Somewhat surprised to see that you didn't use the word "rubbish"...

Mike, take a look at http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html - it won't show great pictures, but you will get some numbers to go on.

Canon has a nice site @ http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/ and a nice glossary @
http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lens101/glossary/index_a.html
(i.e. if you need help with reading those MTF charts)

:. Mats-Åke Larsson

Stefan Schott · Mar 1, 2003

Mats-Ake Larsson said:
Mike, take a look at http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html - it
won't show great pictures, but you will get some numbers to go on.

Another interesting comparsion can be found here http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm
and a few more lenses here: http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/index.htm

Greetings
Stefan

jim clarke · Mar 1, 2003

IMHO go wth the canon 70-200 Mine may be on of the sharpest lenses I shoot. It takes the tele converters the old style 80-200 Does Not take the converters. I had a Sigma 300 F.28. it can not compare to the Canon 300 F2.8. The Canon L glass is usually very very good.

Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:

28-70:
--------
Canon 28-70 2.8 L USM
CHF 2360.- / USD 1686.-

Sigma 28-70 2.8 EX ASP DF
CHF 865.- / USD 618.-

Click to expand...

There is a definate improvement with the canon especially in
Colour, contrast, CA, flare and wide open sharpness especially
after 50-60mm, whether it's worth the extra over the bargain Sigma
is up to you - your price for the Canon is way out, it's been
discontinued and was blown out for about $1000US (£799 UK) . a used
one is probably all you'll find now, great lens..

Adam-T said:

24-70:
--------
Canon 24-70 2.8 L USM
CHF 2550.- / USD 1821.-

Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG ASP DF
CHF 940.- / USD 671.-

Click to expand...

The Canon is basically the same pack drill as the 28-70L with an
extra 4mm on the bottom and some rudimentary weather sealing ---
Ever wondered WHY Sigma keep both the 28-70EX and 24-70EX in their
range when they covered the same focal lengths BUT with the 24
being wider?? AND the same price (UK at least)? -- it's because the
28-70EX is optically the better lens, especially wide open. I've
tested this using two good copies of each and we kept the 28-70EX
(for my Girlfriends D60) ..

I have a 28-70L myself because I have a 16-35L and the saving of
getting the 28-70L over the 24-70L paid for half of the 16-35 !!!.

Adam-T said:

70-200:
----------

Click to expand...

There is a LOT of controversy about this Range - IF you need F2.8
then try and go for the Canon IS if you're going to handhold the
lens - otherwise secondly try and find a used 80-200L F2.8 , it
SHOULD cost less than a new Canon F4 or Sigma (they do in the UK
anyway) - next up go for the Sigma and lastly the non-IS 70-200
F2.8 canon in my book due to the price difference..

BUT most people here would rather go for the Canon F4L because it's
not a hell of a lot heavier than the 28-135IS (about 200g more),
in other words a HELL of a lot lighter than any of the f2.8 lenses

and is only a stop slower - not one for me (I need F2.8) but for

most it's the way to go..

--
Please ignore the Typos, i'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

barry levine · Mar 1, 2003

Mike said:
I have already a 28-135IS which is definitively a nice
point-and-shoot and just-walk-around lens, but actually I'm at the
point to upgrade to something better ...

I'm considering the L lenses 28-70 (or 27-70) and 70-200 from Canon
but but that could be a B-I-G problem with my wife because of their
prices in Switzerland!
Therefore I'm also consiering the Sigma lenses as an alternative. I
actually own the 15-50 and the 100 Macro from Sigma and they are
both excellent.

What do you mean? Any suggestions about the qualityof the following
lenses? Has anybody compareed them to each other?

28-70:
--------
Canon 28-70 2.8 L USM
CHF 2360.- / USD 1686.-

Sigma 28-70 2.8 EX ASP DF
CHF 865.- / USD 618.-

24-70:
--------
Canon 24-70 2.8 L USM
CHF 2550.- / USD 1821.-

Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG ASP DF
CHF 940.- / USD 671.-

70-200:
----------
Canon 70-200 2.8 L USM
-

Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS USM
CHF 3790.- / USD 2710.-

Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX APO HSM
CHF 1860.- / USD 1329.-

Tips and Hints welcome!
Mike
--

--

mt man mike---the tokina 28-70 2.8 & tokina 28-70 pro are highly rated & highly regarded &a lot cheaper than the l' lens.check out the lens performance survy at photo zone.com-sorry dont have the exact ink

Paul Pope · Mar 1, 2003

LOL I'm sure the majority of people here over the past 3 years I've been here would disagree with you.

Stefan Schott said:
Paul Pope said:

Hey why don't you switch to a Sigma DSLR? That way you can have a
cheap and nasty camera to match your glass?

Click to expand...

The only thing cheap and nasty is the hot air you are venting in
this forum all day long.

Nothing you ever wrote has any merit or demand any respect.

Regards
Stefan

Matt Wagner · Mar 1, 2003

Mike said:
Greg M said:

Yes, I'm currently studying the different sites in the U.S. as
Broadway, KEH and A&M and

Click to expand...

Greg M wrote (in reply):

Greg M said:
NO WAY to Broadway!!!!!!!!

KEH is expensive.

He also mentioned A&M. (Although I think they do business under another name... And it might be Broadway? Maybe?) I wouldn't say they're an out-and-out scam, but if you search back through the posts in the last week or so, there was just discussion of them; someone linked to a place with user ratings, and they had like an 0.7 out of 5 stars.

I'd suggest paying a little more and knowing you're going to get a camera, and that it'll be what you ordered.

chris · Mar 1, 2003

They may disagree with the lens issue but not with your atitude.

Paul Pope said:
Stefan Schott said:

Paul Pope said:

Hey why don't you switch to a Sigma DSLR? That way you can have a
cheap and nasty camera to match your glass?

Click to expand...

The only thing cheap and nasty is the hot air you are venting in
this forum all day long.

Nothing you ever wrote has any merit or demand any respect.

Regards
Stefan

Click to expand...

KO5D · Mar 1, 2003

What the Web site for the Delta?
Thanks

Greg M said:
KEH is expensive.

Here are some good places that you can trust.
B&H
Delta
BestPriceAudioVideo
Canoga
Samy's

Mike said:

Alinghi go on!!!

Yes, I'm currently studying the different sites in the U.S. as
Broadway, KEH and A&M and also the different "buy&sell" forums on
robgalbrait and fredmiranda.

Thanx for the hint!

Mike

Click to expand...

Mishkin · Mar 1, 2003

KO5D said:
Greg M said:

KEH is expensive.

Here are some good places that you can trust.
B&H
Delta
BestPriceAudioVideo
Canoga
Samy's

Mike said:

Alinghi go on!!!

Yes, I'm currently studying the different sites in the U.S. as
Broadway, KEH and A&M and also the different "buy&sell" forums on
robgalbrait and fredmiranda.

Thanx for the hint!

Mike

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Andreas P. · Mar 2, 2003

Hi Stefan,

This statements ala "my way or the highway" are speaking for themselves...

I only can say something about the Sigma 70-200/2.8. It has been tested

by "reputable" reviewers with the result that is on par with its Canon counterpart. Taking into account its price it is a definately a buy!

The Sigma Macro lenses have a good reputation too.

Regards,

Andreas

"high level" lenses: Canon vs Sigma

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Paul Pope

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Paul Pope

Guest

Active member

chris

Guest

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts