Sigma Lens..."real" experience with 3rd party lens...

cmason

I just got my first '3rd party" lens, a Sigma 10-20 EX. I wasn't expecting too much, but reviews were favorable, and since it is a crop lens only, it was really a purchase that I was not considering as part of a long term lens investment. But, I really like this lens. The build quality is outstanding, and it is a great performing lens.

So now I am considering replacing my "walk around" lens. Given my experience with this Sigma, I will seriously consider another, and am eyeing the 24-70 EX DG Macro. But I worry about 3rd party, and Sigma in particular, lenses and their compatibilty long term. I have an XT now, and have no plans to move for years, and have no aspirations aside from a 20D or similar as my next camera. Full frame doesn't do alot for me at the moment, but I expect in 10 yrs it may become "it".

What are your REAL experiences with these lens and compatibilty with cameras you have owned? Do issues arrive with each new camera? Or is it unpredictable? If you have had issues, how was it handled? Were you just screwed or did they make you whole? Should I worry about this or just buy the lens and take pictures?

Scott_Quier

Can't talk to the 24-70, but I have the Tamron 28-75 and love it. Had it mounted on a dRebal (not the XT) and now us it with my 20D.

My brother has the dRebal (not my old one though, sold that to someone else) and he bought the Tamron 28-75 based on how happy I was with it. He's happy too.

So, I know that the Tamron work on the dRebal and on the 20D. The nice thing is that, if you should migrate to FF, you will be able to use the 2-75 on that as well.

pchr

cmason wrote:

But I worry about 3rd party, and Sigma in particular, lenses and their compatibilty long term

I had two Sigma lenses - just consumer grade things, a 28-105 and a 70-300, when I upgraded from an EOS1000F to an EOS30 the lenses didn't work.

I asked Sigma about it and they were very helpful. I sent in the lenses and they upgraded the 28-105 to be compatible - free of charge and sold me a slightly newer version of the 70-300 at a knock down price (they couldn't upgrade it as it was really old).

I was very pleased. Both lenses work with my 350D. The next lens I plan on buying is the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro, looks like a superb walk-about for the 350D crop factor.

Bob Bell

The Tamron 28-75 is a real performer. I know a few full time pro's who own them.

I am not a fan of Sigma, I know way to many people who have had to take losses from Sigma not upgrading chips for modern Canon DSLR's. I am not sure if they have resolved those issues or not but its a pretty big negative for me. Either way I am pretty sure the Tamron is better than the Sigma and verycomparible to the Canon.

cmason

Bob Bell wrote:

Either way I am pretty sure the Tamron is better than the Sigma and verycomparible to the Canon.

Bob any reason you know of why Tamron is more compatible? Do they do something or does Canon favor them somehow?

Bob Bell

cmason wrote:

Bob any reason you know of why Tamron is more compatible? Do they do something or does Canon favor them somehow?

Canon has never sold their EF mount technology to another company as I understand it. So Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and others have to reverse engineer the mounts / electronic signalling.

I am not saying they are more compatible now, I am just saying the Tamon 28-75 is a nice lense and Sigma has somewhat of a scary history.

photobug

Sigma 80-400 OS APO works great on a 20D
I got a SIgma 80-400 OS for my 20D a year ago and it works great (although I wish to heck that Sigma had put the faster HSM autofocus on it). I have had zero problems and am very impressed with the optical quality of the lens. Based on my limited experience with Canon L lenses (I only own one "L"), I would subjectively say that the 80-400 edges into "L" territory, w.r.t. optical quality, and its optical image stabilization (OS) works pretty well.

I can't speak for Sigma's other lenses because I haven't used others. However, because of this experience, I wouldn't hesitate to buy other higher-end Sigma lenses for my 20D.

trihokie

photobug wrote:

I wouldn't hesitate to buy other higher-end Sigma lenses for my 20D.

I second that. I own the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 and I am very happy with them. I am looking into the 120-300 f2.8. Virtually all of my shooting is sports related and the 70-200 has been my workhorse. When I bought my first digital slr several years ago I bought one of those economy Sigma lens kits (24-70 and 70-300). I wasn't all that impressed with the quality. The Sigma EX series is a different story. After several thousand photos (8,564 on Smug Mug) I am still very happy with my EX's. They are very well built, smooth operating and produce outstanding image quality.

Eric&Susan

I have three 3rd party lens and all of them work great with both my canon 300d and 30D.

I have the Tamron 28-75 and it is my favorite lens. It is on the camera more than any other lens I have.

I have the Sigma 105 macro. This lens is great and functions perfectly on both cameras.

I also just got the tokina 12-24 and I'm lovin it. Wide angle is new to me and I'm really going to have fun with it.

They all work great with the recently released 30D with out any kind of chip upgrade from the manufacture.

Eric

Seefutlung

The debate between Canon (or Nikkor) goes on and on and on. The bottom line is that comparable equipment performs comparable IQ wise and feature wise regardless of who makes it. In essence, all $1000 cameras will have nearly the same features and deliver the same Image Quality (IQ). Same for lenses, all high end pro quality will deliver about the same IQ. Et cetera.

Why is Canon so much more? I guess because the marketplace will bare their price ... in other words ... because they can get it.

Now the L series is extremely well made and robust, so some of the extra $$$ goes towards this engineering. But IQ wise ... same as the pro lines of Sigma, Tamron and Tokina.

sthig

just fyi:

I had the sigma 15-30

and I was terribly disappointed. I now use the Canon L 17-40 for my wide shots and love it

DoctorIt

I have had great, great experience with Sigma Lenses, on both Nikon and Canon dslrs.

It's hard to lump them, though, so be warned. Just like Canon has "consumer" and "pro" grade lenses, so does Sigma. I think the compatiblity issues are for the most part gone these days.

Personally, I have owned, or used extensively:
100-300/4.0 EX HSM - awesome, awesome lens for the price
70-200/2.8 EX HSM - same as above
18-50/2.8 DC - WOW! wish this one was mine, it was borrowed

all that said, I've heard the 24-70/2.8 is not their best work. Same good build quality, but it would be worlds better if it had HSM focusing.

Manfr3d

I have the Tamron 28-75mm/f2.8 and I am very happy
with it. When I researched for alternatives over the
Canon 24-70mm/F2.8 L I also came caross the Sigma
28-70mm/f2.8. There were some tests what put the
Sigma behind the Tamron and the Canon in that order.

In the end I decided to go for the Tamron, because
it offered 95% of the performance of the Canon at
1/4th of the price.

Bakat

I have a Sigma 50mm D2.8 DG Macro that is positively my favorite lens. Bar none,hands down favorite.

Now keep in mind that I'm a junkie for taking shots of the pollen on the stamen of a flower or some weird bug that is so tiny I can't make it out with the naked eye. I find this lens great for portraiture too. No zoom , but I am so pleased with this lens that I am looking at Sigma for my next 2 purchases (a wide angle and a moderate zoom).

I also have 2 Tamron lenses and one of my camera pals has all Nikkor (read She's a doctor, I'm not). we swap out lenses and flashes all the time. We can definately tell the difference between the quality of the Tamron lenses and the others, but try as we might we haven't seen a spec of image quality difference between the Sigma and the Nikkor.

Unfortunately when we compare lenses we are not comparing apples to apples. I have the Tamron 300mm her Nikkor isn't as big. We have to compare her mid range walking around lens with my Sigma because she doesn't have a Macro lens. But the performance difference of her Nikkor "walking around" lens and my Tamron AF28-80mm F/3.5-5.6 lens is pretty signifigant.

Ok that's my 2 cents. I don't know if there is a difference in how compatable Canon's are with Sigma lens as opposed to Nikons (I'm a Nikon Gal), but I won't hesitate to recomend my Sigma 50mm D2.8 DG Macro to anyone.

Kat

Manfr3d

Bakat wrote:

but I won't hesitate to recomend my Sigma 50mm D2.8 DG Macro to anyone.

Kat

The thing with macros is that they are almost no bad ones.
Macro is some kind of a special category much like long fast
telephoto lenses, where almost only ppl with demanding quality
expectations buy them.

That kind of explains the good quality across the range of different
manufactures. (Tamron 90mm, Sigma 50/105/150/180mm etc...).
(note: i'm not talking about zooms here)

ziggy53

Manfr3d wrote:

The thing with macros is that they are almost no bad ones.
Macro is some kind of a special category much like long fast
telephoto lenses, where almost only ppl with demanding quality
expectations buy them.

That kind of explains the good quality across the range of different
manufactures. (Tamron 90mm, Sigma 50/105/150/180mm etc...).
(note: i'm not talking about zooms here)

Heck, even Vivitar made at least one good macro. I think it was the 105mm, f2.5 Macro Series 1.

ziggy53