Sigma lenses any good?

Rhuarc · February 15, 2007

I'm just wondering from people who have had experience with Sigma lenses what you think of them. I'm in the situation right now I can't really afford to spend a ton on glass. Eventually, hopefully. Anyway, I was checking out Sigma's site, and came across this lens http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3303&navigator=3 . Anyone have any experience with it? Thanks!

BigAl · February 15, 2007

People I know that have that lens are pretty happy with it. The APO version is a whole lot better than the non-APO version.

(My lens kit consists solely of Sigma lenses

)

Rhuarc · February 15, 2007

BigAl wrote:

People I know that have that lens are pretty happy with it. The APO version is a whole lot better than the non-APO version.

(My lens kit consists solely of Sigma lenses )

Glad to hear this!! Lol, because for the next year or so the Sigma's will probably be the only lenses within my very modest budget range. If you don't mind me asking what Sigmas are there in your lens kit?

LuckyBob · February 15, 2007

Heh. Speaking of borrowing lenses (regarding the Western Dgrin meetup thread), I've actually got that lens

I'll bring it along on Sunday.

For everybody else: it's alright. Image quality at 70-200mm's actually pretty decent (stopped down), but it focuses SLOW. It's a noticable step down compared to the Canon kit lens, and an absolute joke compared to a decent ring-USM lens.

Mike Lane · February 15, 2007

I'm quite satisfied with my 50-500 bigma. Sure it's not fast and it's not a canon L lens, but I've gotten some great stuff with it.

BigAl · February 15, 2007

Rhuarc wrote:

If you don't mind me asking what Sigmas are there in your lens kit?

24-135, 50-500 and 105 macro. I also have (had) a 18-125, but my wife has taken that over.

Like Mike, I'm super happy with the 50-500.

hgernhardtjr · February 15, 2007

Like BigAl and Mike I, too, am very happy with my Bigma. I've taken shots with it across the size spectrum from virtually macro bug shots and other tiny stuff to wildlife at a great distance. All in all a fine lens (though perhaps not as sharp as some of the longer L lenses I've borrowed that cost more than double). For me it is very cost effective.

GraphyFotoz · February 15, 2007

Rhuarc wrote:

Glad to hear this!! Lol, because for the next year or so the Sigma's will probably be the only lenses within my very modest budget range. If you don't mind me asking what Sigmas are there in your lens kit?

I'm with ya Brother!
All my Glass is Sigma.....might not be a Cadillac but still gets me from point A to point B!!
Actually quite a nice lens for the $$....I own and prefer only the DG versions.
REALLY like my 80-400mm EX DG APO OS.
The OS is a really nice plus.

Scott_Quier · February 15, 2007

GraphyFotoz wrote:

I'm with ya Brother!
All my Glass is Sigma.....might not be a Cadillac but still gets me from point A to point B!!
Actually quite a nice lens for the $$....I own and prefer only the DG versions.
REALLY like my 80-400mm EX DG APO OS.
The OS is a really nice plus.

My copy of the 80-400 is nice, except for some slow focus issues. The OS is very nice. Optics appear to be right up there. Will I replace it when I have the opportunity. Yep! But, until then, it's part of my kit.

Bob&Glennie · February 15, 2007

The only Sigma I own is a 55-200mm f4-5.6 DC in a 4/3 system mount. It's not bad --- Pro's: focus is lightning fast and acurate.
Con's: it's pretty slow and no good wide open. Pretty good at f8.

Not as good as OEM Olympus/Zuiko.

Bob

seawolf66 · February 15, 2007

sigma lens
One needs to check out any lens he or she is going to buy and one of the best ways I have found other than asking everybody else Is to read up on MTF charts you can read about them on the luminios web site , the reason I say this is that is the way I figured out which lens would be good enough for me and yes I did ask others and one person told straight that the MTF charts are your best way to tell if a lens is good: Just my two cents

arroyoshark · February 15, 2007

I keep a Sigma 17-70mm zoom on my canon camera as my principle lens. I think it produces very sharp images. Online lens review sites seem to verify the lens has very good resolution. I set my camera to the central focus point and I haven't had any focus problems. I like the lens and it was the right lens for me for the price.

pathfinder · February 15, 2007

First, I own several of Sigma's pro lenses.

As a general rule I would say that none of the 70-300 zooms ( Tamrons, Canons, Sigmas) are sterling optics. There are a lot of compromises involved in zoom lenses of this type. Their main appeal seems to be price, rather than optical quality.

One poster mentioned slow focusing. The optic aperture is rather slow also.

I am sure that this lens is capable of creating satisfactory images, but a Canon 200m f2.8 Lwill be much sharper in the long run, probably even coupled with a 1.4 TC. Not a zoom, but......

ziggy53 · February 15, 2007

seawolf66 wrote:

One needs to check out any lens he or she is going to buy and one of the best ways I have found other than asking everybody else Is to read up on MTF charts you can read about them on the luminios web site , the reason I say this is that is the way I figured out which lens would be good enough for me and yes I did ask others and one person told straight that the MTF charts are your best way to tell if a lens is good: Just my two cents

I presume you mean "Luminous Landscape", and, while I agree that MTF charts and the resolution tests they represent are significant, they are but one measure of a lens.

I highly recommend researching every aspect of a lens, or any type of equipment for that matter. Trying to evaluate anything by a single measure is often disadvantageous (a hasty generalization).

Take a look at the "PhotoZone" site for a more thorough testing of the different qualities of lenses which "should" be tested and evaluated, and then understand that theses tests do not necessarily represent a large sampling of each lens, so they only really represent the lens tested, and "hint" at the qualities "you" would likely experience.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

"Luminous Landscape" discusses MTF charts, and their relevance, here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml

pathfinder · February 15, 2007

Ziggy,
I read the review of the Sigma 70-300 at photozone.de and I think the lens was fairly good to 200mm, but at 300mm it fares rather poorly with significant chromatic aberration.

All these zooms tend to be poorest at the long end for some reason. Even the Canon 100-400 L is better short to midrange that at 400mm

Sigma4Less has the lens for $182 - I see the attraction, but ........

Art Scott · February 15, 2007

...bothI can only vouch for the Siggy 24-70 apo ex dg & 70-210....both are f2.8 Apo....the 24-70 is fast and sharp and the 70-219 is alower than it's newer counter part EXDG APO...but I live with it for now....both lenses are sharp.

BeachBill · February 15, 2007

Rhuarc wrote:

I'm just wondering from people who have had experience with Sigma lenses what you think of them. I'm in the situation right now I can't really afford to spend a ton on glass. Eventually, hopefully. Anyway, I was checking out Sigma's site, and came across this lens http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3303&navigator=3 . Anyone have any experience with it? Thanks!

I currently own three Sigma and no Canon lenses. The main reason for Sigma was cost. I have been very happy with these lenses.

I didn't realize you were referring to the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG until after reading the entire thread then coming back to the first message and clicking on the link. Suggestion, just put the lens information in the message to avoid the need to click.

I do own the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG lens. I've been very happy with the shots from it. Since I don't use it all the time, it's difficult to pick out shots from my gallery taken with that lens, however all of the airshow pix I have posted were shot with it. Note the lighting conditions were extreme but other than that, I think these shots came out good.

http://gallery.primarycolors.com/miramar2006

ziggy53 · February 15, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

Ziggy,
I read the review of the Sigma 70-300 at photozone.de and I think the lens was farely good to 200mm, but at 300mm it fares rather poorly with significant chromatic aberration.

All these zooms tend to be poorest at the long end for some reason. Even the Canon 100-400 L is better short to midrange that at 400mm

Sigma4Less has the lens for $182 - I see the attraction, but ........

Hi Path,

I was more concerned about folks using MTF as a determinant for lens purchase.

I totally agree with you that the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG macro is a consumer lens of consumer quality, and I think that is substantiated by the multiple tests at PhotoZone.

Many consumer zooms do their best at middle zoom "and" middle aperture.

Zooms are, as a rule, more compromised than prime lenses, by design. The problem is that "I" feel more compromised using primes than zooms for "Wedding and Event" photography, and for those times when I wish for versatility and convenience over absolute quality.

Terrence · February 15, 2007

Not the lens you are interested in, but I own a Sigma 17-70mm and a Canon 100-400mm L. The Sigma is my walking around lens and it does a nice job with macro shots too. I have no plans to unload it and I am now looking at Sigmas in the 200mm range for portrait shots.

I'm seriouslly considering the sale of my Canon 100-400 and using the proceeds for a Bigma and adding the profit to my piggy bank for my one true love, the Canon 500mm f/4.

I always hear the arguement from the experienced guys in my photo club that you should just wait and buy the best. Well, for a guy with a wife, house, kid and two cars the choice comes down to settling for "very good", which is a nice problem to have, or having nothing at all. If I waited for the money to have a 500mm for bird shots, I'd be sacrificing at least 3 years of shooting opportunities.

I agree that you should buy the best, but not if it means scarficing food and shelter. Give yourself a budget that saves you from divorce and everything works itself out.

Rhuarc · February 15, 2007

Terrence wrote:

I always hear the arguement from the experienced guys in my photo club that you should just wait and buy the best. Well, for a guy with a wife, house, kid and two cars the choice comes down to settling for "very good", which is a nice problem to have, or having nothing at all. If I waited for the money to have a 500mm for bird shots, I'd be sacrificing at least 3 years of shooting opportunities.

I agree that you should buy the best, but not if it means scarficing food and shelter. Give yourself a budget that saves you from divorce and everything works itself out.

I'm in the exact same situation, minus the house and kids and one car. But monetaily speaking the same boat. Sure, in 5 years I would love to be able to replace any lenses I buy between now an then with Canon L glass, but I don't want to not buy a lens for 5 years just because I can't afford Canon. Anyway, thanks for all the discussion!!

I'm kind of looking at Tamron lenses as well, since they seem sot be similar in price to Sigma.

HiSPL · February 15, 2007

I am extremely pleased with my 28-70 f/2.8 EX DG. For a 300 dollar lens it is quite good at all lengths and apertures. It tends to hunt when wide open though. All in all not a big problem.

The zoom ring has developed a small, soft "catch" to it around 40mm, but it doesn't really bother me that much.

I plan on keeping this lens even if I upgrade to an L in the same range. I can use it on a spare body, or in adverse conditions where I don't want to risk a megabuck lens.

pathfinder · February 15, 2007

ziggy53 wrote:

Hi Path,

I was more concerned about folks using MTF as a determinant for lens purchase.

I totally agree with you that the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG macro is a consumer lens of consumer quality, and I think that is substantiated by the multiple tests at PhotoZone.

Many consumer zooms do their best at middle zoom "and" middle aperture.

Zooms are, as a rule, more compromised than prime lenses, by design. The problem is that "I" feel more compromised using primes than zooms for "Wedding and Event" photography, and for those times when I wish for versatility and convenience over absolute quality.

Hi Ziggy,
A lot of lens discussion centers around resolution ( MTF curves ) and very little about the robustness of the lens barrel, focusing speed, iris diaphragm robustness, etc and these things do make a difference to shooter who use their lenses heavily.

As for your feeling compromised by primes, rather than less sharp primes, as a working pro shooting weddings, YOU KNOW what you need your tools to do. You know what works, what doesn't, and what is sharp enough to meet your professional needs. Like a good carpenter, if the tool is good enough, you do not really want or need more.

I shot tons of images with consumer lenses for years when I was a student in the previous century. As long as you are able to stop down about 2 stops from wide open they will usually do fairly well. They may suffer from more chromatic aberration than better quality lenses. As long as folks know and understand what they are purchasing, they should be quite happy.

ziggy53 · February 15, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

... you do not really want or need more.

...

More, more! Always want more! (Said in grunting "cave man", "Tim the Tool Man" style voice.)

Yesterday, I purchased a Sigma 28mm, f1.8, older and well used. It is said to be one of Sigma's better optical designs, but with a rather severe focus problem on dSLRs (and not capable of being re-chipped.)

For my application, mostly scenic and mid-landscape with the Canon 1D MK II, manual focus is fine.

The price was well under $100, so I felt it was worth the risk. As usual, I will test the lens before depending upon it for anything serious.

W.W. Webster · February 15, 2007

Rhuarc wrote:

I'm just wondering from people who have had experience with Sigma lenses what you think of them.

I'm very happy with my Sigma 12mm - 24mm, and would highly recommend it.

Rhuarc · February 15, 2007

LuckyBob wrote:

Heh. Speaking of borrowing lenses (regarding the Western Dgrin meetup thread), I've actually got that lens I'll bring it along on Sunday.

For everybody else: it's alright. Image quality at 70-200mm's actually pretty decent (stopped down), but it focuses SLOW. It's a noticable step down compared to the Canon kit lens, and an absolute joke compared to a decent ring-USM lens.

Excellent, give me a chance to test it out with my XTi, if you don't mind, of course.

I'm still just trying to wrap my mind around everything that there is to know about lenses, and what to buy.

GraphyFotoz · February 15, 2007

Bottom line.....
Sigma for the $$ is right up there.
Like anything else in Camera's or Electronics for that matter....nothing is perfect....there are always Pros and Cons no matter what price range..

For us on a limited budget....Sigma is NOT a bad investment.
The proof is in the pictures no matter what all the reviews say.
Sure there are the slowness issues but for crimney sakes look what your paying!
Dollar for dollar they are much better quality all around than 90% of Canon's glass in the same price range.

Just my 2 cents

Sigma lenses any good?

Comments