Toronto Photography Meetup Group

I keep eying these lenses and just wanted to know everyone's opinion on them...

Good things, bad things... anything and also on any of their lenses

the general consensus is that its pretty much a lottery in terms of good/bad copies...

i have the sigma 12-24 DG and my copy isn't bad at all...

I've owned 3 Sigma's to date and I'm in the market for another. Like the last post stated, it's hit or miss but I suppose thats true to varying degrees with any lens manufacturer. Personally if i'm buying sigma i try to stick to their EX series as they will recalibrate for free.

I find Sigma's HSM AF is almost as fast as canon's USM, but Canon's is more accurate resuling in more "keepers".


Over all i like them as long as i have the abilty to hunt down a good copy. I either buy used where i can take the time to really put it through it's paces before slaping down the cash or from Henrys, who will let you return it a number of time until you get a decent copy.

I own a couple Sigma lenses. The 150mm macro and the 50mm f1.4. HSM is pretty quick but as someone pointed out, sometimes feels sloppy. I also noticed that if you don't use the central AF point, the AF tends to hunt a bit if the subject is not very contrasty or brightly lit. I don't get much AF hunting with my L lenses. Overall, not bad at all for the money. Like any lens manufacturer, there are gems as well as dogs in the list of lenses.

I don't use them anymore or third-party lenses anymore. Did not have a good experience with either two that I bought years ago.

I'm with the others here. I used to own the 50mm 1.4. Sharp lens, but focusing sometimes took a while, unless my center focus point was used. (already mentioned by another member). Slight back focusing problems. Other than that, I thought it was a sharp lens.

Would I buy another sigma? probably not.

I don't really like third-part lenses in general.

From what I've read on dpreview forums there is a lot of technical info that companies like Canon and Nikon keep closely guarded making it very difficult for Sigma, Tamron etc to build a good well performing lens with regard to AFing

I have one Sigma lens 24-60mmF2.8 and one flash. Both zero issue and top bang for the buck.
Obviously Pentax has to buck Sigma/Tamron to produce 3 rd party lenses. So zero hold-back info' unlike Canon/Nikon. Afterall Gentec is only 5 minutes drive from my home even if I need service or finetuning.

Out of 4 Sigmas I've owned in the past, I had to send 3 back for repair/calibration.

I have a 17-70 that is super sharp and have never had problems with. They have had there quality control problems but so has Canon. I wouldn't shun 3rd party lenses, especially if you are on a budget.

Sigma lenses are a good way into higher quality with less bucks, but as others have mentioned, there's a 'hassle' factor you have to accept.

In the useless qualities category, the black finish that Sigma lenses come in are excellent -- they look and feel very cool.

They also come with a ten year warranty, which is nice, but you also need it. I've sent my 17-70 in, through Henry's, and it went through fine, just took a little while. If you're willing to drive directly to the tech centre (Markham somewhere), you can get it turned around much faster, like a day or two I believe.

I have three:

1. 17-70 f2.8-4.5
2. 150 f2.8 Macro
3. 50-150 f2.8

1. The 17-70 easily beats out Canon's 17-85, which is why I got it. It's my "second" copy -- I returned the first after a week, and they (Henry's) made the exchange no questions asked.

The 2.8 flips to 3.5 before zoomed very far, but it's ok. I've since (coughed up hard and) picked up a Canon 17-55 f2.8, so I will likely sell this guy now.

2. This is a sweet lens that I don't use as much as I'd like. It's about the same macro that the Canon 100 is, but from a farther working distance, which is nice when stalking shy critters and such. It's AF is a VERY slow hunter, so that's the downside if it has one.

3. I love this lens. I have a 70-200 f2.8, but sometimes, that's just too big a thing to carry, especially on motorcycle trips. This lens looks great, is a nice size, and produces excellent images.

So...

YMMV.

This is the lens that I have not bought. And I regret that big time
On Mar 10, 06, I was in B&H shopping for lenses. I bought a few and the sales was more than helpful. He opened a new Sigma 70-200mmF2.8 Ex 2006 version non-macro for me to test. I took one shot. It was kind of dark in B&H. I took the 2nd one with a Pentax DL at F3.5 (low model with current ebay value $120). Had a quick look. And that was about it and I did not have chance to look at the card again 3 days later in Toronto.
Eventually I went all prime lens. If I have bought this one I might have gone with all zooms.
If you feel like counting facial hair go for the full version and you have a high res monitor


http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/image/74188404/original


Later on there were 3 years when Pentax had no prof grad 70-200mm at all and the price of this lens went over $1500 in ebay. Even now, this 06 used version of the lens sells over a brand new (HSM) one by around $200.

Daniel

Regardless of camera system, I don't like Sigma lenses in general. I have not been impressed by them in the past, and actually ended up selling several of the Sigma lenses I have owned over the year's. Now, I am not a Canon user... but I have pretty much kept to my brand, and been completely happy with the results.

They make some excellent lenses and I've a few primes in the past. The issue I found was quality control. I had some superstars and well as lemons.

My recommendations would be to buy from a physical store where you can test the lens on your camera for:
a) correct focus
b) decentered lens elements - take pic of the same object at left edge and then right edge of frame at same aperture & shutter speed, compare the two, they should be identical in resolution (may differ in exposure that's ok).

So sure mail order is cheaper that store shopping, but returning and testing multiple copies can be a headache or impossible.

I have the Sigma 10-20mm and can say it's tight, sharp, much better value than the Canon and comes with a lens hood and good case.

I had the opportunity to purchase a used Canon 10-22mm and after using for a month sold it as I found it wasn't as sharp or contrasty as the sigma, build quality didn't seem as high as the sigma and it didn't come with a lens hood.

+1 for sigma for me.

13 Sigma's and counting. I'm fairly abusive with my lenses, having physically broken a few (don't drop a 1D + 120-300/2., and Sigma has put them back together.

Most of my lenses are of the EX variety with a few like the 30/1.4, 20-40/2.8, 50-500 in focal lengths that Canon doesn't carry.

For the most part, I just think of it as getting pro-build/quality for Canon's consumer prices.

a photography manufacturer that produces a lot of lenses third party to all the manufactures out there

I have 50-500 Sigma. Really good lens for the price. Equal lens from Canon would've been worth at least 3K

i agree with all the positive comments on here.

in addition to plenty of Canon L lens i've used/owned, i've used:

sigma 50-500mm
sigma 10-20mm
sigma 24-70mm
tamron 17-50mm

...and i've loved all of them. as others have suggested, if you buy a used one, see if you can try it out in person. not being able to try it out in person wouldn't stop me from getting it if the price were right, but you run some obvious risks. if you buy a new one, it'll be under warranty and switch it out if you have to - no biggie.

i had one

120-300

good thing gentec was 4 mins from my house

in my experience, sigma lens (17-70, 10-20, 30) tend to produce distinct yellow tone, and that keeps me avoiding sigma's lenses

yellow tone??

a coating issue?

Some of their lenses are just dogs. Some are great, but as another poster said, their quality control seems low enough that you run the risk of getting one that doesn't perform as expected. I had just this experience with a Sigma 30mm prime.

Going off-brand, I'd lean towards Tamron instead.

it's my experience about sigma lens, but i do hear others talking about the warm color tone that sigma produced. it's really not a big deal if you do post processing and takes raw, but i am too lazy to do that, so sigma is never my 1st choice.