Canon/Sigma

Photog38

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
74
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I personally like name brand. (I shoot Nikon, have no experience with Canon) I don't like Sigma glass at all. Just personal preference, but I have not had any luck with the few I have owned. The glass was not quite as sharp and the build quality was not up to the name brand standard. So now, I only buy Nikkor. (go ahead, call me a Nikon snob, I don't mind at all) I know this will start a fire storm, but after 35 years, I just don't like third party glass. With film everything about image quality was the glass. Now with the computers we shoot with, glass is not as much of an issue, but it's still a vital part of the process.
 
Review of the Sigma.

Review of the Canon.

Samples of the Sigma.

Samples of the Canon.

Sigma gets higher overall points, especially considering its price.
 
Hmmm - nope. Or rather, I can't find any thread or review comparing the two lenses to a Canon equivalent (since hes shopping for a Canon lens). The best I could do to demonstrate the sharpness and capability of the two lenses is to show what other's have done with it.

I figure, if the "cheaper" brand (and the lens is hardly cheap - but is significantly cheaper than the 2.8 Canon puts out) satisfies his needs and offers a faster lens - go for it.
 
Can't speak directly to Nikon (I use Canon), but generally speaking, third party Pro level glass from Sigma, Tokina and Tamron ... when comparing similar lenses, all have about the same degree of sharpness and Image Quality.

Nikon and Canon pro lenses are much better built/engineered than third party ... and they may focus a hair faster ... but (the big but) you really won't be able to visibly see a dif in sharpness between OEM lenses and similar pro level third party lenses.

For lab testing of lenses go to www.photozone.de I know they have tested the Canon 17-85.

Gary
 
I don't mind using Sigma. I purchased my 70-200 f/2.8 and love it. I wouldn't go to a Canon 70-200 any day (until the day I want IS). HOWEVER, that's still a pricey lens, and pro quality. I did just purchase a 24-70 f/2.8 sigma...which I will likely be returning. As somebody mentioned.....this third party lens produced a sharp picture, but the build quality isn't super good. For mine, the zoom ring is super stiff and hard to rotate...how come Sigma couldn't have built this different??

To sum it up, I would check the store's return policy. If you're inclined to get a fast Sigma, tell them your concerns, and see if their return policy covers simply not liking it.

As for the 17-85 IS, that's the one I'm looking at getting...to replace my 24-70. My brother in law has it and takes wedding pictures with it. Very very crisp picture, excellent build quality, fast focus, and IS.
 
Hmmm - nope. Or rather, I can't find any thread or review comparing the two lenses to a Canon equivalent (since hes shopping for a Canon lens). The best I could do to demonstrate the sharpness and capability of the two lenses is to show what other's have done with it.

I figure, if the "cheaper" brand (and the lens is hardly cheap - but is significantly cheaper than the 2.8 Canon puts out) satisfies his needs and offers a faster lens - go for it.

Just throwing a fly in the ointment for the sake of honoreeness. ( is that even a word? ) I agree with Gary. The build quality of the big two is measurably better than the third party. Resale is generally higher as a percentage of purchase price as well.
 
I had to choose.
IS won't really help for such short focal until you have nerves troubles.
Btw, I the Canon didn't get especially good comments in reviews.
A friend of mine gave me its 17-85 for a day, I bought Sigma.


Here is the result.

:)
 
Just my 2 cents, but it seems counterproductive to generalize about the quality of lenses based on whether they're a branded lens or a 3rd party lens. Not all Canon lenses are great just because they're Canon, and Sigma has good and not-so-good lenses in its lineup. Just get the one that makes sense in your price range. If you don't think you need the IS and the build quality of the Sigma is acceptable to you, then you made a good choice by purchasing the lens you got. Esp if the pincushion issue on the Canon is really an issue, you don't need to pay more money for a lens with problems.
 
Just my 2 cents, but it seems counterproductive to generalize about the quality of lenses based on whether they're a branded lens or a 3rd party lens. Not all Canon lenses are great just because they're Canon, and Sigma has good and not-so-good lenses in its lineup.......

Exactly. Canon won't always mean 'superior'. I went the Sigma route with my 70-200, and am proud to carry it. As many said... don't worry about brand name... If the sigma has good reviews, and features you want... get it.

I think you're on the right track here.
 
why not go into your local camera shop. put each lens on your camera, take a picture at each focal length.

go home and look at each of the images. compare the same focal length against the same length. compare apples to apples.

if you can't tell the difference, it is a no brainer. If you can, it also is a no brainer.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top