Canon versus Sigma

[binglemybongle]

Can anyone advise me on any real differences between a Canon and equivalant Sigma AutoFocus lens?

I want to get a faster lens than the standard 28-90mm USM f4-5.6 but Canon originals seem too expensive.

How much difference does the USM make? (Both power and noise level)

How much difference is there optically?

How many people use Sigma and are just as happy with them as Canon?

 

[mikerfns]

Can anyone advise me on any real differences between a Canon and equivalant Sigma AutoFocus lens?

The Canon EF lens you buy today *will* work on the next new camera body you buy 5 - 10 years from now.

The Sigma might ... or it might not. You may be able to get Sigma to rechip the lens to work ... or you might not.

Sigma is "affectionately" known as SIGnificant MAlfunction by some. You pays your money and takes your chances.

 

[thebeginning]

Sigma is "affectionately" known as SIGnificant MAlfunction by some. You pays your money and takes your chances.

Have you ever actually used any of sigma's nice lenses? For some odd reason I doubt it...

 

[photoboy15]

I had some old sigmas that didn't work on digital. If you want a cheaper off brand look into tamaron, but the real way to go is canon lenses.

 

[Jeff Canes]

The Sigma EXs are very fine lenses. I have bolt Canon L and Sigma EX grass, IMHO the Canon are just a little bit better, and in most case you will not see the different, Also before anyone starts butting down companies like Sigma and Tamaron do you Canon and Nikon make all of the lenses they sale, no they outsource them to companies like Sigma and Tamaron

 

[photogoddess]

I have 24-70 2.8L and a 70-200 2.8L IS Canon lenses. They were expensive but worth it. That said, I also have the Sigma 17-35 2.8 and L.O.V.E. it. I have no compatibility problems with any of my cameras, no focusing issues, no sharpness issues.... no issues at all. It was significantly lower in price than the Canon lens and in my opinion, is the best bang for a buck in my camera bag. :thumbsup:

 

[Dave_D]

I gave up on Canon a long time ago for dropping backwards compatibility with lenses, but that's besides the point. I have accumulated a lot of lenses over the years and when it was time to clean house I did some comparative lens tests to help me make up my mind as to which lenses to send on there way and which ones to keep. Of course all of the Nikon lenses stayed, but of the vivitar, tokina, tamron and sigma lenses; I only kept one sigma lens. Tamron and tokina fared better in results. Surprisingly I found that the more late model sigma lenses were the worst. Mostly because with the newer manufacturing processes of laser ground glass I just assumed they would be better, but that was not the case. The testing was done with the assitance of a friend of mine who is an engineer at Edmound Scientific Glass so, are method of testing had proper results. This is not to say that all of sigma lenses are crap. If you buy their low end stuff it will produce low end results. If you buy their high end stuff you will get high end results. As the adage goes: you get what you pay for. Even low end Canon and Nikon lenses are just as bad.

 

[mikerfns]

Have you ever actually used any of sigma's nice lenses? For some odd reason I doubt it...

Actually yes.

Why don't you give Sigma a call and ask them to re-chip a AF 400/5.6 APO for you - I'll bet the answer will be "Sorry, but ..."

I did not say ANYTHING about the quality of Sigma lenses, optical or build wise.

Older Sigma lens incompatibility with Canon bodies is a well known issue. That will continue, since Sigma does NOT license the EF mount from Canon - they reverse engineer it. One change to the lens CPU "firmware" by Canon in the next series of lenses or bodies may cause you grief when you buy that brand new body and try to use your 6 year old Sigma lens on it. Hence you pays your money and takes your chances. You are kidding yourself if you think just because you buy a Sigma EX lens that it will be anymore "future proof" than their cheapest plastic $99 stuff.

There is nothing wrong with buying Sigma lenses. But you should be aware of potential future incompatibility issues. The original question asked about "any real differences between a Canon and equivalent Sigma AutoFocus lens". Forward compatibility is a pretty big "difference" given the rapid evolution of DSLR bodies.

If you don't believe me then go here, click on "NON-MFG LENSES" and "NON-MFG ZOOMS", and see how many Sigma lenses in Canon AF mount are listed as not usable on the Elan 7E, A2E, "Digital" or are listed as "film only":
http://www.keh.com/shop/class.cfm?bid=CE&sid=newused&crid=12858782

You won't see that disclaimer with ANY older Canon EF lenses.

 

[mikerfns]

... Canon and Nikon make all of the lenses they sale, no they outsource them to companies like Sigma and Tamaron

It is highly unlikely that Canon outsources any lenses to Sigma. If they did, Sigma would not need to reverse engineer the EF mount CPU protocol - they would have it direct from Canon.

That doesn't mean Canon doesn't outsource, but Sigma is a very unlikely candidate for that third party build.

 

[Jeff Canes]

It is highly unlikely that Canon outsources any lenses to Sigma. If they did, Sigma would not need to reverse engineer the EF mount CPU protocol - they would have it direct from Canon.

That doesn't mean Canon doesn't outsource, but Sigma is a very unlikely candidate for that third party build.

Read it in some photo magazine a few years back, hope you don’t want me to go look for the magazine

 

[binglemybongle]

So the basic things youre saying are:

You get what you pay for.

and

If you get a cheap lens it wont be the best of quality.


I've just got a Canon EOS Elan 7e and i'm hoping that it will last some time because it wont be getting abused - 3 to 4 rolls per month.

I'm not too bothered about lens compatability because of this.


I suppose the next question would be which basic lenses are a recommended necessity?

I currently only have the standard 28-90mm f4-5.6 Canon zoom.
Ive already noticed its a bit slow. Only really suitable for outdoor or well lit indoor use (without a tripod anyway).

Im thinking along the lines of a 50mm, ~70-200mm and keeping the 28-90mm.

I know the 50mm should be pretty fast, around f1.8. 1.4 would be nice but can't afford or justify.

The long zoom im not too bothered about but it would be nice to have a FAST 28-90 or similar (35-80mm, 35-105mm, 28-80mm or even 28-70mm would do).

Can anyone tell me what i can expect to pay for these lenses? Sigma, Tamron or Canon.

When i say fast for the zooms, im expecting f2.8 or something. Probably f4 for the longer zoom.

 

[Rob]

Looks like you've got a realistic picture of what you want. Get on the B&H website and look up the prices yourself. When you have two comparable lenses you want an opinion on come back to us and we can help!

Rob

 

[binglemybongle]

To start off then....

Is it worth swapping my Canon 28-70mm, f4-5.6

for

Sigma 28-70mm, f2.8?

Just out of interest, the Sigma is advertised as f2.8 throughout the zoom range due aspherical lenses. Is this right?

 

[Rob]

Yes and Yes I would say.

Constant aperture zooms are as near to the sophistication of a prime you can obtain. The 70-200 f2.8 you mention is supposed to be a great lens. I have never used 3rd party lenses as I have the luxury of affording original branded ones, but I am a fast lens type of guy - the slowest in my collection is f2.8 and everything else is well under f2.

However, others may have differing opinions!

Rob

 

[Jeff Canes]

The Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 is a very nice lens I have two of them. But unfortunate a bellhop and I broke both of them at separate time.

There is very clear warring in the instructions to always switch the lens to manual mode when removing it for the camera because the internal gearing could be damaged. Well I did not one too many times. And that’s how the one got broken.