How do you rate sigma lenses?

[Aakajx]

How well would you rate sigma lenes?

 

[o hey tyler]

How well would you rate sigma lenes?

I think the 85:1.4 is amazing.

 

[wyogirl]

I have a very good Sigma for my 35mm. Overall I think both Sigma and Tamron make decent lenses and a few if them are very very nice. I can't afford Canon L glass so I've made due with some very capable Sigma and Tamrons.

 

[robbins.photo]

The 70-200 mm f/2.8 os is my first sigma lens but so far at least i've been very impressed with it. As far as price vrs performance it's been an excellent investment so far.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[Overread]

Sigma, like Tamron, Tokina, Canon, Nikon and pretty much every other large major brand or lens maker makes a wide range of lenses. Some of them are outstanding - some are unique - some are good - some are ok- some are really bad and only any good because they are very cheap.

So there's a real spread; Sigma especially has quite a large number of lenses on the market and I've no problem looking at them when going to choose a lens.

The key is to first get an idea of what kind of lens you want - what kind of limitations you want to overcome or what you want the new lens to do. From there you can look at each of the market options and decide what lenses would fit the requirements for your need. Then you can look at price; its always good to look at all the market options first and then the price because it means that you look at both the budget options and things beyond your budget - that's good because it gives you an idea of what you could save toward. Might be that a month or two of saving and you could get something exceptionally good.
Brand doesn't really enter into it - sure its a consideration and sometimes when matching the same lens type side by side the own brand will win out; but sometimes its a very marginal difference (and in cases like the Sigma 50mm f1.4 the 3rd party can prove to be superior to several own brand options).

 

[RichieT]

The third party lens tend to have looser QC standards which help keep costs down. They don't reject as many as Nikon or Canon, but you can have noticeable differences between lenses. My older (non OS) Sigma 70-200 2.8 had a bad front focus issue which they did quickly correct. This became my main indoor sports lens on my D300. When I upgraded to a FF D800, this lens became too soft wide open, which wasn't a problem on the D300. I also have the Sigma 17-50 2.8 which was a great lens. It was tack sharp over its' whole range and was my main walking around lens on the D300. Since this lens was a DX lens, I don't use it on the D800. I have the Sigma 150-500 which is a great value for the money. I wouldn't compare it to the better primes and zooms, but at a 1/4 to 1/10th of the price it's good enough.

 

[Overread]

Honestly I don't think 3rd party like Sigma have less quality control tests, but its more likely that since they have to reverse engineer the designs they can't have as tight a quality control range to work with because of minor changes in the own brand camera bodies (esp over time).

Also don't forget Sigma make several big superzoom lenses like the 150-500mm which earned them a fairly poor reputation for reliability of calibration - however just look at the history of the canon 100-400mm and its clear to see that even own brand these lenses are very hard to make.

 

[KmH]

Third party lens makers have to compromise in some way to sell lenses for less than an equivalent camera maker lens.

Lower quality materials, less accurate lens figuring, less optical aberration correction, broader materials and manufacturing tolerances - all contribute to lowering the cost of producing a lens.

Also consider that pretty much every major lens maker has 3 grades of lenses - consumer grade, prosumer grade, and professional grade.
There is little point in comparing a consumer grade lens to a pro grade lens.

 

[pixmedic]

Third party lens makers have to compromise in some way to sell lenses for less than an equivalent camera maker lens.

Lower quality materials, less accurate lens figuring, less optical aberration correction, broader materials and manufacturing tolerances - all contribute to lowering the cost of producing a lens.

Also consider that pretty much every major lens maker has 3 grades of lenses - consumer grade, prosumer grade, and professional grade.
There is little point in comparing a consumer grade lens to a pro grade lens.

are third party lenses really built that much lower quality than OEM lenses? or are we paying a premium for the Canon and Nikon brand name?
im not saying that OEM lenses arent better to some degree.....but are they twice as good for a minimum of twice the price?

 

[Overread]

Isn't Sigma's 50mm f1.4 more expensive than Canons?

Where production costs VS profit starts and finishes is impossible to guess at for any company without looking a the hard figures - especially as not every product will work the same. Canon (for example) charges a fortune for extension tubes and far and above what any other company does - because they put a high profit mark up on the item.

 

[D-B-J]

I love my 17-55 2.8 OS. It works well, isn't too heavy, focuses fast enough, and gets the job done--all for a few hundred less than nikons version. Is it better or worse? Idk. All I know is it satisfies my needs, and for that I'll rate it rather well.

Best,
Jake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

The worst part about Sigma is that the glass they use tends to produce images that are warm...yellowish...and it cannot just be "white balanced out". Ever Sigma lens I have owned has been "yellow".

 

[pops330]

I have the Sigma 30 1.4 and the older 50-150 2.8 and I love both of them. If they were that bad they would have gone out of business long ago.

 

[tecboy]

Jeez...All the tireless debates about Sigma/Tamron vs Canon/Nikon. Any rich guy owned both Sigma/Tamron and Canon/Nikon and give us comparisons and reviews?

 

[runnah]

Jeez...All the tireless debates about Sigma/Tamron vs Canon/Nikon. Any rich guy owned both Sigma/Tamron and Canon/Nikon and give us comparisons and reviews?

I had a nikon 70-300 and is was great. I had a sigma 70-300 and it was terrible.