How do you rate sigma lenses?

[robbins.photo]

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".

I haven't noticed a yellow cast to the few test shots I've done so far with the 70-200 mm I just got, but I haven't taken a lot of photos with it yet. I'll see what happens after the zoo walk I have planned on Saturday and keep you posted.

 

[SCraig]

Based on the two Sigma lenses that I have and use frequently I would personally rate Sigma rather highly. I have no complaints at all with either one of them.

 

[Braineack]

I never really noticed this yellow cast on the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 I was shooting with...although I never tried to compare it directly to anything else.

For being a budget lens I thought the Image Stabilization worked very well, it produced some pretty decent bokeh, and having a min. focus point of something like 1.5" from the end of the lens (Macro 1:2.7 @ 70mm) made it a very versatile lens on a DX body. I was pretty happy with and produced great results on the my D3100 at the time. Actually, it's because of that lens (which I picked up as a single lens to go on vacation with) that I got back into photography.

The only thing I didn't like about the Sigma was the direction you rotate to zoom. Since I got used to it as my primary lens, it's screwed me up for every other brand.

One thing I've noticed on third party lenses is the zoom lock to keep the lens from extending while being carried, do Nikon lenses even have this? I've owned a few that could have used it...

 

[Steve5D]

I had a 17-70mm that was an amazing lens; gave it to my daughter.

I've got a 50-500mm which, in the right light, is tough to beat...

 

[Sventek]

I'm very happy with all of mine. I have both the Nikon and Sigma 24-70 lenses, and while the Nikon is definitely better (especially in terms of focusing speed), it's not 'that' much better.

 

[MK11_user]

I have used Sigma, Tamron as well as Canon branded lenses for almost 30 years.
My current set up is a Canon eos5d Mark 2 and 7D, with these cameras I have a Canon 'L' Series EF24-105mm, EF70-300 IS USM, EF50mm f1.8, Sigma 12-24mm and Tamron 90mm macro. I bought these because they each come highly commended by various respectable monthly magazines and of course online forums.
I note that Sigma have recently launched a number of lenses that are leading the field just now, eg; 180mm f2.8 macro, 30mm F1.4 DC HSM, 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM, 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM.
Tamron have their highly acclaimed 90mm macro and SP 17-50mm F/2.8 VC.
The independent lens manufacturers can hold their heads up very high with the offerings they bestow upon us as a quality and cost effective alternative.
When I do decide to purchase another lens I will do what I have always done, research all alternatives and if possible visit shops that stock the lenses and try them on my camera for feel, balance and operation. If possible borrow the lens from a friend.
You will always have people (regardless of hobby) who want to be seen to have the best of everything and photography is no exception, but it won't make them great photographers.

 

[dxqcanada]

I've had some Sigma lenses that suck and ones that are excellent.
The Sigma 50-15-mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II, and 150mm f/2.8 DG EX HSM Macro are the two best lenses we have had. Build quality is great.
The older Sigma lenses that I have had were sub-par in IQ and build quality ... there is the good, the bad, and the ugly.

 

[Snapitjack]

How well would you rate sigma lenes?

I have the 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HMS, 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM and the 50-500mm F4.5-6.3mm APO DG OS HSM Art lenses and I think they're pretty good. The build quality is very good on the 18-35 and pretty good on the rest. I have no concerns about them falling apart and the picture quality is great.

 

[Gavjenks]

Every sigma lens I have owned has been higher quality build and features than its equivalent stats OEM lenses.
Image quality, I don't know. All lenses these days from any reputable company generally have more IQ than you need anyway if you don't abuse them (i.e.: "lol 18mm on an 18-200 lens, shot wide open, and focused in the corner. WHY IS IT SOFT THIS IS JUNK!"), so I don't really notice any significant differences.

 

[remylebeau]

I would rate the newer sigma stuff as very good image quality wise, newer stuff as in 50mm 1.4 EX and newer. My personal opinion is Sigma makes really great prime lenses, especially the new Art line they not only upped image quality but build quality too.

 

[baturn]

I've had my 150 - 500 for about 5 years. No complaints. Auto focus motor crapped out about a year ago, sent it to authorized Canadian repair facility and got it back promptly and better than new. Recently received 70 - 200 f2.8 OS and am so far tickled pink.
In case I'm being vague, I love my Sigma lenses.