Sigma DG lens vs Canon lenses

[delko]

Hi.

Can someone pleaae help me. I have two sigma lenses.
How do these compare to the lenses build by canon. I asume they are alot better?

I mean they are alot more expersive in some cases.
I have heard the L range in very sharp how do sigma's DG range keep up?

I know its hard to get a easy answer.

Can someone maybe just point out some differences.


Thank you

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum

 

[Overread19 7]

You've neglected to mention the specific sigma lenses that you have.

As a general answer though - it depends; its a very specific situation dependant upon the lens that you're comparing since Sigma makes everything frop top range right down to budget line; with a range of quality that also ranges from better than down to worse than.

 

[KreGg]

They also say that Sigma (as Tamron) suffers from poor quality control, meaning that you might get a super sharp lens, and your friend might get a soft lens, even if the lenses are the same.
I dont have no sigma, I do have a Tamron 28-75 2.8, and it's sharp as sharp can get.

 

[delko]

Currently have the 18-250 mm f 3.5-6.3 hsm os and the 50-500mm .f4-f6.3

Im actualy looking now at buying either the 70-200 f2.8 sigma dg os hsm sigma. Or the 70-200 f2.8 canon L non IS.this lens will be mainly for people photography

Any ideas? Comments about the two current lenses i have?

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum

 

[rexbobcat]

I'd consider the Canon. I think the actual image quality is comparable....but....the autofocus speed. I looked at both the Tamron and the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8, and both had pretty bad autofocus compared to the Canon. I guess this doesn't really matter as much if you're using them for portraits. But if you want to take pictures of sports/children etc....I'd buy the Canon.

 

[MLeeK]

It all depends on the lens. Sigma makes some CRAP and some amazing lenses. You just have to do your research and find out which ones are good. The L glass is always the best you are going to get for Canon, but Sigma offers some pretty amazing savings on lenses that come damn close!

 

[MLeeK]

I'd consider the Canon. I think the actual image quality is comparable....but....the autofocus speed. I looked at both the Tamron and the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8, and both had pretty bad autofocus compared to the Canon. I guess this doesn't really matter as much if you're using them for portraits. But if you want to take pictures of sports/children etc....I'd buy the Canon.

The 70-200 f/2.8 by Tamron and Sigma are both Macro capable lenses. That equates to a slower focus, always. The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS version's focus is super fast, but it's not a macro lens either... If you are shooting sports or fast moving subjects the OS version is almost a necessity. I have the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 also and for macro it's a superb lens. It's also beautiful for portraits and weddings. Not so hot for sports. I shoot sports with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS for that reason.

 

[delko]

The image quality of the canon 70-200 mm non IS L is it much beter than the sigma and tamron?
Coz when im viewing this forum and i see other peoples photos , the quality and color and sharpness is just so much better than the ones i have taken... I recently bought a uv filter aswell as a polarize filter. Stil feelss if the image quality is not near these on the forum

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum

 

[LightSpeed]

Tamron 70-200 F2.8
Probably comes damn close too.
It's a hell of a lens for the money.

 

[delko]

The image quality of the canon 70-200 mm non IS L is it much beter than the sigma and tamron?
Coz when im viewing this forum and i see other peoples photos , the quality and color and sharpness is just so much better than the ones i have taken... I recently bought a uv filter aswell as a polarize filter. Stil feelss if the image quality is not near these on the forum

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum

Any oppinions ?

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum