Sigma Lenses(or alternatives)

sincere · Mar 23, 2006

I dont know much about lenses so i dont know what to look into when looking for a lense. I´ve seen these Sigma lenses who seemed to be cheaper than the originals so i wonder if they are any good. What do i need to know here? Thanks you guys..

kelox · Mar 23, 2006

Sigma lenses are ok, but not the best out there. It is true that you get what you pay for, but even more so with lenses. That being said, I have two Sigma lenses and are happy with them. They are general quality lenses, for lack of a better term. I think you'll be happy with them for now, but will see the need to get better lenses at time permits.

Big Mike · Mar 23, 2006

Sigma, like any other lens company...has some lenses that are better than others. Sigma makes some great lenses, better than many Canon (or Nikon) lenses. Sigma also makes some cheap crappy lenses. Canon and Nikon also make some crappy lenses.

Typically...you get what you pay for.

sincere · Mar 23, 2006

so in other words no brainer: the more i pay the better?

Big Mike · Mar 23, 2006

sincere said:
so in other words no brainer: the more i pay the better?

Most of the time, that it true.

sincere · Mar 23, 2006

ok so besides something of a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4,what would you recommend? I was looking at this Sigma 28-300/3.5-6.3 Macro CAF

Big Mike · Mar 23, 2006

Well a "super-zoom" like that is convenient because it covers a lot of focal lengths. All the way from 28mm to 300mm. However, in order to design a lens like that, they have to make compromises...and the image quality suffers.

So if image quality is important to you...that would not be the best lens to get. If you want to have one lens, that will have the appropriate focal length in most situations...then that lens might be right for you.

Soocom1 · Mar 23, 2006

Depends on what you are shooting. If you buy a zoom, then you will get the effect of the zoom in anything you shoot. (Convenience, but also the restrictions of f-stops, etc.) The question is really what is your budget.
If you can afford them, try to get a number of fixed focal lengths. The typically are brighter, but you loose the convenience of the zoom.
Fast zooms, (those with a f1.7 or faster will cost money.)

Some links to help.

http://www.epinions.com/content_2591072388

This link is a bit lengthy, but it has invaluable information:

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Lenses

Oh by the way, I find the Sigma EX series to be much brighter, and has better contrast than the run of the mill stuff. Those lenses usually come in metal barrels. The Poly (plastic barrels) I do not like much. They are OK, and good for a budget, but do not have the same contrast.

cbay · Mar 23, 2006

Its that case in everything "the more you pay the better the product" that near enoguh refers to everything anyone pruchases these days as money buys quality majority of the time anyhow. But yes Sigma have some good lenses and some not so good but for example I have a Canon 350D and I am only going to purchase Canon lenses as I know they are of a high and great quality, yes! okay slightly expensive but in my opinion worth every penny as it will pay for its self eventually in my case. But... If it is a hobby go with your budget!

ksmattfish · Mar 23, 2006

I have 2 Sigma lenses: 18-50 f/2.8, and 50-200 f/4-5.6. I have definately taken some really crappy photographs with them, but I probably can't blame the lenses.

LWW · Mar 23, 2006

I have a Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO AF. It was a fraction of the cost of a comparable Nikkor. It takes a fraction of as good a picture also.

It's a length I seldom need so it was a decent compromise for me. If it was anything in the 28-300mm range I wouldn't even consider it. I'd rather buy a used Nikkor than a new Sigma at the same money.

My $0.02. YMMV.

LWW