Professional's choice or marketing hype?

TimSandhu

TimSandhu

Suspended / Banned
Messages
458
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
I've been looking at some of the Canon L series lenses and reading reviews (and drooling). I haven't yet bought any of them but I am wondering if Sigma's EX range can achieve comparable results in terms of quality?

While I understand that buying a 'pro' lens does not make one a great photographer, surely it can raise your game. I also hate buying things twice. I'd rather buy a really good lens than get an 'ok' lens and then wish I'd bought the the good one a few months/shots later.

I've always been a believer in the maxim that 'you get what you pay for'... so is this also true of the L vs EX lenses? Are there any professional togs out there who don't pay the premium for Canon 'L' (or Nikon equivalent) lenses and opt for 3rd party lenses and still be taken seriously? Is the difference in price there for a reason?
 
The only people you impress with L series lenses are other photographers, because only other photographers know what they are.

However, I think it does look a bit naff if you see a pro tog with a Tamron lens. Even though there's nothing wrong with a Tamron lens.
 
TimSandhu said:
Is the difference in price there for a reason?
Click to expand...

They are better lenses. I've got L series and they really are streets a head of the cheaper ones. They are more water resistant and feel much, much better to use. They focus faster for a start.
 
For myself it is about usability and consistency. Most pro lenses are designed to used in all sorts of weather and in all sorts of light. If I need to switch IS on I don't want to be hunting for the switch but I also don't want to switch it accidentally. When I pick up a pro lens that I have used before I know how it will work and the results to expect. I know how it works with a light source in the frame and I know that if I picked up another copy it would probably work exactly the same. I don't expect an L to hunt for focus too often in dim light.

Most (all??) L series lenses are metal bodied, USM focusing and feature smooth full time manual focusing. Hard wearing and fast focusing. Key features for a pro.

Nearly all of the L equivalent EX lenses that I have and have used are very similar optically to the L equivalent. It is the usability that sets them apart. For example the current Sigma 24-70 EX does not have HSM focusing and requires two actions to switch to Manual focusing. The Canon 24-70 L has USM and FTM. For a pro this is a significant difference.

Are they all worth the price difference? Probably not for the amateur and some not for the pro. The pro will look at the full feature set of a lens (including image quality) and make a decision depending upon the nature of the use. The amateur will typically only look at image quality and price.

Would I buy an EX lens over an L? Absolutely, but only if it was the better tool for the job.

John
 
Thanks for the replies everyone. based on the answers so far, I'm still leaning towards the 'L' series over the EX.

jpwone said:
Would I buy an EX lens over an L? Absolutely, but only if it was the better tool for the job.

John
Click to expand...

That is the crux of the issue isn't it? If the EX is the better or at least equivalent tool for the job.

Based on the info I have gathered so far from responses and my own reading, the EX lenses do not quite measure up to the L's. So the old maxim stands...
 
I found I am getting better pictures with L lenses, they are better quality and sharper so although I am not using them to their full capability to me they are worth it.
I used to have a Sigma EX and was happy with it or at least I was until I sold it and got the L version, even though the EX was a good lens I would not want to go back to it now.
 
The EX range from sigma is mainly an asthetic thing, so its hardly comparable to canons "L range". Jpwone summed it all up pretty nicely, doesn't matter who makes it as long as it gets the job done in the best way. Canon's "L range" is simply a marketing move though. Nothing seperates the "L range" from any other high quality glass on the market. Its just a name, it doesn't make it special :lol:

Most L users are distgusted at the thought of having to use a sigma though, despite them making some of the best lens made today, (30 1.4, 70-200 2.8, 120-300 2.8, 150 2.8, 300-800 5.6 to name a few.)
 
Rather than looking at random letters stuck on the barrel it's better to directly compare performance of the particular rival lenses you are considering. Having said that, you can probably sum it up that in most cases EX lenses will deliver 90% of the performance for half the price of L.
 
Personally i find the majority of lenses well made even the kit lenses.

Just as a comparison, a Sigma 10-20 will give you the same image quality as a Canon 17-40L.

So try not to get hooked on the red ring
 
I'm not disgusted by using Sigma at all!
I'll rattle off some of my lenses. Sigma 15-30mm ; Sigma 24-70mm ; Sigma 70-200mm f2.8.

Canon nifty 50mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mmf4, 100-400mm and 100mm macro.

So I think I'm actually reasonably well placed to offer you an opinion on this one.

I shoot on two full frame cameras so any real deficiences in the lenses should affect both my cameras. I have to say though that the Sigma image quality is not too shabby at all, where they do fall down is in the useability, i.e. quick, quiet focussing.

Out of the three Sigma lenses I have I absolutely adore my 70-200mm. Lighter than the Canon f2.8, about half the price and it's absolutely tack sharp and quick to focus. I shot alongside 4 other togs recently who were all using the Canon and I'd challenge anyone to say that my results were in any way inferior even printed at A3.

As for the other two? The Canon equivalents beat them hands down! I tried the Canon 16-35mm against my Sigma and mine was hunting for focus on a moving object while that Canon already had the shot in the bag. No contest. This will definately be my next purchase.

The 24-70mm? I can live with. I tend to use it for more static objects so even manual focus in those kind of conditions is ok so I've not really done a fair comparison. I do however suspect that the Canon is going to beat it for speed of focus but since that is less of an issue for me at the moment, it can wait.

To sum up. I have one Sigma that I won't part with, it's not worth the extra outlay for me and the extra weight of the 70-200 f2.8 Canon would be unwelcome. I've not yet missed having IS.

The rest of the time I'll pay for Canon L lenses. Superb quality, quick and also a lot quieter.
 
If you ask the same question of a potential customer they won't have a clue what you are talking about (unless they are a photographer themselves)

If you are a seasoned pro you are in it for the money and whatever will do the job for the lowest price is the way to go.
 
artona said:
If you are a seasoned pro you are in it for the money and whatever will do the job for the lowest price is the way to go.
Click to expand...

So why do most seasoned pros shoot on Canon or Nikon lenses?

Applying that logic they would all be shooting on Sigma or Tamron.

Doing the job often means shelling out for the highest performing bit of kit available and that usually costs money.
 
Badger UK said:
However, I think it does look a bit naff if you see a pro tog with a Tamron lens. Even though there's nothing wrong with a Tamron lens.
Click to expand...

To you maybe, as your a photographer, but to people who dont have a clue it doesnt make any difference.

Why does it look naff? Do people on here not rave about the quality of the 17-50 f2.8 and the 28-75 f2.8?

TomB said:
you can probably sum it up that in most cases EX lenses will deliver 90% of the performance for half the price of L.
Click to expand...

That really does sum it up.
Look at my sig to see my kit bag. These lenses suit me just fine :)

What camera you going to be putting these lenses on?
 
AliB said:
The 24-70mm? I can live with. I tend to use it for more static objects so even manual focus in those kind of conditions is ok so I've not really done a fair comparison. I do however suspect that the Canon is going to beat it for speed of focus but since that is less of an issue for me at the moment, it can wait.
Click to expand...

The Siggy 24-70 is a great lens. Its image quality is decent, it doesnt really hunt in low light and mine has been used for far to many live band shoots and delivers the results really well. Cant say i have tried the Canon Version, and some people do say that it is one of the best lenses they make, but when you dont have that much money to spend, the Sigma will do the job really well (even if it is a little noisey focusing :lol: )
 
Mine is used for shooting weddings. I also have the Canon 24-105mm so I only use the Sigma when I want f2.8 because the Canon beats it hands down for image quality but stops at f4. So it gets very limited use hence I'm reluctant to shell out lots of hard earned on a Canon equivalent just for those occasional shots if I can get decent enough results with the Sigma.

I'm hiring an 85mm f1.2 for a wedding later this month and I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on it :)
 
AliB said:
So why do most seasoned pros shoot on Canon or Nikon lenses?

Applying that logic they would all be shooting on Sigma or Tamron.

Doing the job often means shelling out for the highest performing bit of kit available and that usually costs money.
Click to expand...

Yep I remember doing that when I started out 30 years ago :lol::lol:

Its horses for courses. If I went back to working for the nationals then yes it would be Canon or Nikon and all the fastest lenses. If I went back to photographing sport the same answer but these days I shoot portraits and one outfit is a canon 5d with a sigma 24-70 f2.8 and the other a fuji S5 with a nikkor 24-120. The customer pays the same whichever outfit is used and strangely enough is just as pleased.
 
Yep, horses for courses as you say.

I tried shooting a bride spinning around from low down to get the full effect of her dress and the Sigma was pants!

My subjects tend to move about a bit too much! :)

And that's where you start getting into the over 90% of the performance arguement. I totally agree that 90% of the performance for 50% of the price comment and that exactly where I am with the 70-200mm but with the shorter lenses I can find myself in that 10% where if you don't have the performance, you don't get the shot. That's when the extra outlay becomes worth it. Damn it! :)
 
It also depends on what you're after I guess, for example there isn't really anything comparable to a Sigma 120-300 2.8...and judging by the number of motorsport photographers who use them, Sigma have found one hell of a gap in the market.
 
I'd like to see two prints, side by side taken with the same camera but with L glass / cheapo ;) lenses. Would you be able to see any difference even at 10 x 8 ???

I think many of the comments about Canon / Nikon own-brand glass are driven by pixel peepers or brand name junkies :D
 
I've used sigma, tamron and canon lenses and I got the best I could afford. yes L lenses are generally made better but they are not without fault. the 50mm f1.2 has horrendous focus issues, the 24-70 L is not a lens without its own problems.

the dust and water sealing on the lenses is irrelavent unless you have a body with sealing too. Sigma/tamron/tokina do have some lemons but so do canon.
 
mrgubby said:
I'd like to see two prints, side by side taken with the same camera but with L glass / cheapo ;) lenses. Would you be able to see any difference even at 10 x 8 ???

I think many of the comments about Canon / Nikon own-brand glass are driven by pixel peepers or brand name junkies :D
Click to expand...

You would....... except it might not be possible because the Canon got the shot and the Sigma missed it. I've had that happen to me.

That's where the difference lies, not so much in a static shot that you can happily get 90% of the time, but in the 10% where one will get a lock on the focus and get the shot.

Believe me, pros are no more inclined to spend money without reason than anyone else!
 
For me the benefit of L was simply that you pick the focal range you want and buy L. You know you get a sharp lens, fast focusing, weather sealed to a point, and you know it'll do the job. It removed the need for "Is this a good lens?" type questions. It may be marketing to some but I found it handy.
 
I was in Ffordes (dropped by when on holls while up that way) to sell some stuff and part ex some stuff towards a lens and tripod. I wanted the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 but they didn't have one in stock for Nikon ft (only Canon) so decided on a 12-24 f4 instead. I had a look at the Nikon version which was very similar except for having a silent wave motor as opposed to the body driven job of the Tokina. The lad at Ffordes said there was nothing in them optically and that Tokina was a bit of an unsung lens in that they were very good so that's what I bought. I have to say I'm very pleased with it and it literately lives on my D1x.
 
petemc said:
For me the benefit of L was simply that you pick the focal range you want and buy L. You know you get a sharp lens, fast focusing, weather sealed to a point, and you know it'll do the job. It removed the need for "Is this a good lens?" type questions. It may be marketing to some but I found it handy.
Click to expand...

Yup, it seemed to save you the trouble of doing almost any research before you purchased. Now that's marketing at its best! :D
 
AliB said:
You would....... except it might not be possible because the Canon got the shot and the Sigma missed it. I've had that happen to me.

That's where the difference lies, not so much in a static shot that you can happily get 90% of the time, but in the 10% where one will get a lock on the focus and get the shot.

Believe me, pros are no more inclined to spend money without reason than anyone else!
Click to expand...

That's the stock answer I get anytime I've asked the question :thumbs:

In the good old days of film when you had a roll that would handle 24 exposures & every one MUST be spot on that could justify it, but in the days of 1000 shots/card & chimping does the 10% really matter :shrug:

I'd still like to see a printed comparison (when the half price Sigma managed to get the shot :))
 
mrgubby said:
, but in the days of 1000 shots/card & chimping does the 10% really matter :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes it does to me when I'm shooting a wedding. I can't replay those moments I either get them or I don't, no second chances. That's when it really matters to me.

At least I know if I can't get the shot using the best/fastest lenses, then I know it's just not possible without throwing extra light at it. :)
 
AliB said:
Yes it does to me when I'm shooting a wedding. I can't replay those moments I either get them or I don't, no second chances. That's when it really matters to me.
:)
Click to expand...

Fair enough, you're a wedding photographer, I'm not :)

As I'm a complete amateur I don't have the commercial pressures of getting "The Shot" but from my perspective the difference in AF speed due to USM / HSM is very small compared to the spontaneity/chaos of a group shot.

However I can totaly understand the price difference if it relates to lens lifetime, if you're going to rely on the equipment for your income then the less 'downtime' you've got the better :thumbs:




Ps. I think my Sigma lenses will outlast me :shake:
 
mrgubby said:
Ps. I think my Sigma lenses will outlast me :shake:
Click to expand...

Mine already has! :D

(just to qualify that one I did die on an operating table once upon a time so I'm making the most of round 2!)
 
If you take a look at the Canon Professional Network site, the wildlife photographer award of the year went to a professional tog for a shot taken with a 350D and an EFS 10-22mm lens. No L lens or professional camera in sight.

Food for thought.
 
GEH007 said:
If you take a look at the Canon Professional Network site, the wildlife photographer award of the year went to a professional tog for a shot taken with a 350D and an EFS 10-22mm lens. No L lens or professional camera in sight.

Food for thought.
Click to expand...

Or super telephoto ;)

The thing to bear in mind here though, is the photograph was the result of leaving the camera alone to fend for itself against the elements...the shutter was triggered by the leopards movement!

Not sure I would want to leave a 1DS and 16-35L (for equivalent focal length in pro gear) out in the wilderness for any amount of time!

But it is true, I have the Wildlife Photographer of the Year book, and a lot of the shots were done with normal, 'mortal' gear, the 18-200 lenses were popular!
 
I've managed for the past 3 years with a Sigma 10-20.
 
purpleclouds said:
Or super telephoto ;)

The thing to bear in mind here though, is the photograph was the result of leaving the camera alone to fend for itself against the elements...the shutter was triggered by the leopards movement!

Not sure I would want to leave a 1DS and 16-35L (for equivalent focal length in pro gear) out in the wilderness for any amount of time!

But it is true, I have the Wildlife Photographer of the Year book, and a lot of the shots were done with normal, 'mortal' gear, the 18-200 lenses were popular!
Click to expand...

Yes but that makes it even more remarkable in my book as neither the camera or lens are weather sealed!

I'm not saying the "higher" stuff isnt better, hell I bought a 40D, but I bought because of its feel and I enjoy playing with it, not because I think it will necessarily get me better pictures.
 
You mean like the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/2.8L I have? :p
 
GEH007 said:
Yes but that makes it even more remarkable in my book as neither the camera or lens are weather sealed!

I'm not saying the "higher" stuff isnt better, hell I bought a 40D, but I bought because of its feel and I enjoy playing with it, not because I think it will necessarily get me better pictures.
Click to expand...

Indeed! I was going for the price issue...can tell I've still got a hangover from being a student can't you :lol:
 
purpleclouds said:
Indeed! I was going for the price issue...can tell I've still got a hangover from being a student can't you :lol:
Click to expand...

You have an interesting point though.

As one of the worlds top photographers, I cant imagine price was the biggest factor in his thoughts, so why, as a perfectionist, wasnt his set up, say a 5D and a 14mm L as an example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top