Sigma build quality

ozanan

ozanan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
361
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks, I'm looking for a few viewpoints on the build quality of Sigma lenses. I've previously been put off from buying Sigma because I kept finding reviews and opinions that stated the build quality was a bit...naff. Comments like "I've got one of those, it's being repaired atm" haven't helped much either.

Is the build quality that bad, has it improved, is it just on the lower end lenses, throughout the full range, or am I just finding "friend of a friend of a friends dog heard about" comments?

I'm wanting to get a lens for wildlife and birds and I'm considering the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM or the 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM when compared to the likes of the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L USM IS.

I'm currently saving up for one of those three (or an alternative you can recommend - guessing a max budget of about £1500), I just don't know which. The price difference between the Sigma and the Canon isn't exactly peanuts to me, but I'd rather pay for the price of the Canon than have the alternative drop to bits on me, but if they're solid I'd rather buy the Sigma and spend the rest of the cash on something else.

:help:

Cheers!

Dan
 
My main gripe against Sigma (and 3rd party in general) is their ability to work with future camera bodies. All too often they work with a current body but dont work when a new body is released due to reverse engineering as opposed to being built under licence.
If you think you wont be buying a new body then the Sigma offers a good alternative, if you think you'll upgrade your 50D then proceed with caution would be my view.

Built quality seems to be reflected in price i.e. their 'cheap' lenses, like Canon's cheap lenses wont take the punishment an L series will, but they are much cheaper so you get what you pay for imo.

Matt
 
Hmmm, i havent heard of problems with newer cameras since the likes of the Canon D10, and they were the first digitals out!

Sigma build quality is fine, you get what you pay for really. Its no L series, and if you buy the cheap end, then its cheap for a reason.
My Sigma 24-70 EX DG is really sturdy, good build and "meaty" in size. Its rugged and has taken some heavy use off me really (it still looks mint as i look after my toys) but then its still probably not as solid as a Canon 24-70L with their weather sealing and build quality.

What you do find with Sigma is that they tend to have back or front focus issues. But a quick post to them and they will sort it and send it back under warrenty.

Also, if you look in the classifieds here, then picking up a lens second hand is a good bet as you know that it wont suffer the back/front focus issues

Mike
 
Hi There

I have a Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX DG Aspherical which I have had now for several years and I also have Canon lenses from kit to L. I would say that overall the Sigma has been a really solid performer. Not quite as tough as the L, no weather sealing as far as I am aware but a lot better than the basic and even some of the mid range canons.

One thing I would say is that the Sigma I have is a little noisy when focussing, but as this is a few years back and not one of their HSM lens to be expected.

If you really want to know how the Sigma compares to the Canon L I would suggest going to see them in the flesh before you make up your mind. You can have as many opinions as you like but there's no real substitute for going to see and try one for yourself. Also for the amount you are about to shell out it may even be worth hiring one for the day or testing someone else's.

Also I had a Canon 100-400mm L and it was a cracking lens, if you have the money I doubt you would be disappointed!
 
I had two EX sigma lenses (15-30 & 180 macro), which were excellent quality and build , now both sold as not getting much use. I now use the 18-200 & 18-250, and although they are not EX, the look and build is excellent. IMO the OS is not as good/quick as Canon IS, and with regard to the lenses you are considering I think the 100-400 is the best lens out there for wildlife zoom, I rather lose a leg than this lens.
 
I have a few Sigma lenses and have had no problems at all with any of them.
 
I have the 70mm F2.8 macro
24-70mm F2.8
50mm F1.4

All feel well built and work fine.
 
I have the Sigma 150-500 and it is a cracking lens for birds, every bit the equal of the Canon 100-400. I've had no issues with front or back focussing, and as for build quality, I haven't found it wanting. That said, it is like any lens, a precision optical intrusment, so I would go round bashing it around whatever lens I had. I still dont molly coddle it, it gets dumped unceremoniously in my bag and on the floor or whatever, just use it sensibly and it should last as long as anything else.

This is a crop from the Siggy

http://SPAM/c3whur/jan/Img_0544c.jpg
 
My sigma 70-300mm is currently back at the shop and been sent back to sigma for repairs as the gearing on the autofocus decided to give up. It started making som dodgy noises when trying to focus. Ive been waiting 2 months for it back as sigma say they are waiting for the parts to be shipped in! Thats my take on sigma lol. Id hardly used the lens to be honest before it broke, i bought it in July and it broke early november.
 
My Sigma 10-20, 24-70, 70-200, 150-500 are built like tanks and as they cost less than 1/2 the price of the Canon equivalents I'll buy more if they burst :D
 
ozanan said:
I'm wanting to get a lens for wildlife and birds and I'm considering the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM or the 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM when compared to the likes of the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L USM IS.
Click to expand...

In autumn 2009 Digital Camera Magazine reviewed the three lenses you mention and others.
Their winner from a group of 8 super-telephotos was... Sigma 150-500mm.

I have the older Sigma EX DG 80-400 OIS and it was good enough to take on safari, the OIS even on that older lens was good enough to take a photo of the moon while standing up in the back of a moving vehicle.
I now have a load of L lenses, but I'll be keeping the sigma 80-400, it's a good solid lens. :D
 
I've had the sigma 120-400 for about 6 months now and it has been used out in the field in all weathers and has stood up well.
 
I have the Siggy 70-300 and the 12-24; I returned my first copy of the latter due to back-focussing, but the replacement has been a joy (and is very solidly built). I'd say that their problem isn't build quality, but quality control out of the factory.

Bear in mind also that Sigma EX lenses come with a 4-year warranty, which includes things like focussing and softness - it's nice to know that if the lens starts misbehaving over time, you can get it fixed for free.

On the subject of compatibility with future cameras, the only example of this I've heard of in recent years is the Sigma EF-530 flashgun series, some early copies of which need rechipping to work with the Canon 50D. Sigma will perform the upgrade free of charge.
 
Andyvalver said:
My sigma 70-300mm is currently back at the shop and been sent back to sigma for repairs as the gearing on the autofocus decided to give up. It started making som dodgy noises when trying to focus. Ive been waiting 2 months for it back as sigma say they are waiting for the parts to be shipped in! Thats my take on sigma lol. Id hardly used the lens to be honest before it broke, i bought it in July and it broke early november.
Click to expand...

the reason that has happened is because the sony's in camera AF motor is very strong,and it's a well known fact that this causes the gears in the sigma lens' to strip..it has happened to me on my 105 macro lens.i've not heard of it happening with any other manufacturers camera bodies.other than that,i've had no problems with the sigma lens that i have.
 
Thank you very much folks, you've put all my fears and doubts to rest.
Ribbo, thanks for the suggestion of hiring a lens, I hadn't thought of that!
Thank you Artyman, cracking shot! No more concerns about the image quality.

I guess what it comes down to now is what I prefer once I've tried them, and no-one else can answer that for me!
 
most of our sigmas are EX . supposedly sigma top end.
no probs with any of em so far.
and they do lead a fairly hard life.
i dropped my 18-50 off the desk onto the floor.
still works fine.
the canon 100-400L is an amazing lens, but its also a hefty price tag.
we have one, but it doesnt get huge amounts of use.
 
Sigma 10-20 and a 17-70 f2.8 and no problems at all. Been using on a Canon 40D since purchase just fine. Just got a 7D but not tried them on this yet, but not expecting any problems.

Am I happy with my Sigmas..? YES.
Do I know of anyone of my mates with a Sigma with build quality issues or faults..? NO
 
Had 4 Sigmas, still got three,all have been fine.
 
My OH has a Sigma 120-400. Very sharp and the OS (stabilization) works a treat (it is a 4-stop one compared to the 2-stop of the Canon 100-400).

Below is a photo she took at 400mm 1/160", f5.6, ISO800, using a 500D

Results stopped down a bit (f6.3 or f7.1) are even sharper, especially if there is enough light to use ISO200 or 400. Highly recommended.

robin1.jpg
 
I have the Sigma 120-400mm for some time now. Its my first "above 300mm" and it took some time to tweak it using my 50D. Its very sharp until 300mm using the (fantastic) OS (far better than the Canon 100-400mm in terms of stops, but then again, the Canon lens is over 5 years old) it even enables shooting without a tripod (its a very heavy lens). Build quality is very good and honestly, I do not understand why Sigma didn't add the EX to this lens. Also, the barrel does not extend much when you hold the lens upside down, again showing quality material. At 400m it gets a bit more difficult to get really sharp pictures and some sharpening may be required in your post-production.

All in all, a decent lens worth its price
 
The honest answer is depends what you're comparing them against...

I've got a Sigma 10-20 EX and love it, very good build, and a superb lens, have had a 18-125 sigma, which is a non EX lens, and it produced some very nice results, but not as substantial build quality. I've now treated myself to a couple of examples of canon L series glass, and can now really appreciate what people have been going on about, the build on those is light years ahead.

So build quality of standard sigma lenses is probably just about on a par as bog standard Canon lenses, the EX range is better, but still can't hold a candle to propper L series glass. as with so many things, you do get what you pay for
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top