Sigma v Canon

Phall82

Phall82

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,254
Name
Colin
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

I know the title sounds like the usual "should I buy a canon or sigma version" but it's not :-)

I've decided that I think for a non-professional, Sigma lenses are actually the BETTER option in nearly all cases.

There is a lot of snobbishness about having Canon's own brand lenses but I think the Sigma lenses I have owned and played with feel better than Canon's, take equal image quality (for the majority of purposes), come with a real pouch, hood and are cheaper.

What more could you ask for?

Just thought I'd give my opinion... Anybody agree/disagree?

Thanks

Colin
 
This has been discussed many, many times before, do we really need another thread about it?

Different people look for different things in the lenses they buy, whether a more expensive canon equivalent is "better" usually depends on the use and preference of each person and the specific lenses you're comparing IMHO ;)
 
Last edited:
I would love to agree with you that Sigma are a better buy, as I grudge paying big bucks to Canon. However, having owned several lenses of both makes, my own thoughts are that Canon are better overall, but it can vary. I now buy Canon and it is nothing to do with snobbery:shake:
 
But - canon update firmware on the camera and bang your sigma lens does not focus correctly till you get it re-chipped by sigma

a problem that you never have with canon lenses
 
In my experience OEM lenses are built better, break less often and are invariably sharper. This applies to other mounts as well as Canon.
 
sportysnaps said:
But - canon update firmware on the camera and bang your sigma lens does not focus correctly till you get it re-chipped by sigma

a problem that you never have with canon lenses
Click to expand...


That's only a rare occurrence though, and sigma re-chip lenses for free.
 
Last edited:
sportysnaps said:
But - canon update firmware on the camera and bang your sigma lens does not focus correctly till you get it re-chipped by sigma

a problem that you never have with canon lenses
Click to expand...

I've not had an issue with this.

It's mainly the very old lenses that had the re-chipping issue.
 
sportysnaps said:
But - canon update firmware on the camera and bang your sigma lens does not focus correctly till you get it re-chipped by sigma

a problem that you never have with canon lenses
Click to expand...

Funny.. Never had that and my oldest sigma must easily be 5 years old. Actually maybe the 120-300 is even older as its a non DG model.

Anyway, as it's been said many times there isn't anything wrong using sigma even for professional use. Some sigmas are better than the canon versions and some canons can be lemons. Swings and roundabouts.
 
These days, as a non pro it's simply not worth paying extra for the Canon than the 3rd party alternative.

There are many 3rd party alternatives that are as good IQ wise as the OEM lens, for at least half the price, sometimes even less.

In the current climate at the moment if I'm considering a new lens it'll be a Tamron or Sigma. And this is from someone who only bought Canon until I tried, and subsequently bought a Sigma 70-200.

A lot of OEM lenses just arn't worth the money.
 
Last edited:
Of course, if you do buy a Sigma lens don't forget to put a UV filter on it. :thumbs:
 
Jackwow said:
Of course, if you do buy a Sigma lens don't forget to put a UV filter on it. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Eh?
 
Jackwow said:
I was fishing Jim, but you didn't take the bait. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Lol ok!
 
odd jim said:
These days, as a non pro it's simply not worth paying extra for the Canon than the 3rd party alternative.

There are many 3rd party alternatives that are as good IQ wise as the OEM lens, for at least half the price, sometimes even less.

In the current climate at the moment if I'm considering a new lens it'll be a Tamron or Sigma. And this is from someone who only bought Canon until I tried, and subsequently bought a Sigma 70-200.

A lot of OEM lenses just arn't worth the money.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I mean. I'm glad that someone with far more experience than me agrees with my point exactly.

It's just the UV filter that is needed :-)
 
I love my Sigma 70-200. Having owned the Nikon version I have to say that the Sigma is every bit as good.
 
YOU buy a lens, if YOUR happy with it then whether it be sigma, canon or whatever thats the best lens for YOU.

For ME, the sigma's I've owned havn't touched the canon version, but thats MY view, even when I was just a guy with a camera. It may be fact, my opinion, or a canon fanboy bias, but I'm happy with Canon and will only buy canon becuase it always delivers.

Whats your view? ;)
 
Last edited:
I may be happy buying Tokina instead of Canon, but had sour experience with pretty much every sigma lens mounted on my camera. It is a shame as on paper they look great.
 
daugirdas said:
I may be happy buying Tokina instead of Canon, but had sour experience with pretty much every sigma lens mounted on my camera. It is a shame as on paper they look great.
Click to expand...

They are great.
 
Up to the individual what or what they do not purchase. Where exactly do you get your data from, which say`s there is a snobbishness about owning a Canon lens?
 
u8myufo said:
Up to the individual what or what they do not purchase. Where exactly do you get your data from, which say`s there is a snobbishness about owning a Canon lens?
Click to expand...

i have to admit there is some snobbishness around.. "ooh no i couldnt possibly use anything other than L on my mint, 200 click 5Dmk2 that i use to photograph my cat when im bored"

:p

also there are a lot of "oh ive heard/read that the sigma is soft" rather than 1st hand experience issues.
 
i like those big russian metal build lens hahahaha. Good enough for me lol
 
u8myufo said:
Up to the individual what or what they do not purchase. Where exactly do you get your data from, which say`s there is a snobbishness about owning a Canon lens?
Click to expand...

My "data" just comes from reading these forums and a lot of people say they would buy the Canon because it's L series (which isn't a real reason).

I wouldn't say that I've analysed the "data" fully, it's just a feeling I get I suppose... And from what I've read in the past, other people have said the same thing about the snobbishness. It was more of an observation and opinion than a proven fact.
 
OK, you guys want some first hand experience? Admittedly this is on Sony mount but Sony do actually make some quite nice lenses.
First Sigma I bought was s/h 400mm F5.6 Telemacro. Took beautifully sharp pictures wide open. It broke the AF gear train the first time I put a Sigma EX 1.4x TC on it. Spares were unavailable six years after the model was no longer made. Result: Total write off.
Sigma number 2 was another s/h 105mm F2.8 EX macro. Again, very sharp wide open. Ring gear stripped after six months careful usage. I was able to buy a replacement ring gear which was very cheap tacky thermoplastic. Result: couldn't trust it again so I resold it on ebay immediately after repair.
Sigma number 3 - 50-500mm Bigma (not HSM) owned by a friend. Shot its ring gear within a week. Replacement still soft at 500mm and was easily outresolved by a 70-400mm Sony zoom even allowing for the greater magnification of the Bigma. The friend sold it on ebay and got the 70-400mm zoom.
Sigma number 4 - 100-300mm F4 The only Sigma I still own because its resale value makes it not worth selling. It's actually quite good, very sharp at medium to far distances through the zoom range but at or close to the near focus limit it is awful at 300mm. Still, for once, one of the best Sigmas that I've seen.
But one out of four is pretty poor, don't you think?
 
Last edited:
I'm mostly interested in primes and a couple of things occur to me. Firstly some of Canon's lenses are rather old designs now and design processes and thought move on so it's perhaps no surprise that some third party lenses seem to be better than their Canon equivalents. Secondly some of the newer third party lenses seem to have different design priorities such as for example more attention being paid to centre sharpness rather than sharpness across the frame and in some instances this leads to not a decision as to which is the better lens but more of a decision as to what priorities do I want to give weight to.
 
eccles said:
OK, you guys want some first hand experience? Admittedly this is on Sony mount but Sony do actually make some quite nice lenses.
First Sigma I bought was s/h 400mm F5.6 Telemacro. Took beautifully sharp pictures wide open. It broke the AF gear train the first time I put a Sigma EX 1.4x TC on it. Spares were unavailable six years after the model was no longer made. Result: Total write off.
Sigma number 2 was another s/h 105mm F2.8 EX macro. Again, very sharp wide open. Ring gear stripped after six months careful usage. I was able to buy a replacement ring gear which was very cheap tacky thermoplastic. Result: couldn't trust it again so I resold it on ebay immediately after repair.
Sigma number 3 - 50-500mm Bigma (not HSM) owned by a friend. Shot its ring gear within a week. Replacement still soft at 500mm and was easily outresolved by a 70-400mm Sony zoom even allowing for the greater magnification of the Bigma. The friend sold it on ebay and got the 70-400mm zoom.
Sigma number 4 - 100-300mm F4 The only Sigma I still own because its resale value makes it not worth selling. It's actually quite good, very sharp at medium to far distances through the zoom range but at or close to the near focus limit it is awful at 300mm. Still, for once, one of the best Sigmas that I've seen.
But one out of four is pretty poor, don't you think?
Click to expand...

you have to question why that seems to be a common issue on sony mount, why do sony have to put so much force through the AF mech over canon, nikon and other mounts.
 
neil_g said:
you have to question why that seems to be a common issue on sony mount, why do sony have to put so much force through the AF mech over canon, nikon and other mounts.
Click to expand...

Yes, a very good point, but the fact remains that Minolta lenses up to 25 years old do not fail with anything like the regularity that Sigma lenses do. Much more so than OEM manufacturers, Sigma build to a price, as I found out when I bought that replacement ring gear for the 105mm Macro. It cost just £8.30.
 
eccles said:
Yes, a very good point, but the fact remains that Minolta lenses up to 25 years old do not fail with anything like the regularity that Sigma lenses do. Much more so than OEM manufacturers, Sigma build to a price, as I found out when I bought that replacement ring gear for the 105mm Macro. It cost just £8.30.
Click to expand...

you forget that things built 25 years ago are generally cast iron etc ;)

id wager sigmas af mechs are the same or similar materials to canon and nikon, so again why the issue with sony? are all of their af mechs all metal?
 
you forget that things built 25 years ago are generally cast iron etc ;)
Click to expand...
Not far from the truth, that. I stripped down a 70-210mm F4 'Beercan' lens once to clean oily aperture leaves, and yes, it was built like a tank. :)

id wager sigmas af mechs are the same or similar materials to canon and nikon, so again why the issue with sony? are all of their af mechs all metal?
Click to expand...
I'd wager the opposite myself; but we'll have to agree to disagree as I won't be stripping down any Canon or Nikon lenses any time soon.

Am I right? Canon doesn't use a screw drive at all do they? Which would explain why Sigmas don't have the problem with Canon mount because all Canon fit lenses have an internal motor. Higher priced Nikon cameras have screw drive though. However, I think that Sigma moved to HSM motors for Nikon much more quickly than they have for Sony though so this could be a partial answer. There are substantial advantages from economies of scale with producing 3rd party lenses for the big two.
 
Hi, I only joined today, this is my first reply.

I have a mix of Canon L and Sigma lenses. My Sigmas' are the 8-16mm f4.5-5.6 and 50mm f1.4. With the exception of the stupid adapter ring the 8-16mm is brilliant. The 50mm f1.4 is superior to Canon's offering in almost every respect.

I previously owned a Sigma 10-20mm, the lens hood fell off and was lost during the first month and the lens cap would fall off at the first opportunity.
The adapter ring on the 8-16mm almost falls off when I lift my camera out of it's bag. Things never fell off any of the Canon lenses that I have owned over the years.

As for quality control- I've never had a problem but I know people who have with both Canon and Sigma.

I think Sigma lens are generally better value and are robust enough for most photographers.
 
Barry

Welcome to the forum. It was my purchase of your Sigma 30mm that gave me the idea to start this thread :-)

Colin
 
Phall82 said:
My "data" just comes from reading these forums and a lot of people say they would buy the Canon because it's L series (which isn't a real reason).

I wouldn't say that I've analysed the "data" fully, it's just a feeling I get I suppose... And from what I've read in the past, other people have said the same thing about the snobbishness. It was more of an observation and opinion than a proven fact.
Click to expand...

Colin,

Just curious as to why you bought a CANON 60d body, when there are many cheaper DLSR's on the market. Nothing to do with the CANON reputation I hope:D
 
Peter10d said:
Colin,

Just curious as to why you bought a CANON 60d body, when there are many cheaper DLSR's on the market. Nothing to do with the CANON reputation I hope:D
Click to expand...

Very much to do with the canon reputation and reviews etc. I have brilliant canon lenses as well but I think that sigma have great lenses such as the 30mm and 50mm and I love my 120-400mm as well but they are usually better value for money for what I need as a non pro.

An example would be the 70-200mm range. I have a canon f/4 which I like but I will be getting the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS to replace it when I have the funds, but I couldn't justify the price of the canon equivalent.
 
Duplicate
 
I'm not saying that Canon aren't any good. I've had a couple of quality control issues with them but you can get that with any manufacturer as a rare occasions.

What I was trying to say is that Sigma are great, well built lenses that come with all the accessories at a lower price. In future if there is a choice between Canon and Sigma for the same type of lens (focal length, speed etc) I will choose the Sigma because I trust their brand and I will save money.

I still love Canon but if you can get the quality you want for cheaper then why not?
 
My point exactly Colin.
Having said that, I think the Canon 70-200mm f4 is the best value L lens on the market, I would not swap one for a Sigma equivalent. I owned one the Canon for a few years and only sold it to help fund a 70-200 f2.8, I wish I had both because the f4 is more portable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top