Sandra C. Ek
|
|
Canon vs. Sigma lenses
I am in the process of buying a digital camera package and the firm I am negotiating with is suggesting I substitute my choice of Canon 24-70 f2.8L USM and Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS USM lenses with Sigma lenses which are cheaper. This would allow me to buy other equipment (high speed card and high capacity batteries) that I couldn't otherwise afford. Is this a good idea? Are they of comparable quality?
1/3/2006 10:31:22 AM
|
|
|
Mike Carpenter
|
|
Sandra,
I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX and it's a great lens. It takes fantastic pictures and is very sharp. I would recommend it to anyone. The only reason I will go to a canon lens is for the 70-200 2.8 USM IS. Mike.
1/3/2006 11:00:28 AM
|
|
|
|
Bob Fately
|
|
Sandra, I too can confirm that Sigma makes some excellent lenses. I have their 12-24 and their 180 f3.5 Macro, and both are as well built, reliable and virtually as sharp as the Nikkors I couldn't afford to get. Certainly SIgma, like Tamron and Tokina, has made some dud lenses geared more for the consumer market, but when it comes to fast glass it seems they are in the same paying field as the brand names. Heck for all we know the same factory is pumping out Canons and Sigmas and the next day, Nikkors...depending on the specific lens in question.
1/3/2006 11:36:53 AM
|
|
|
Todd Bennett
|
|
Sandra,
I own a Sigma 50-500mm pro zoom lense. It is an excellent lense. As Bob said, Sigma has made some duds though. When I went to by my Sigma I did a Google search for reviews of that particular lense and found it to be a good lense. One person even had photos he had taken with the lense on his website which were impressive. That would be a good way to find out what other people think of the lense.
1/3/2006 11:51:18 AM
|
|
|
Andrew Laverghetta
|
|
Hello! This is kind of a tough decision. I was thinking that if you are able to affort the Canon lenses, I think you should go for them. I have Sigma's 24-70mm f/2.8 and while it's nice and gets the job done, I think I would rather have Canon's version and I would have gotten it if I could afford it. Heck, the difference is about $600. And then the two 70-200mm lenses, the Canon one you listed is probably around twice as much as the Sigma model. The Image Stabilized one at least. It seems as though I've heard some good stuff about Sigma's 70-200mm f/2.8 as you have in this thread, but if you can get the Canon version of the 24-70, that might be better. I've seen some great photos from the 24-70L and they're quite a bit better than my 24-70 Sigma. Anyway, compared to the price of these two lenses, a few cards and rechargable batteries should be a drop in the bucket. What camera are you looking at getting?
1/3/2006 6:25:35 PM
|
|
|
|
Oddur Sigurdsson
|
|
First let me say - Nothing compares to L glass by Canon. I've used the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, and own a big white EF-L 70-200 f/2.8 IS from Canon. There isn't much of a difference to tell you the truth, the overall impression of the Sigma is that it isn't quite as fast as it's bigger brother, nor is it as sturdy, made out of a flimsy metal + plastic + rubber composite. And I've used the IS more than I originally thought, which isn't available on the Sigma. I've heard a lot of good things about Sigmas competitor for the 24-70 f/2.8. One of my best friends uses this lens on a regular basis and even though I've never gotten to test it myself, he tells me that it is in many cases sharper than the Canon, dispite the fact that it sometimes focuses too close and hunts - and isn't as bulletproof as the Canon. My advice to you is try both of them out in a store. A person should never buy any glass or camera before actually getting to try it out and determine it's true feel and ablility. To be noted; big white lenses = respect in some cases. Not all, though. Best of luck to you Sandra.
1/4/2006 11:49:42 AM
|
|
|
Glenn E. Urquhart
|
|
Hi Sandra - as Oddur says... "Nothing compares to L Glass by Canon" - or - You get what you pay for. I am sure Sigma makes a good lens and I just purchased 2 mid range canon lenses (not L) that the Sigma was around the same price. If you have the money, go for the L Lenses! Cheers - GLenn.
1/4/2006 12:13:53 PM
|
|
|
Craig m. Zacarelli
|
|
remember... either of the two choices will do. Canon "L"'s are the holy grail....if you can afford em, if not, do the Sigmas.. they take excellant pictures, you wont be dissapointed...esp. with all the shiny new "extras" you'll be able to afford. Just be sure to purchase ANY lens, canon, sigma or any other brand new from a reputable dealer such as B&H. it will help if there is a problem, like you get a bad copy or something. A used lens or one purchased from a shady dealer will not be returned and may be a grey market lens with no warranty or at the very least, a warrenty good only in some other country!
Craig-
1/4/2006 1:37:47 PM
|
|
|
|
Log in to respond or ask your own question.
|
