Canon L v Sigma EX

zerodeluxe

zerodeluxe

Messages
262
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
Hi

I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but how do the Sigma EX lenses compare to Canon L series?

Been looking at 24-70 2.8f, and it's a draw that Sigma is cheaper by a considerable amount, but I know Canon L is usually regarded (from reading here) very high quality.

Would the Sigma EXs be equal, or are they still slightly inferior? I ask as I'm thinking of getting some new lenses prior to a body upgrade and could get more glass for my bucks if I head down the Sigma (or even Tokina or Tamron) route perhaps?

Thanks!

Ben
 
as a rule of thumb, canon and nikon top range lenses will be of a higher qualiity than '3rd party' versions. the 3rd party ones make up for the differences in build and optical quality by offering something else, which is normally a lower price or a feature like stability control.

i have the sigma ex dg 24-70 2.8 and i'm quite happy with it, but then i've never used the canon equivalent so i have nothing to compare it to. compared to the 'kit' lens level of gear it's a definite improvement
 
Cool - thanks. I was wondering though as the 3rd party lenses get some fantastic reviews, an didn't know if the higher price tag was just because it has 'Canon' printed on it!... I've been recommended the Tamron 17-50 several times, and am tempted. My only hold back is if I decide to go full frame anytime soon I'll have to lose it, so might just look to FF compatible lenses.

I guess it's just a case of trying a few maybe...
 
zerodeluxe said:
Cool - thanks. I was wondering though as the 3rd party lenses get some fantastic reviews, an didn't know if the higher price tag was just because it has 'Canon' printed on it!... I've been recommended the Tamron 17-50 several times, and am tempted. My only hold back is if I decide to go full frame anytime soon I'll have to lose it, so might just look to FF compatible lenses.

I guess it's just a case of trying a few maybe...
Click to expand...

i eventually plan to go FF as well, so that was my thinking too. i had originally planned to get the tamron 17-50 2.8 and sell it on come time to jump to FF but the sigma came up at a very good price so i went for it. the tamron is a cracking lens by all accounts though
 
Golly, I don't know if there's a hard a fast rule...

All Canon L lenses are EF, that is full frame lenses. Sigma badge both DG and DC, that is small sensor and FF sensor lenses as EX.

Some L lenses are weather sealed but I don't think that every single one is, correct me if I'm wrong. Are any Sigma lenses weather sealed? I honestly don't know :wacky:

Canon L lenses tend to use more exotic glass than a more consumer grade lens might but some Sigma lenses use exotic glass too :wacky:

I'd guess that there is no one size fits all answer and that you'd really have to compare the spec of the lenses you're looking at to be sure what the actual differences are.
 
I've got a Canon 28-135, 50mm 1.8, plus the two kit lenses that came with the 450d... I'd like to get the 24-70L (or something equivalent) an ultra wide, plus a good telephoto and keep the 50mm. That way I should have a good coverage.. I can then sell the kit lenses, plus the 18-135.

I'd like to stick with Canon, bit if 3rd party ones can perform as well then it seems I could save myself some money!
 
With third party lenses you're always going to be looking at some sort of compromise. There are a few excepetions though, but in general you pay maybe double the price for a Canon alternative that's slightly better in some way.

It varies from lens to lens though.
 
woof woof said:
Golly, I don't know if there's a hard a fast rule...

All Canon L lenses are EF, that is full frame lenses. Sigma badge both DG and DC, that is small sensor and FF sensor lenses as EX.

Some L lenses are weather sealed but I don't think that every single one is, correct me if I'm wrong. Are any Sigma lenses weather sealed? I honestly don't know :wacky:

Canon L lenses tend to use more exotic glass than a more consumer grade lens might but some Sigma lenses use exotic glass too :wacky:

I'd guess that there is no one size fits all answer and that you'd really have to compare the spec of the lenses you're looking at to be sure what the actual differences are.
Click to expand...

Only very recently sigma have introduced any weather sealing (and I've not yet heard any user experiences of it)

It's a good general rule that sigma's are quite a bit cheaper and a bit inferior, can be the other way round though (the 50mm f/1.4 gets rave reviews).

In general though, if you've got the cash the OEM glass is better but the sigma's are often very good at lower prices.
They do have some gems with no canon/nikon etc. rivals, like the 120-300 f/2.8, the 150mm f/2.8 /OS macro and the goliath 300-800mm zoom
 
squishy said:
It's a good general rule that sigma's are quite a bit cheaper and a bit inferior, can be the other way round though (the 50mm f/1.4 gets rave reviews).
Click to expand...

Nupe, gotta disagree there. I could name half a dozen Siggy lenses without thinking that are arguably the market leaders.

Things have moved on from the days when the likes of Siggy and Tamron only made cheapo alternatives to kit lenses. It just isn't that simple any more and I personally don't believe there's a general rule any more.
 
Market leaders in sales or market leaders in performance?

I happen to be a big fan of sigma lenses (love my 150mm macro, if I ever replace my 100-400L (which I also love) it'll probably be with a 120-300 f/2.8 OS).

But from what I've seen there are more cases where the OEM glass is superior and more expensive.
 
Last edited:
Performance.

50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, some of the macro lenses like that 150mm f2.8... some of the longer zoom the birders use... the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, possibly the 90mm f2.8 etc. These are lenses than stand comparison on image quality alone but of course other factors like weather sealing and build and even handling are part of the whole decision making process.

Difficult to generalise these days.
 
woof woof said:
Performance.

50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, some of the macro lenses like that 150mm f2.8... some of the longer zoom the birders use... the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, possibly the 90mm f2.8 etc. These are lenses than stand comparison on image quality alone but of course other factors like weather sealing and build and even handling are part of the whole decision making process.

Difficult to generalise these days.
Click to expand...

You're probably right, that generalisation isn't as true as it used to be.

But I still think sigma's most common position is as the good value alternative. Their lenses that are overall better are stand outs rather than the norm.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Performance.

50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, some of the macro lenses like that 150mm f2.8... some of the longer zoom the birders use... the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, possibly the 90mm f2.8 etc. These are lenses than stand comparison on image quality alone but of course other factors like weather sealing and build and even handling are part of the whole decision making process.

Difficult to generalise these days.
Click to expand...

Maybe the 50mm f/1.4 at a push, but I wouldn't say any of the rest are market leaders. As a general rule of thumb if you can afford OEM then buy OEM.
 
While sigma may have some interesting lenses, I would steer well clear of their 24-70mm particularly the old non-HSM one. My worst lens ever. HSM one is probably better till you get full frame and see the corners. Canon is much better, IF you get a perfect copy. I am still trying to get mine perfect.
Or just get 24-105mm f/4 L and be happy with a great lens.
 
There's a Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX up for sale on here.

Not mine - just thought it might be worth mentioning.
 
Laudrup said:
Maybe the 50mm f/1.4 at a push, but I wouldn't say any of the rest are market leaders. As a general rule of thumb if you can afford OEM then buy OEM.
Click to expand...

Well, as a Canon user I've honestly never read a single review that placed the Canon 50mm f1.4 ahead of the Siggy so if there is a push here I'd say that it's the Canon that's pushed... off a cliff, some think that the 85mm is better than the Canon 85mm f1.2, 150mm is difficult as I don't think there's a direct Canon equiv... but IMVHO there are quite a number of 3rd party lenses that can stand comparison with Nikon / Canon on IQ if only because some of the body manufacturers lenses are, frankly... creaking into old age a bit now :)
 
woof woof said:
Well, as a Canon user I've honestly never read a single review that placed the Canon 50mm f1.4 ahead of the Siggy so if there is a push here I'd say that it's the Canon that's pushed... off a cliff
Click to expand...

I've had both, and unless you're super critical (seems like many a pixel peeper reside online), then I think they are on par IQ wise. I have sets of photos on my flickr with both, and I doubt you'd be able to differentiate between them.

The big reason to go for Sigma in my opinion is the build quality - the Canon 1.4 is better than the 1.8, but still not very robust (both interior and exterior). The Sigma is a chunky beast compared to the Canon equivalent.
 
Do Sigma still use that paint finish that seems to flake off in great chunks all the time? I had a lens that looked like it had leprosy, and a few others I've handled seemed to look very shabby even though they were relatively new. They do seem to be quite solid though and good if you are on a budget or looking for odd focal lengths.
 
Laudrup said:
Do Sigma still use that paint finish that seems to flake off in great chunks all the time? I had a lens that looked like it had leprosy, and a few others I've handled seemed to look very shabby even though they were relatively new. They do seem to be quite solid though and good if you are on a budget or looking for odd focal lengths.
Click to expand...

Nah, they've started using a smooth but grippy rubber finish instead recent.

A big improvement, the old finish is the only thing that spoils the perceived build quality on lenses like my 150mm macro (which is actually very solid with a metal barrel, it just doesn't feel like it all the time with that finish).
 
squishy said:
I didn't know that, that's a shame.
Click to expand...

As long as you don't bash them they should be fine. One of our 70-200's got whacked by a stone at a rally and created a hole in the coating which then started to peal more. The other 70-200 is fine despite hard usage. The 120-300 ( the old non DG version ) had a hard life before it got to me and a lot of the coating has come away from the zoom ring edges for example. The 50 is still minty after a year and a bit.

Treat them with care and they should be fine.
 
Thanks for the replies... I'll certainly consider the Sigma's and Tamrons. I think after using the 18-55 at a wedding yesterday, something to replace and better that range will be good for me first!
 
Hi Ben

Tends to get overlooked a bit in favour of the Tamron 17-50 but I found the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro to be a cracking lens. Might be worth a look if you are looking to upgrade from the 18-55 ?

Just a thought.

Gary
 
tomqh said:
I've had both, and unless you're super critical (seems like many a pixel peeper reside online), then I think they are on par IQ wise. I have sets of photos on my flickr with both, and I doubt you'd be able to differentiate between them.

The big reason to go for Sigma in my opinion is the build quality - the Canon 1.4 is better than the 1.8, but still not very robust (both interior and exterior). The Sigma is a chunky beast compared to the Canon equivalent.
Click to expand...

Canon 50/1.4 is certainly sharper in the corners. That is very critical for some work I do. Canon is built like a toy though and that is sad.
 
As has been said already really, some Sigma lenses are as good as Canon lenses. There may also be one or two Sigma lenses which are better (in terms of image sharpness), but for a whole package I still think Canons are better.
Having had many Sigma's and many Canons, my bag is now full of Canon only (plus one Tamron 28-75 2.8 which I really like but accept that the Canon is probably better - its just not a range I use much to warrant spending £900 to get the Canon!)

One thing I've had trouble with on Sigma's is the focusing systems. While they may be quick, on a few of my lenses they have been inaccurate. My 70-200 was a nightmare for this. It was painfully sharp but the focusing could be 2cm infront or 5cm behind - it was completely random! I tried 3 versions and all had the same issues, mixed focus results.
 
I've had Sigma lenses in the past that worked fine on one body but refused to work on a later body e.g. fine on a 10D no go on a 20D. It used to be a "common" problem as they were reverse engineered but doesnt seem to be as much of a problem now, might still be worth thinking about though as Canon often bring out enhancements that Sigma (etc) cant make use of.
Canon s/w will also recognise their own lenses not sure it will 3rd party manufacturers and as such there are facilities you cant use in say Zb or Dpp, might not worry you but then again it might.
My Sigma 15/30 is very awkward to put into MF mode (2 switches/rings to set), whereas the Canons are very easy.
My main lenses are 24/70 and 70/200 L series Canons but I'm very happy with my 15/30 EX DG (Full Frame) Sigma too, even though its not water/bomb proof and the other two are (on my 1D anyway).

Matt
 
woof woof said:
Golly, I don't know if there's a hard a fast rule...

All Canon L lenses are EF, that is full frame lenses. Sigma badge both DG and DC, that is small sensor and FF sensor lenses as EX.

Some L lenses are weather sealed but I don't think that every single one is, correct me if I'm wrong. Are any Sigma lenses weather sealed? I honestly don't know :wacky:

Canon L lenses tend to use more exotic glass than a more consumer grade lens might but some Sigma lenses use exotic glass too :wacky:

I'd guess that there is no one size fits all answer and that you'd really have to compare the spec of the lenses you're looking at to be sure what the actual differences are.
Click to expand...

Completely incorrect, DC (Digital aps-C) designated lenses are for Digital APS-C Cameras whilst DG (Digital & General) designated are for all Digital and Film Cameras. the EX designation is for EXtra and indicates a higher quality both build and optically.
 
neil_g said:
the sig 18-50 2.8 make sure its the "macro" version. the earlier version is poor.
Click to expand...

Think I specified the "macro" in my earlier post.

OOI, I've been lucky enough to own lots of good glass including from Canon their 16-35L, 24LII, 35L, 50L, 85L, 100L, 135L, 70-200f4 and f2.8 ISL (mkI and mkII in the latter case), 100-400L, 300L, 500L and 600L etc.. Lots of these I've sold now (long story) and now have a mixed bag of Canon, Sigma, Tokina and Samyang lenses. In short, I've road-tested, as it were, lots of good gear and settled on what I think are best for me and these are from a range of manufacturers. Some, of course, are niche as Canon do not offer an equivalent to the Siggy 120-300 OS, which is a nice lens. Similarly the Canon MP-E 65 is a bit of a one-off. In terms of third party gear, I would also heartilly recomend the Tammy 28-75 f2.8, Samyang 85 f1.4, Sigma 120-300 OS and 14 mm f2.8. Lots of other good third party geat out there as well.

Good luck with your lens choices in the future.
 
As a rule of thumb, you'll find

Bottom-end: First party
Mid-range: Third party
Top-end: First party

The third party lenses are generally good lenses, not the best, but a good step up. The image quality generally isn't as good as the top Canon L lenses or the better Nikkor G, but conversely it tends to be comparable to similar price-point lenses or better than the first party low-end options.

e.g.
General crop zoom:
Low end: Canon 18-55 IS USM/Nikkor 18-55 VR
Mid range: Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Top end: Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM/Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8G AF-S

50mm:
Low end: Canon 50mm f/1.8
Mid range: Sigma 50mm f/1.4
Top end: Canon 50mm f/1.2L

You generally find the third party offering step ups from the low-end first party gear, but not quite up at the quality of the professional gear from Canikon.

There are of course exceptions, such as the Sigma 50-500 "bigma", but by and large you get what you pay for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top