sigma lenses....

photographyman

photographyman

Messages
298
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Hello everyone,

Whats the verdict with sigma 24 - 70 2.8 and the 70 - 200 2.8?

Would it be a good move to buy these 2 or save, save,save for nikons 2. At the mo i am saving anyway,slowly but surely.

I have been looking at these two instead of nikons lens purely due to the price.
 
I had the 70-200 2.8 and it was great, for the money you can't go wrong... yes there is a difference between the sigma and the canon but not a £700 difference, although I did sell mine and buy the Canon a couple of years ago.
 
daugirdas said:
I would get OEM every time. They are sharper, more contrasty, better focusing and keep the value a lot better.
Click to expand...

debatable. if the sigmas were that poor i would have "upgraded" a long time ago. been using the two 70-200's for sports events for 3 years now and theyre pretty much bombproof and spot on for AF and IQ. the 24-70 came out at a wedding and produced some of the best shots of the day over the canon 24-105, go figure..
 
daugirdas said:
I would get OEM every time. They are sharper, more contrasty, better focusing and keep the value a lot better.
Click to expand...

I would actually agree but the combined new price approx £2500,
Second hand approx £1500+.

Sigma combined new can be bought for under a £1000.

Does the difference in price really reflect on all mentioned above?

Oh, and thanks guys and gals for all your input.
 
Although I've never owned the 2 lenses, I have had/do have other Sigma lenses and have always been impressed with their IQ etc. I think the price difference would sway me towards them if I were in the market for those particular lenses.:thinking:
 
I haveonly owned one Sigma and I can honestly say I enjoyed it more than I did my Canon 17-40 (L) when I went full frame. The sigma is really well built, silky smooth rings and was very sharp for an ultra wide. I know this isn't very specific to the thread but as a person who has used a sigma I thought I'd chip in.
 
Ive owned the Nikon 24-70 and the sigma 24-70 (old HSM version), and also the Nikon 70-200 Vr mk1 and currently own a sigma 70-200 HSM Macro 1.

The Nikon 24-70 is superior to the sigma 24-70 in most ways. I probably wouldnt buy another sigma version of this.

The sigma 70-200 apart lack of VR in my model for me beats the Nikon in most ways. Its as sharp, more contrasty, doesnt vignette, slightly lighter and the focus is nigh on the same.
I couldnt justify spending out on the Nikon when I got this for £350. Its just a no brainer.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Ive owned the Nikon 24-70 and the sigma 24-70 (old HSM version), and also the Nikon 70-200 Vr mk1 and currently own a sigma 70-200 HSM Macro 1.

The Nikon 24-70 is superior to the sigma 24-70 in most ways. I probably wouldnt buy another sigma version of this.

The sigma 70-200 apart lack of VR in my model for me beats the Nikon in most ways. Its as sharp, more contrasty, doesnt vignette, slightly lighter and the focus is nigh on the same.
I couldnt justify spending out on the Nikon when I got this for £350. Its just a no brainer.
Click to expand...

Thanks TCR for this, i think youve persuaded me. I will go for sigma 70-200 and then go for Nikon 24-70.

Thanks to everyone else as well for your kind opinions.
 
I'm not a Nikon shooter but can comment on them compared to the Canon versions... I have used two Sigma 24-70 f2.8s and both have been shockingly poor, while both the 28-70 and 24-70 Canons that I've used have been spot on even wide open. The 70-200 was a bit of a different beast, my Sigma was very good and I was very happy shooting with it for the year or so I owned it. However when I tested it against the Canon I could see the difference in both AF speed and IQ so made the change. Personally I wouldn't waste my time on another Sigma 24-70 but would be happy enough with the Sigma 70-200 if I found myself needing to downgrade.
 
neil_g said:
which versions of the 24-70 are people talking about, the non-HSM was always pretty poor but the HSM has no problems from what ive read (and seen)
Click to expand...

Non macro HSM was the one I had. Wasn't awfull but no where near as good as the Nikon.
 
trencheel303 said:
I haveonly owned one Sigma and I can honestly say I enjoyed it more than I did my Canon 17-40 (L) when I went full frame. The sigma is really well built, silky smooth rings and was very sharp for an ultra wide. I know this isn't very specific to the thread but as a person who has used a sigma I thought I'd chip in.
Click to expand...

Which Sigma did you have? I have a Canon 17-40f4L and I don't think it's 'all that' so to speak. Build quality is top drawer but that's where it stops. IQ is not up there with the best...IMO of course.:D

FWIW, I think's it's easier to find a high performance Nikon lens rather than a Canon lens. That also is only my opinion.
 
flashp said:
Which Sigma did you have? I have a Canon 17-40f4L and I don't think it's 'all that' so to speak. Build quality is top drawer but that's where it stops. IQ is not up there with the best...IMO of course.:D

FWIW, I think's it's easier to find a high performance Nikon lens rather than a Canon lens. That also is only my opinion.
Click to expand...

17-40 is probably the worst L lens, but sigma doesn't have anything close either with roughly that range. But event then I hope replacement is round the corner!
70-200's are much easier to make well (so anything will beat 17-40), but then 'affordable' comes at a price.
 
snappypete said:
NO! Don't do it, had tow for a very short while, neither came close to Nikkors.
Click to expand...

Quite obviously not the consensus of all.

Please tell me what's wrong with this.


DSC_9503.jpg by TCR4x4, on Flickr


Or this


Sebbe by TCR4x4, on Flickr


Short answer is nothing. I'd say it's pretty damn close to the Nikon, if not slightly better considering no VR.
 
i asked this question not long ago. and with the advice i got the sigma 70-200 f2.8. I used it the last two days for a gymnastics comp and i couldn't be happier with it got some cracking shots with it . So again always listen to advice on here (y).

Also its well worth buying the sigma 2x converter as well just to give you that extra reach, and it still takes great pictures.
 
flashp said:
Which Sigma did you have? I have a Canon 17-40f4L and I don't think it's 'all that' so to speak. Build quality is top drawer but that's where it stops. IQ is not up there with the best...IMO of course.:D

FWIW, I think's it's easier to find a high performance Nikon lens rather than a Canon lens. That also is only my opinion.
Click to expand...

oops, forgot to say. I had the Sigma 10-20 f/4 - 5.6

My 17-40 was mostly fine, focus wasn't quite as quick as I remember the Sigma being and it was ever so slightly softer on one side, but really only noticeable from a pixel peeping perspective. The weather sealing and excellent build quality paired it nice with the 1Ds, but the Sigma was no less solid, accurate or sharp than it.



daugirdas said:
17-40 is probably the worst L lens,
Click to expand...

Do you mean worst in terms of IQ? It isn't supposed to be a great deal different from the 16-35 and in terms of focal range it actually is a bit more versatile... and a lot cheaper.

but sigma doesn't have anything close either with roughly that range. But event then I hope replacement is round the corner!
Click to expand...

You seem to have quite a bit of unfounded dislike for Sigma lenses. the only thing the EX lenses don't have that the Canon/Nikon Pro lenses do is weather sealing... and they're usually half or quarter the price. What's not to like?
 
I like sigma lenses. I've got a 30mm, 10mm fisheye and had a 10-20mm.

I know none are what you're after - but the brand in general is decent IMO. quality is sharp, focus quickly, and the build quality is good - all for a lot less than canon / nikon's own glass
 
trencheel303 said:
Do you mean worst in terms of IQ? It isn't supposed to be a great deal different from the 16-35 and in terms of focal range it actually is a bit more versatile... and a lot cheaper.

IQ, and in particular sharpness + distortion at 17mm. Everything else is pretty good

You seem to have quite a bit of unfounded dislike for Sigma lenses. the only thing the EX lenses don't have that the Canon/Nikon Pro lenses do is weather sealing... and they're usually half or quarter the price. What's not to like?
Click to expand...

Please show me a nice FX 16-35mm f/4 (or 2.8) sigma EX zoom that is sharp, contrasty, resistant to flare, vivid colours, and takes filters. I suspect that is not going to happen

Having wasted time and money on their 24-70 I have got little respect left. In fact most other lenses I've tried left me wanting more
 
TCR4x4 said:
Quite obviously not the consensus of all.

Please tell me what's wrong with this.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tcr4x4/7432601068/
DSC_9503.jpg by TCR4x4, on Flickr

Or this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tcr4x4/7386248176/
Sebbe by TCR4x4, on Flickr

Short answer is nothing. I'd say it's pretty damn close to the Nikon, if not slightly better considering no VR.
Click to expand...

I found both my sigma lenses, 70-200 f2:8 and 12-24 or 10-24 can't remember, gave colour casts and lack of contrast, also the focus barrels didn't last long and got sloppy.

Very poor build quality, you get what you pay for.
 
snappypete said:
I found both my sigma lenses, 70-200 f2:8 and 12-24 or 10-24 can't remember, gave colour casts and lack of contrast, also the focus barrels didn't last long and got sloppy.

Very poor build quality, you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

odd, like i say both our 70-200 used for events for 3 years are solid as a rock.

definately no colour casts or lack of contrast either.
 
Last edited:
snappypete said:
I found both my sigma lenses, 70-200 f2:8 and 12-24 or 10-24 can't remember, gave colour casts and lack of contrast, also the focus barrels didn't last long and got sloppy.

Very poor build quality, you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

Very odd indeed. My 70-200 is from a working pro Motorsport photog, has been very well used since he got it over 4 years ago and it is still in one piece and produces fantastically sharp images with no colour casts or lack of contrast.
Maybe you got unlucky, I've never had an issue with any sigma lens.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Very odd indeed. My 70-200 is from a working pro Motorsport photog, has been very well used since he got it over 4 years ago and it is still in one piece and produces fantastically sharp images with no colour casts or lack of contrast.
Maybe you got unlucky, I've never had an issue with any sigma lens.
Click to expand...

Too many people are getting very unlucky buying lenses. Oddly most such examples are made by Sigma :shrug: Quality control is shocking, not that I am praising Canon either. Now if only zeiss made AF zooms!

And they all do lack a bit of contrast, just some are more acceptable than others, and can be salvaged in post.
 
neil_g said:
likewise, im 8 for 8 on good sigmas now. hence i believe the hype surrounding QC is well and truely overblown.
Click to expand...

I reckon you've been a bit lucky. I think I've been through 14 Sigmas and of those three have been very poor (12-24, 24-70 and 120-300), some have been good but not as good as the Canon equivalents (70-200, 500 prime) and others have been easily as good as the Canons (all four macros and the 85 prime). There are definitely duds out there, but there are also some superb Sigmas too.
 
I now have 4 Sigma lenses. The 70-200 f2.8 hsm, the 17-70 f2.8-4, the 10-20 f3.5 and the 50mm f1.4. The build quality on all is excellent, particularly now that Sigma has changed the finish. I have no focus, colour cast or any issues with any of them and would happily buy them again.

I'm sure that there are some shonky Sigma lenses out there, but the same can be said for Canon and Nikon.

Andy
 
Can't recall how many sigmas I've had, but it's probably double figures and all have been fine except the 24-70 which could have been better. . In fact the last 3 I've had have been sharper than any Nikon or canon I've owned bar the 100mm IS macro.
The sigma 120-400 I had was a sublime lens. Pin sharp wide open at 400mm. The 150mm macro I have is great, as is the 70-200mm.
The 12-24 I had was brilliant, the 18-55 2.8 was great, the 105mm macro was great, the 15-30 was great. Etc etc.
 
photographyman said:
Hello everyone,

Whats the verdict with sigma 24 - 70 2.8 and the 70 - 200 2.8?

Would it be a good move to buy these 2 or save, save,save for nikons 2. At the mo i am saving anyway,slowly but surely.

I have been looking at these two instead of nikons lens purely due to the price.
Click to expand...

Go on YouTube and search thatnikonguy he does a nice review
 
I'm quite a fan of Sigma's stuff. I find that a lot of their gear offers 90% of the performance at 50% of the cost compared to OEM. Over the last couple of years I've had a 50mm macro, 70mm macro, 180mm macro, 10-20, 12-24, and currently have a 70-200 HSM 2. The only one I was slightly disappointed with was the 10-20 but I think I had a bad copy. Certainly never had any reliability or build issues.

I do confess though that I've just bought a Nikon 70-200 to replace my Sigma so when I get around to selling the Sigma and it's tele converter I'll have no Sigma lenses left in the collection :(

It was a good deal and I think the IQ is slightly better on the Nikon though the difference really isn't huge and I must admit that justifying the price difference to myself was pretty damn difficult.
 
One thing i forgot to mention was that at the moment i am only using a 55 - 200 mm vr nikon, so would this make the upgrade choice any different?:-\
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top