Canon VS Sigma

W

wildsam90

Messages
571
Name
Sam
Edit My Images
No
Maybe its a stupid qestion and im sure its been asked before!
BUT...

When money is tight is it worth 3x the wait for a canon lens?

Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 = £250/300
Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 = £450/550

Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 = £250/350
Canon 24-70 f/2.8 = £700/800

Sigma 50-500 f/4-6.3 = £400/550
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 = £800/900+

Price totals

Low High
Sigma 900 1200

Canon 1950 2250
Prices roughly taken off completed ebay listings(all 2nd hand)

Now i know there will be people taking sides and im no professional!
The way things are going im going to be waiting and always saving to get thies canon lens and thats before i start to look into learning studio lighting ect :shake:

After grabing a Sigma 50-500 for £400 on ebay i've been stunned on its performance! Its fast and sharp but then again ive never had a 100-400 to compair,


24-70mm and a 10mm+ are the next lens im looking at to be used on a 1000D,


Any comment im greatful for ;)
Please keep in mind i have't got mass of money as im sure some people might have :D
 
Depends
The sigmas are great value and thinking of all the shooting opportunities you could miss while saving up extra cash for the canon version, I don't think the canon is worth the extra for amateurs in a lot of cases.

I'm very pleased with my 100-400L, but if I hadn't won a photography competition and put the prize money towards it I wouldn't have been able to afford it and would have gone with a 150-500 instead (I want IS) because it is a superb value alternative.
I had tried both and preferred the image quality and size/weight of the 100-400, but there was no way I was going to spend another 2 years saving before buying it (but it turned out I didn't, since I got lucky with a very good price and the prize money :)).
If I had even more money, I would also consider the 50-500OS now since the price is equal with the 100-400 (it was a couple of hundred more expensive when I was buying).

Thing is, everyone has a different idea of what is a big difference in image quality.
If someone doesn't print large, crop a lot, or inspect their images at 100% then they'll be less critical of the quality, but if they're extremely critical of your images then they might find the cheaper lens isn't quite good enough.
Plus there will always be a bit of copy variation and people who don't have good enough technique to get sharp images (particularly with long lenses) and blame it on their lens.
Plus some people sometimes get irrationally defensive when they're told a lens is better than the one they own or a cheaper lens is as good as their more expensive one.
Add all that together and everyone will have a different opinion to voice on whether the canon is worth the extra ;)

The only way you'll really know if the cheaper alternative will be good enough for you is to try it and see what you think yourself since everyone on the internet will tell you something different.

But in most cases the sigma is a very good lens, just the canon is a bit better at some things. This is a general statement though, sigma does have stand-out lenses like the 120-300 f/2.8 OS, the 150mm macro and the 50 and 85 f/1.4's for example.

R.e. the 24-70's, the tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 seems to be very highly rated as a great value lens in this segment (much like the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 compared to the canon 17-55 f/2.8)

R.e. the wide angles, the tokina UWA's seem to come very highly rated, might make a better alternative than the sigma?
 
Last edited:
This will be an interesting thread for me as im in a very similar position to you
 
The Canon lenses are better but whether they are better value depends entirely on your criteria and budget.
 
you could get all the above sigmas you list, for the price of the canon 24-70.
i had the sigma 24-70 then i sold it and got the canon 24-70
the sigma was very good (and heavy)
the thing with canon lenses especially pro lenses is the reputation they come with,
sometimes its hard to see beyond canon, but if you can you will probably be surprised.
and like squishy says, you are missing a lot of photo opportunity's.
ithe cheaper sigma lenses are a bit naff but the pro ones. well try them
buy them. look after them, and you can sell them when you are able to upgrade to L series
 
Nawty said:
The Canon lenses are better but whether they are better value depends entirely on your criteria and budget.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true, the sigma 50 1.4 for example always beats the canon version in tests. The 120-300 2.8 another great lens and with a 1.4x will hammer canons closest alternative the 100-400 into the ground. The new OS version of the 120-300 is even better.

People complain about quality control at sigma, to be honest we're 6 for 6 on good copies (120-300 2.8, 2x 70-200 2.8, 2x 18-50 2.8 and 50 1.4) so can't comment on that. Can't say I'm looking to replace any of the sigmas with canon in a hurry either across any of the bodies in our collection.
 
neil_g said:
Not necessarily true, the sigma 50 1.4 for example always beats the canon version in tests. The 120-300 2.8 another great lens and with a 1.4x will hammer canons closest alternative the 100-400 into the ground. The new OS version of the 120-300 is even better.
Click to expand...

But in both those examples the sigmas are more expensive. The comment you replied to would have been aimed at the specific cases the OP asked about, where it is true.

And I wouldn't call the 100-400 the closest alternative to the 120-300.
Completely different lenses. I couldn't use a 120-300 the same way I use my 100-400 and you can't effectively use a 100-400 for a lot of things people use the 120-300 for.
 
Last edited:
Im 100% amateur and i take photos to meet new people and to show them what i can do,

How noticeable are the image quailtys from a sigma to a canon?
Like i dont zoom in at 100% but i like a sharp photo.

And i like mean, say i went for a sigma 10-20 instead of the canon 10-22 and wanted a canvas print will it just limit how large of a print i will get for the same quality?

Also so does that mean even tho the Sigma 24-70 has the same specs as the canon will it act diffrent in low light?

j3w3ll3r said:
This will be an interesting thread for me as im in a very similar position to you
Click to expand...

Feel free to join in, Your qestions may also help me ;)
 
Last edited:
I think it depends a lot on the situation. If you're shooting wide open then cropping a bit you might notice the sigma isn't as crisp (generalising here, never used the 10-20 or 24-70).
There are other things like AF to consider, sigma is generally good at fast HSM motors but they tend to suffer more front/back focus issues than canon lenses (but I don't think this is a documented problem with the 10-20 or 24-70 in particularly, more the fast primes (and even then I'm sure the majority are fine) so you should be ok with those lenses).

But as long as you use good technique and process well, I doubt you'll see that much of a difference. The sigmas are still excellent lenses for the most part, it shouldn't put you off buying them because slightly/better lenses are available for a lot more cash.

Perhaps just think about which is going to be your most used type of lens, then get the best you can possibly afford for that one, and get 3rd party ones for the others?

Just another note, the canon 28-70 f/2.8L (the version before the 24-70) still sells on the used market, might be worth a look? It doesn't get discussed often, but what I've read about it suggests excellent performance. Quick check on ebay, price is inbetween the sigma and the canon 24-70.
 
Last edited:
I've got the Sigma 10-20 and it's a cracking copy and I've never been tempted to swap it in for the Canon.

I had a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for a while and it was a cracking lens but I sold it on and went for the Canon 24 - 70 f/2.8 purely for the weather sealing on my 1D.
 
squishy said:
But in both those examples the sigmas are more expensive. The comment you replied to would have been aimed at the specific cases the OP asked about, where it is true.
Click to expand...

not really, the canon and sigma 50mm arent miles apart for price in the 2nd hand market. neither is the 120-300 and 100-400 (least last i looked they were both around £1000 2nd hand). the new OS version of the 120-300 is another matter however.

And I wouldn't call the 100-400 the closest alternative to the 120-300.
Completely different lenses. I couldn't use a 120-300 the same way I use my 100-400 and you can't effectively use a 100-400 for a lot of things people use the 120-300 for.
Click to expand...

i see your point on usage. though on a focal range and aperture basis theyre the closest match youll get, especially with a 1.4x on the sigma.
 
wildsam90 said:
Maybe its a stupid qestion and im sure its been asked before!
BUT...

When money is tight is it worth 3x the wait for a canon lens?

Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 = £250/300
Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 = £450/550

Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 = £250/350
Canon 24-70 f/2.8 = £700/800

Sigma 50-500 f/4-6.3 = £400/550
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 = £800/900+

Price totals

Please keep in mind i have't got mass of money as im sure some people might have :D
Click to expand...


That's very expensive on Canon lens in the UK it's much cheap here is HK;) just buy a plane ticket to HK and buy everything you want in one go it will save you allot of money then UK price. IMO
 
I've used the Canon 24-70, Sigma 24-70(not HSM) and currently own the Canon
28-70L. The 28-70 is the sharpest of the three, the Sigma and Canon 24-70 were about the same but the Canon had far better focus, colour and contrast as you would expect. Also I found the Canon's were far better to use, easier to zoom etc.
I also have used a couple of Tamron 28-75's. One was excellent, made in Japan on the side, the other was ok stopped down. Assembled in China on the side.
 
Chas said:
I've used the Canon 24-70, Sigma 24-70(not HSM) and currently own the Canon
28-70L. The 28-70 is the sharpest of the three, the Sigma and Canon 24-70 were about the same but the Canon had far better focus, colour and contrast as you would expect. Also I found the Canon's were far better to use, easier to zoom etc.
I also have used a couple of Tamron 28-75's. One was excellent, made in Japan on the side, the other was ok stopped down. Assembled in China on the side.

neil_g said:
just hope you dont get stung coming back through customs..
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Lmao! Very tempting but i think ill give it a miss ;).

Thank you all for your help and replys,
My buying plan is...

Sigma 24-70 f2.8
2x Some flashs (ill prob make another post when ready ^^ )
Cokin z filters / Lee
Sigma 10-22
 
On Sigma lens,

HSM.. Any one able to explain alittle?
Non hsm = 300 for the 24-70 2.8
HSM version = 550

Help? :D
 
Hyper sonic motor, quieter, quicker more accurate AF. Of I could have said the all singing dancing versionHigh school musical:gag:
 
Having owned a few Sigma lenses, and now several Canon, I must say I prefer Canon. Are they worth the huge difference in price, that is debatable, however in general they do offer some improvements over Sigma, otherwise they would not sell any:D
 
wildsam90 said:
Think its worth 250+ more tho? :s
Click to expand...

Only you can decide that, I have the canon but after my earlier comment in the other 24-70 thread I went away and read a couple of reviews, taken with what people have said on here the sigma HSM version sounds like a fine lens.





Edit: add detail
 
Last edited:
I'm tempted with the lower price of Sigma too. However, most Canon lens have some benefits over sigma.
- usually better IQ
- better QC - well, that's from what I heard - but that means you may get a lemon buying used sigma without testing first.
- better resell value
- guaranteed compatibility with new cameras
Therefore, it's hard to say that Canon lens are overpriced.
 
I've seen pinsharp Sigma lenses, and soft L lenses. 100-400L is fantastic and sharp up to about 300mm (up to 400mm its just "sharp"), Sigma 150-500 is sharpish throughout the range.

But thats just my opinion. All the lenses I have ever bought I have thoroughly tested them on either my body or a known body before parting with my hard earned. Twice I've tested brand new Sigma lenses against Canons and opted for the Sigma on my interpretation of IQ and how it worked for me rather then price. How the lens works with my 20D is also a big factor, I've taken a pinsharp 10-22 off a 7D and found it a bit soft on my 20D. Although precise lenses are a manufactured item from several componants and no matter how tightly tolerenced there will be some variation on the line.

What I will say though is the 2 lenses in my bag that actually earn me money are both Sigmas, bought in preference to the Canon equivelent. Not neccesarily a case of the Canons were inferior, but the Sigmas just worked for me better then the Canons did.

Sigma will also rechip or reprogramme as neccesary in the event of incompatability with a new body (EF-500 and 50D springs to mind!).

The one thing that does annoy me though is with a lot of canon lenses hoods ands cases are extras whereas with a Sigma at 2/3rds of the price its all in the box!

That all sounds quite pro Sigma! At the end of the day you pays your money........
 
Sigma offer excellent value for money and make some superb lenses. I have 3 and am delighted with them.

Canon also make excellent lenses, the L series offer full weather/dust sealing and slightly better glass but, both manufacturers also make poor lenses.

If I was full time, had to shoot in all weathers and was wealthy enough then I would probably buy Canon L lenses with one or two exceptions but I'm not, I don't and I'm not so, as a rule, the Sigmas I have are more than good enough for me.

Don't forget there will always be those, irrespective of talent, to whom the name is all important and will never be seen dead with any third party kit!!

Andy
 
Had a choice between the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 & the Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 a couple of years back and when testing found the Sigma to suit me.

On the other hand i had hired a Canon 100-400L alot and used a Sigma 150-500 a few times. I found the Sigma a bit soft and could not really get the feel of it. So i opted for the Canon.

I suppose you should buy what you feel is better for you after trying all the options and not getting blinded by the brands.
 
Ive used both the bigma and the pump , and i can honestly say that i prefer the bigma - the pump's not a bad lens by any means - but the only thing it had in its favour against the bigma was IS - now thast the Bigma is out with OS imo its a no brainer (but theres not much between those two in price)

(incidently the bigma is a lot sharper than its baby brother, probably on account of having EX glass)

those aside ive mainly gone to sigma or tamron for price reasons on specialist lenses and ive not had a problem ( Sigma 10-20, Tamron 90mm), but my run of the mill lenses are all canon ( Nifty, kit, 85mm prime, 70-300).

The two on my current shopping list are a 24-70 f2.8 and a fast zoom both for wedding purposes - i'm probably going to go sigma on the former , and canon 70-200 f2.8Is on the latter
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
(incidently the bigma is a lot sharper than its baby brother, probably on account of having EX glass)
Click to expand...

The "EX" designation has nothing to do with the glass, it's simply a label that sigma put onto their upper end lenses. The non-OS bigma was EX, but after that they decided to only put the EX label on primes and constant aperture zooms, so the 120-400, 150-500 and 50-500 OS aren't "EX".

Personally my experience is that the 100-400 is slightly sharper than the 50-500, noticeably lighter and not as much shorter at the long end as you'd think comparing 400 to 500mm. All the super zooms have optical designs that loose focal length when they're not focussed to infinity, but the sigmas do this more so than the canon. So the length difference is actually pretty negligible.

The 50-500 is an excellent lens though, just excels in different areas to the 100-400. :)
Just goes to show how you can't really take anything any of us says as absolute, your own experience with any set of lenses could be different. Nobody is wrong, just people's different ways of using and comparing lenses lead to different conclusions
 
Last edited:
But is the 50-500OS (non-EX) built any worse or optically any worse than the 50-500 non-OS (EX)?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top