Sigma EX vs Canon L

4

49Clicks

Suspended / Banned
Messages
345
Name
Gregg
Edit My Images
Yes
Ooking at a few new lenses this month, the difference between these 2 makes, is the difference that great????
 
You have a canon camera.. your asking if a canon top of the range L lens is better than a cheaper third party lens? The clue is in the question.. however the answer is yes.. the canon L lens is better than sigma..

loads of people will post now telling you how good sigma is.. and I would agree wiht them.. I ahve owned many wihtout complaint.. I am not knocking sigma lens. They are very good.. But as your asking if a canon L is better then yes :).
 
My advice is to ignore badges and buy the best at the price you're willing to pay.

Depends on what lens you're looking at I suppose.

My recent Siggy buys are the 50 and 85mm f1.4's and they're arguably better than the Canon alternatives (however the Canon's may go to f1.2, I think...) If the Canon's had got the better reviews I'd probably have bought them but in the case of these lenses the Siggys win most if not all of the reviews. Go for a standard 24-70mm f2.8 zoom however and the Canon lenses will probably win the plaudits.
 
Last edited:
Yes theers always the exeption to the rule... telling us what lens your thinking of might help an anwer...mine was a generalisation as was your question.. Alan is more specific to a certain lens :)
 
Looking at the 70-200 non os or is versions and the 24-70 and 24-105
 
49Clicks said:
Looking at the 70-200 non os or is versions and the 24-70 and 24-105
Click to expand...

Well I have owned both the sigma 70-200 non os and the sigma 24-70 .. I have also owned both the canon L versions.. the canon L wins hands down.. especialy when it comes to the 70-200

Saying that.. I was more than happy wiht my sigma 70-200 for a long time and would never say dont buy.. its a cracking good lens as is the 24-70... however I have to say the canon L are better for those... No experience wiht the 24-105
 
There's more than one exception to the rule and in fact there are possibly enough exceptions to the rule to make it pretty pointless these days.

Sigma and Tamron have moved on from simply making bargain basement kit lenses and although L lenses may or may not be weather sealed and may or may not be optically and mechanically good the pors and cons still need to be considered when making a decision. Blanket statements like L is best just don't wash with me and I'll judge each lens on its merits against the competition and I'd advise others to do likewise.
:D
 
woof woof said:
Blanket statements like L is best just don't wash with me and I'll judge each lens on its merits against the competition and I'd advise others to do likewise.
:D
Click to expand...

they wash with me bar a few exceptions and I would advise different to you.... calm down fellla.. differences of opions make the work go round :)
 
49Clicks said:
Looking at the 70-200 non os or is versions and the 24-70 and 24-105
Click to expand...

the sigmas (non-OS here) are good, we've got 2x of the "macro" versions and theyre both very sharp. also more affordable than tha canon 2.8.

the newer sig 24-70 is also good, mine is razor sharp throughout.

the canon 24-105 is also very good, IS is handy.

so horses for courses really, as said above get what suits your budget and requirements.

edit - oh and personally i think the sigma QC isssues are over-rated by peoples friends of friends reading something on the internet once about a dodgy lens. we're 8 for 8 on good focusing sigmas now.
 
Last edited:
I have used 2 Sigma lenses in the past. When I started out in DSLR photography I bought a 17-70 and I was very satisfied with it.
More recently I had a 105mm macro which was very sharp. I only sold it because I found the OS was too slow, the Canon 100L which replaced is equally sharp, not sharper.

More recently I decided to buy a 500mm lens for bird photography. I tried out a Sigma 500mm and was frankly shocked by the poor image and I'm having to stump up to buy the Canon.

I'm quite certain that many bird photographers use their Sigma 500's and produce excellent images, if buying a Sigma I would always "try before buy".
 
My experience:
24-70 non HSM - dreadful in every way [please excuse being unable to elaborate further]
70-200 HSM II - superb at 70 and very mediocre by 200mm. There is no comparison to the cheapest canon f/4. (apparently that was a 'good' copy!)
150 macro OS - failure to even attempt to focus. MF only to be frank.
50/1.4 - probably their best one

You get what you pay for. Your needs may be different and you might prefer dreamy pictures. However with ever increasing resolution such view becomes less and less acceptable.
 
Last edited:
I have a Sigma 18-50mm EX DC Macro and it's a great lens, but I'd still rather own the Canon 17-55 (which isn't an L lens).

I used to own the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and I would rather own that than a Canon 35mm 1.4 on a crop. The Sigma is lighter, it is just as sharp as the Canon 35mm and it is about 3rd of the price. However if you own a full frame there is no comparison - the Sigma doesn't fit!!
 
Without talking about specific lenses with a specific use and budget in mind, it's a pointless comparison.

Plenty of sigma lenses are excellent performers and excellent value. More often than not (though this is not without exception) the canon equivalent is a better lens in all round absolute terms, but the sigma in this typical circumstance offers a lot for a lot less money. But this is all generalization, and not applicable to a lot of cases so is pointless really.

Personally my two favourite lenses are my sigma 150mm macro and my canon 100-400L, both do the job I want them to and deliver superb results. A canon 180mm macro and sigma 50-500OS (the canon and sigma rough equivalents respectively) would also deliver just as well, but didn't happen to be available for various reasons (price and budget) and niether would suit me quite as well.

Don't be put off from considering sigma lenses!
 
Last edited:
I have a Sigma 150-500 OS that I tested extensively against my Canon 100-400 IS L and TBH, in this case the Sigma won although the Canon is a much older design. The IQ was similar wide open at the long end and at f8 there was no visible difference to me. The Sigma OS system IMO worked much better than the (older) Canon IS and I was able to take a good handheld photo at 1/10sec. The Sigma also seemed to attain focus faster and more accurately in failing light, while both were equal in good light.
I also have 3 other L lenses and have no intention to sell any of these, the 24-105 f4 L, the 100 f2.8 L macro and the 70-200 f2.8 IS L are all brilliant performers and compared to other makes of lenses I've had in similar focal lengths are far superior. In essence, you will always find the odd lens that is comparable to an L lens at a fraction of the price, but they really are few and very far between. I've no doubt that a newly designed 100-400 IS L (or 200-400, which is the replacement) will be at least as good if not better than a Sigma EX or similar.
 
modchild said:
I've no doubt that a newly designed 100-400 IS L (or 200-400, which is the replacement) will be at least as good if not better than a Sigma EX or similar.
Click to expand...

The 200-400 isn't a replacement for the 100-400, it's a completely different class of lens (with a price to match).

Personally I found my 100-400 to be visibly sharper than the 150-500 and 120-400 I tried in the shop, and a 150-500 on a pentax I borrowed from a friend once. I think there's a fair amount of copy variation in both lenses from what I've seen! Lots of people have tried comparisons and reached different conclusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top