Sigma, how do you rate them?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RobC
  • Start date Start date
R

RobC

Guest
My limited kit bag is 2/3's Sigma.

I've a DC10-20 wide angle and a DC18-200 telephoto(OS version).

I love the results from my 'wangle' but the images I'm creating with the 18-200, well that's another story, in the main they're foofing awful. As soon as I use anything other than 18mm or 200mm everything goes to pot, even if I shoot on on fully auto. I'll happily put some images up for reference later but am interested as to the general views of my fellow TP-ers first.

Thanks
 
I think the answer to your question is smeared all over this forum... use the search button to look for Sigma threads in the equipment section...
 
ive got 3 sigmas:

18-50 f2.8 EX DC "macro"
70-200 f2.8 EX DG "macro"
120-300 f2.8 EX

the first 2 bought from new and the 120-300 was 2nd hand. no issues with any of them personally (user error aside lol). all tack sharp, fast etc etc.

according to some people maybe im just lucky, maybe i should play the lottery.
 
IMHO, you could get a very nice Sigma or a total bomb.

A mate of mine has a 50mm/2.8 macro and it is FANTASTIC, punchy colours, sharp as a razor blade and it can not flare...we have tried... you can point that thing straight at the sun and it copes with it.

I recently bought a 24-70 and it had imperfections (little bubbles) in the internal elements and it was a soft as half a tonne of cottonwool.

Have a look on http://www.the-digital-picture.com. You will find excellent reviews there about most Sigma lenses but test the specific copy before you buy.

My 2c:thumbs:
 
My daughter has the Sigma 50mm Macro lens and it's a great lens, nice and sharp :thumbs:
 
I have the 18-200mm OS DC lens and altho have occations where I get a soft image most of the time I cannot fault it, could you post some of your images for refferance? I'll post some later once I'm at my computer and not on my iPod, or just takes look through my flickr account
 
Hi Rob,

I have just had a look at the dpreview http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_18-200_3p5-6p3_os_n15/

This is an extract from it.

'Most interestingly, this is a lens which appears to concentrate on minimizing distortion and chromatic aberration rather than maximizing sharpness. This immediately means it won't win the favor of a certain type of resolution-obsessed photographer, who will look on its inconsistent sharpness (and indeed substantial lack of it at mid-telephoto focal lengths) with displeasure.'

Gordon
 
The Sigmas are good to very good for the price however if I can afford Nikon lenses then I'd always go for them instead. The matrix metering is slightly better (more precise), the colours are better captured (less work in PP), the AF is generally faster (though it depends).

In most cases though I cannot afford the Nikon lenses I want so I opt for Sigmas instead :)

Regarding build quality - if you look at older MF lenses, Sigmas were just as outstanding as Nikons or Canons. I had some of the older Sigma's MF and still have 24mm f/2.8 SuperWide II and they are very solidly build - all metal construction, very sharp and very smooth focusing. Newer lenses are of course mostly plastic...
 
I have the 50mm F1.4 HSM and the 24-71 F2.8 (non hsm)

Both are great as far as I am concerned.
 
Sigma lenses do seem to be of a variable quality - I've been through a fair few over the years the cheaper ones have been (almost without exception) very poor. However the EX range have tended to be excellent - I've had a 70-200 f2.8 100-300 f4, and a 500 f4.5 all of which were excellent. However none of them came up to the standard of the Canon lenses that I replaced them with. I have used three Sigma macros (50 f2.8, 105 f2.8 and 180 f3.5) and all have been superb quality, as good as the Canons that I tested then against.

I fear that all cheaper Sigma lenses are a real gamble, sample variation seems to be a huge issue. That said a huge zoom like an 18-200 is going to mean a compromise in quality no matter who makes it. From reviews I've read the Canon 18-200 IS is better than the Sigma 18-200 OS (given the price difference it should be) but neither are perfect throughout the range.
 
taken @ 18mm

3853273658_cfd2a56f5e_o.jpg


taken @ 200mm

_MG_0579.jpg


taken @ 42mm

3463180623_9ccf5be1e2_o.jpg


taken @ 31mm

IMG_2898.jpg


taken @ 154mm

IMG_2655.jpg


personally i think it's a great all rounder, just excuse the poor editing of the last image, it was taken and edited last year before i knew half the possibilities of the programmes i was using lol
 
I had an 18-200mm OS once. Shocking lens. Total crap!
But what do you expect? An 18-200 lens is not going to perform well IMO.

I've also owned a number of EX Sigma's. They have all been utterly fantastic.
18-50 F2.8 EX, 70-200 F2.8 EX, 30mm F1.4 EX......

I now own all Canon lenses (2 L's) and I can honestly say that there is no better, build quality and image quality.
Even my Canon 10-22mm knocks the socks off the Sigma 10-20mm EX.
 
chris250 said:
thank you kindly, obviously an L series would be the ideal but £4£ i think it's a worth while stepping stone
Click to expand...

I agree.
Especially after seeing your shots!!

Perhaps a great example of how the 'gear' is not as important as the skills of the person behind the camera.........

BUT :D
The L lenses are utterly bloody amazing! Worth every penny.
 
Thanks for all the comments. I've rooted through previous Sigma threads, not surprisingly, some love em, some hate em. I think I'm looking at user error, I was messing with my mate and his kids in the park yesterday evening and nothing I did worked. I will put an example up in a while and hopefully there'll be a unanimous agreement that my settings were totally inappropriate.

* Chris250 - wish mine looked like that.

** Just looked through what I'd kept from yesterday and I think I need to start searching on a different subject (moving objects, how to shoot them) before possibly posting my question. Apologies for wasting peoples time.
 
EX sigma glass is slated by purists from the nikon and canon camps, but as long as you get a good copy (which is *most* of the time - buy second hand, means you can get test shots before you buy, and it's cheaper, and theyve already swallowed the 'new purchase tax' :) ) it is fast, sharp, and well built. Can't comment on non EX glass.

Not AS well built as nicanon stuff, and not QUITE as good....but 95% there... and the £1k or so premium from some sigma to some nikon glass is a lot for 5% if you are not a working pro...
 
itsdavedotnet said:
EX sigma glass is slated by purists from the nikon and canon camps, but as long as you get a good copy (which is *most* of the time - buy second hand, means you can get test shots before you buy, and it's cheaper, and theyve already swallowed the 'new purchase tax' :) ) it is fast, sharp, and well built. Can't comment on non EX glass.

Not AS well built as nicanon stuff, and not QUITE as good....but 95% there... and the £1k or so premium from some sigma to some nikon glass is a lot for 5% if you are not a working pro...
Click to expand...

I agree that the EX lenses are very good (well the ones that I have owned/used have been) however there is one issue that I have had will all of them. That's the colour - it hard to explain but the colour out of the L lenses that I now have are much richer/truer than the Sigmas I had before, the Sigma colours were always a bit flat. I know it can be dealt with in PP but I like to do as little as possible.
 
postcardcv said:
I agree that the EX lenses are very good (well the ones that I have owned/used have been) however there is one issue that I have had will all of them. That's the colour - it hard to explain but the colour out of the L lenses that I now have are much richer/truer than the Sigmas I had before, the Sigma colours were always a bit flat. I know it can be dealt with in PP but I like to do as little as possible.
Click to expand...

Same with Nikon. I find that Nikkors give better colour (richer, contrasty etc). Of course I can fix it in PP to some degree but I just don't need to do much in this respect with Nikon lenses.
 
I've got several Sigmas in my bag and have no softness issues with any of them. Apart from the 150-500 (which is too slow to get the EX tag) they're all EX branded. Maybe I've been lucky or maybe I'm not as critical as some but I've been happy with all of them and they're all the first copy I've bought (not had to return any for recalibration, recentring etc). I'm sure that the Nikon equivalents are better BUT are they a grand or more each better?
 
dalex_257 said:
Same with Nikon. I find that Nikkors give better colour (richer, contrasty etc). Of course I can fix it in PP to some degree but I just don't need to do much in this respect with Nikon lenses.
Click to expand...

Yup and don't forget Sigma's flare like crazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top