Sigma Lens Quality

AlfyB

AlfyB

Messages
429
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
I think I've decided to get a Sigma 24-70 HSM as my next lens to replace a nikon 18-55, however, I keep reading that Sigma build quality is a bit hit and miss.

A couple of questions:

1. Is it really bad enough to worry about?

2. If you were to get one of these in a shop is there any decent way of testing how good the build quality is without buying the lens and trying it out out home?

Thanks
 
Tbh, I have owned 3 different EX lenses, 30mm 1.8, 12-24 & the 70-200 2.8, all 3 had great build quality and image quality was good.
The one cheaper sigma I owned 70-300 was pretty dire imho.

Seems you get what you pay for
 
im 6 for 6 on good copies.. either im extremely lucky or the sigma QC "issue" isnt as bad as some people make out.

any decent camera shop should let you try the lens in store, just try some shots at varying focal lengths and apertures.
 
I own the 50mm 1.4 and its brilliant and not had any issues with it. Also had the 24-70 HSM which also was well built, I only solf it to get the Nikon 70-200
 
I have the 150-500 and the 10-20 and both are spot on.
 
12-24mm, 20mm f1.8, 30mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4 and 150mm f2.8 all crap!

Only kiddling, all good. Also had a 28-300mm that was ok too but I've since sold it.
 
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM II is my favourite lens!

And build is top notch.
 
my 70-200 f2.8 HSM EX mk1 is as sharp as a tack, ok the build internally is mainly hard plastic on Sigma's but the finish is superb and lighter.
 
I've got the 24-70mm [non HSM] had it about 7 months now - no issues and it's nice and sharp.
 
I,ve had 3
50-500
30 f1.4
10/20
No problems with any of them

Chris
 
I've had 2 Sigma lenses, the 10-20 and the 24-70. The 10-20 is fine, not a problem with focus, contrast or colour. I thought the 24-70 was the same until I sold it to get a Canon 17-55 and all of my focusing issues disappeared. It was clearly not a good copy, but it took me a while to realise it.

That was a couple of years ago, and I have since played with a few other Sigmas and they have all seemed fine, especially the two 150-500's that I've used.

Steve
 
have just bought the 18 - 200 and up to press am very happy
 
artyman said:
Nowt wrong with Sigma lenses, bit like the myth about Skoda cars, nowt wrong with them either.
Click to expand...

True that Ken ... always won their class in the RAC Rally

I had a poor Sigma lens, but I would not tar them all with the same brush, build quality was fine, just soft until f8.

If I was buying third party again I would be more tempted to try Tamron as they seem to have a good reputation.

To the OP best bet is take your camera body to the shop and ask to try the lens on it, and to be honest try not to worry too much about it, you only read about the problem ones on the internet, not the hundreds of good ones.
 
A few years ago I bought the 28-300 mm but was very disappointed with the quality.

I bought it because it seemed to be a good lens in the reviews I read.

But flare, CA, and unsharpness made it almost impossible to get good results with it.

Even on a tripod it wasn't even as sharp as the 75-300mm I was using at that time.

And macro shots with it were a total failure.

So I took it back and got the Canon 70-300mm instead and was delighted with it.

It was a pity because if the siggy had lived up to its reviews it should have been a great lens - smaller than the 70-300 and with internal focussing - but I was very unhappy with the quality.

.
 
I've owned a variety of sigma lenses, most good, but when I owned the 24-70 HSM I found it to front focus badly. Never bothered to send it in for repair, just took it back cause I got a great deal on a 24-70L.

I've owned the 70-300APO, 28-300, 10-20, 50macro, and 70-200hsm ii and all apart from the 28-300 were capable of some great images.

I actually preferred the look, feel and operation of the 24-70HSM though, but wanted weather sealing and reliability.
 
petersmart said:
A few years ago I bought the 28-300 mm but was very disappointed with the quality.

I bought it because it seemed to be a good lens in the reviews I read.

But flare, CA, and unsharpness made it almost impossible to get good results with it.

Even on a tripod it wasn't even as sharp as the 75-300mm I was using at that time.

And macro shots with it were a total failure.

So I took it back and got the Canon 70-300mm instead and was delighted with it.

It was a pity because if the siggy had lived up to its reviews it should have been a great lens - smaller than the 70-300 and with internal focussing - but I was very unhappy with the quality.

.
Click to expand...

A hyper-zoom is never going to achieve good IQ, no matter who makes it! And I dont think I ever saw a good review of it!

The Sigma 28-300 and Canon 70-300 IS are two different animals indeed.
 
odd jim said:
A hyper-zoom is never going to achieve good IQ, no matter who makes it! And I dont think I ever saw a good review of it!

The Sigma 28-300 and Canon 70-300 IS are two different animals indeed.
Click to expand...

Must have just been a bad copy as mine was fine and sharp as a sharp thing. This was handheld at 300mm, f9, 1/250 and ISO 400. Hope the sharpness survives Photobucket mangling...

1100c.jpg



Hmmm, doesn't look sharp here but on my pc it looks sharp.
 
Last edited:
I have the 10-20mm, 24-60mm f2.8, 70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8, 120-400mm. All great quality lenses, had no problems with any of them. In fact the 70mm f2.8 is probably the best lens I have ever used.
 
neil_g said:
thing is a lens is a mechanical item so its going to be prone to wear. 6 years is pretty good going if you ask me :)
Click to expand...

I would agree Neil, that 6 years is good going, but the other one packed in after 10 months. I have only ever owned two Sigma lenses, amongst the 20 plus other lenses I have had, and maybe by back luck I have had at least one dud. I don't think I am unique though as you do read more about Sigma build quality than say Canon or Nikon. But of course in terms of price the Sigma are much cheaper. I suspose it is a bit like buying a Fiat or Skoda, you could be lucky, but if you can afford it you might be tempted to go for a Merc or BMW.
I hope this last comment does not upset Fiat/Skoda owners:D
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the comments everyone. Still not sure if I'm doing the right thing getting the sigma but it's half the price of the nikon, which I can't afford, and think I will be giving it a try.

Fingers crossed I don't end up with a dud!
 
I notice that you've got a D7000 so why not go for small sensor lens rather than a full frame one?
 
woof woof said:
I notice that you've got a D7000 so why not go for small sensor lens rather than a full frame one?
Click to expand...

I'm after a nice sharpe lens to replace the 18-55. At the moment, I never use the 18-55 because I feel it's not sharpe enough so I just stick to a 50mm 1.8 instead. With this though I feel a bit frustrated by the lack of flexibility.

I've been looking around for quite a while and in the end it was the apparent image quality (shots from flickr) combined with the constant 2.8 across the nice focal length that made me chose the Sigma 24-70. So sensor size didn't come into it to be honest.

I'd appreciate any recommendations of cropped sensor lenses that are similar in spec? (I started a thread name "first lens change" in the talk equipment forum when first trying to make the choice and it was the 24-70 that stood out to me from suggestions on there)
 
AlfyB said:
I'm after a nice sharpe lens to replace the 18-55. At the moment, I never use the 18-55 because I feel it's not sharpe enough so I just stick to a 50mm 1.8 instead. With this though I feel a bit frustrated by the lack of flexibility.

I've been looking around for quite a while and in the end it was the apparent image quality (shots from flickr) combined with the constant 2.8 across the nice focal length that made me chose the Sigma 24-70. So sensor size didn't come into it to be honest.

I'd appreciate any recommendations of cropped sensor lenses that are similar in spec? (I started a thread name "first lens change" in the talk equipment forum when first trying to make the choice and it was the 24-70 that stood out to me from suggestions on there)
Click to expand...

I had the 18-50 sigma f2.8 hsm when I used only crop sensors, great lens, sharp and contrast, a big step up from the nikon 18-55. When I want full frame I did try the sigma 24-70 macro and was really disappointed with it, so ended up with the nikon 24-70! I can say this though, I have owned 4 sigmas, and currently own the 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.4 and they are superb! Build quality and performance is really really good. I would however advise buying local, try the lens 1st! Piece of mind that way, my 1st 50 f1.4 wasn't overly sharp wide open, quick phone call and the shop got me another!
 
I have the 10-20 f3.5 and the 17-70 OS. Love them both. My next and last (maybe last) will be the mk2 70-200 f2.8 and if I ever try portrait I will definitely consider the 85mm f1.4 which is a cracking piece of glass.

Andy
 
I have the 24-70 and although very good, compared to my 70-200L was a little soft (always going to be) i have decided to replace it with a 24-70L but the price of the Sigma over the Canon was the reason I bought it in the first place.
 
mh photography said:
I would however advise buying local, try the lens 1st! Piece of mind that way, my 1st 50 f1.4 wasn't overly sharp wide open, quick phone call and the shop got me another!
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is what I was planning to do. If there is any focusing defects, is it likely to be obvious enough that I'd be able to tell using the cameras lcd or is it worth taking some test shots and coming home to check them out?
 
I had a non-hsm 24-70 for a while which i was happy with, but alamy have rejected every shot off it that i've submitted to them, stating the image is soft (you can't submit sharpened images). I flogged it and bought a used nikon 28-70, and the images are much sharper out of the camera. You pay your money, you take your choice, etc.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
I had a non-hsm 24-70 for a while which i was happy with, but alamy have rejected every shot off it that i've submitted to them, stating the image is soft (you can't submit sharpened images). I flogged it and bought a used nikon 28-70, and the images are much sharper out of the camera. You pay your money, you take your choice, etc.
Click to expand...

Also, some sigmas are better than others, much like Canon, Nikon etc...
 
Sigma quality is fine, even exceptional. The rumours are a combination of people pixel peeping and not being bothered to get the lens calibrated to the camera (which theoretically needs to be done with every lens you buy).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top