Sigma lenses. Are they any good

[Chriscooke]

After struggling to capture the shots I wanted at the Silverstone round of the btcc a few weeks back I keep finding myself being drawn to some of the large Sigma lenses mostly due to the costs involved.

The ones in question are the Sigma EX 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OS and Sigma EX 150-500mm f/5.0-6.3 OS.

Are these any good and would they suit a motorsport event? Is the 150-500 worth the extra money for the extra focal length?

I'm still a total noob so sorry if this is a stupid question but would I be better off upgrading the camera from an 1100d to a 60D or similar and simply cropping the images from my Canon 55-250 lens to get the shots i'm after?

 

[artyman]

I used the Sigma 150-500 for three years mostly birds, but it produced these at Silverstone.

 

[dalegt4]

i think the question is a good but strange one chris, without blowing smoke you've seen the pictures a 500sigma can produce on a 1100d, i have had this on a different thread where we compared the point of camera vs camera and i insist, that even though a superior camera will help a keeper rate its the photographer that will make the shots, not the camera.

a few examples of the 500mm, it managed to get me a job as a teams phographer so cant be that bad paired up with a 1100d and me behind the lens.

The lens is superb, to be honest, i cant fault any Sigma lens i either have or have used from a 2.8FishEye to my big 500

All images are straight out the camera, no pp at all.

 

[TCR4x4]

Not used the 120-400 for motorsport, but for eveything else it was one of the sharpest lenses Ive ever oenwed, and Ive owned some of Canon and Nikons best.

many people will tell you Sigma are awful, but the reality is far from it. All sigma glass Ive ever had has been spot on, and in a lot of cases, better than the equivilent manufacturer glass.
I recently bought a sigma 85mm f/1.4. I purposely bought that over the Nikon version, because its better in my opinion.
My Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is better than my nikon version ever was also.

 

[dalegt4]

Thats just a few too Chris, if you head on over to the facebook page there are over 160images of motorsport using the sigma, taken 1000's but can't really upload them all!

 

[dalegt4]

Not used the 120-400 for motorsport, but for eveything else it was one of the sharpest lenses Ive ever oenwed, and Ive owned some of Canon and Nikons best.

many people will tell you Sigma are awful, but the reality is far from it. All sigma glass Ive ever had has been spot on, and in a lot of cases, better than the equivilent manufacturer glass.
I recently bought a sigma 85mm f/1.4. I purposely bought that over the Nikon version, because its better in my opinion.
My Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is better than my nikon version ever was also.

You wouldn't believe how good that is to hear that, recently while doing the Oktoberfest job i had the sound guy come over and start talking Nikon etc and when he found out my lens was Sigma proceeded to tell me how soft and crap they were, made me laugh as 2 minutes before he was saying "oo, they are some good shots you are getting" finds its sigma and all of a sudden its not as good as if i used a canon, fool

 

[hamster100]

Take a look at some of my aircraft shots, they were taken with a 120-400 siggy. I've been very happy with it for the money. It is at it's best at or below 300mm and not wide open, but I do have still have some lovely shots at 400mm as well.

 

[Madmoggy]

I had a 1000D and sigma 70-300 at Croft for BTCC and kept 20 out of 2 full memory cards. I upgraded to the 120-400 OS but still had the 1000D, got advise about tracking/panning technique and next time out got a keep ratio of about 75-80%, albeit with slightly slower cars on track. I'd say if you were going to upgrade one of them, go for the lens.

 

[dalegt4]

exactly, out of approx 1500 photos through the day i still have 1194 on my computer that are easily usable, i would say a good 700-800 of them could be used on 20x30" prints too

 

[Nod]

How good are Sigmas? Well, possibly not as ultimately good as their Canikon equivalents but good copies (Sigma have a bit of a reputation for sketchy QC - not a problem I've encountered with any of the 5 or 6 I've owned or own now) come pretty damn close and in most cases, for a lot less money - a serious consideration for most of us. They also make some lenses that Nikon for one simply don't make - the one that springs to mind immediately (becaus I own and use one) is the 8mm circular fisheye AF. Nikon used to make a manual focus 8mm but that requires the mirror to be locked up before fitting and can't (IIRC) be used on modern bodies. Nikon do make a 10.5mm fisheye but the 2.5mm makes quite a difference at that short a focallength - it's 20%! (Or a 25% increase from 8 to 10mm)

My 24-70 is all but welded to my D700 - as would a Nikon version be but my Sigma cost me £234.66 and a Nikon would be over a grand (both new prices, although I did buy mine from Jessops when they had them on special offer.)

 

[tezmed]

im loving the sigmas at the moment.... both on cost and ability!

 

[mjb123]

Hi I have a 150-500 and it is very good! Used it at air tattoo this year and got some good shots!
It's for sale if you end up looking for 1!!

 

[woof woof]

How good are Sigmas? Well, possibly not as ultimately good as their Canikon equivalents...

I disagree. Some Sigma lenses are generally accepted to be the best mass market choice at their focal length / price point. I think it's true to say that none of the mass market makers make the best at every focal length and price point so choosing the best would mean mixing Canon/Nikon/Whoever and third party options.

 

[Barnbear]

Loving my 150-500, just wish it would stop $0dd1ng raining so I could use it more!

 

[Chriscooke]

Cheers for the feedback guys, looks like a serious option. Think I'll need to find somewhere that'll let me have a look at one and possibly fit it to my camera body

 

[digital]

Please don't encourage dealing outside the classifieds

 

[Laudrup]

I disagree. Some Sigma lenses are generally accepted to be the best mass market choice at their focal length / price point. I think it's true to say that none of the mass market makers make the best at every focal length and price point so choosing the best would mean mixing Canon/Nikon/Whoever and third party options.

What lenses?

 

[woof woof]

What lenses?

Do you think that Canon or Nikon or someone else in the mass market makes the best lens at every focal length and price point? If you do please share your thoughts.

Or, you could scan the various reviews with an open mind and see what they say.

 

[modchild]

I've got both the 120-400 OS and the 150-500 OS and they are basically the same in IQ and handling and there's not a huge price difference between them. They are both sharp and I use them for birds and aircraft. Here's a few of shots taken with them.

The first two are the 150-500 OS on a 5D3 and the only PP on them is a crop.

[/url][/IMG]

[/url][/IMG]

And these two are with the 120-400 OS and again the only PP is a crop.

[/url][/IMG]

[/url][/IMG]

 

[James J]

Not used the 120-400 for motorsport, but for eveything else it was one of the sharpest lenses Ive ever oenwed, and Ive owned some of Canon and Nikons best.

many people will tell you Sigma are awful, but the reality is far from it. All sigma glass Ive ever had has been spot on, and in a lot of cases, better than the equivilent manufacturer glass.
I recently bought a sigma 85mm f/1.4. I purposely bought that over the Nikon version, because its better in my opinion.
My Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is better than my nikon version ever was also.

I also own both the sigma lenses you mentioned and agree whole heartedly with the post.

No reason not to buy sigma, especially with their latest lineup of lenses, better QC and superior performance to a lot of the other manufacturers lenses.

 

[POAH]

just like canon there are great, good, and pants lenses from sigma.

They can have focus issues but then so do canon lenses.

 

[Laudrup]

Do you think that Canon or Nikon or someone else in the mass market makes the best lens at every focal length and price point? If you do please share your thoughts.

Or, you could scan the various reviews with an open mind and see what they say.

What lenses are you talking about?

 

[Nikon Fan]

My sigma 50 500 os lens is super sharp.

 

[Phil Young]

I also own both the sigma lenses you mentioned and agree whole heartedly with the post.

No reason not to buy sigma, especially with their latest lineup of lenses, better QC and superior performance to a lot of the other manufacturers lenses.

QC is a problem with Nikon most definately.

I've owned the 120-400 & 50-500 and both of mine were too soft at the longer ends. I sold then shortly after buying them.

My advice: test in store and buy THAT copy.

 

[woof woof]

What lenses are you talking about?

Is there an echo in the room? Or just a Canon/Nikon fanboy who believes that the object of his love makes the best lenses in the world at every focal length and price point? I'm no fan boy, I just buy what I think is the best at the price I'm willing to pay so rather than try and get me to do your homework for you you should just Google your way to some reviews with an open mind. Too much to ask I expect

 

[Rebel t3i]

I have both canon lenses and sigmas and have been very pleased with them both
Sold my non OS bigma 50-500 recently and purchased the new bigma 50-500 OS
Very pleased indeed with the results from both, I do find the OS to be equally as good if not slightly better than my canon lenses
Sigma make some lens that are worse than canon they also make some slightly better ones IMO
I do tend to do extensive research reading as many reviews as I can find before I decided which lens is best for my needs
I have not been impressed with any of the tamrons I have bought they were ok for the price

 

[Nod]

I disagree. Some Sigma lenses are generally accepted to be the best mass market choice at their focal length / price point. I think it's true to say that none of the mass market makers make the best at every focal length and price point so choosing the best would mean mixing Canon/Nikon/Whoever and third party options.

Let me put your chopped quote of my earlier post into context by leaving my qualifying statement after the chopped bit where it should (?needs to?) be.

Well, possibly not as ultimately good as their Canikon equivalents but good copies (Sigma have a bit of a reputation for sketchy QC - not a problem I've encountered with any of the 5 or 6 I've owned or own now) come pretty damn close and in most cases, for a lot less money - a serious consideration for most of us. IMO, good copies of Sigmas do match Canikon's offerings in terms of VFM but it can't be denied that in terms of ultimate build and IQ terms, the Canikons (well, the Nikons certainly - unfamiliar with Canon IQ and build quality) are generally better but significantly more expensive. The amateurs among us are going to get much better value for money from Sigmas than we are from Canikon (providing we get good copies) and I know that by going the Sigma route for around 1/2 my bagful, I've saved a few thousand quid - enough for a couple of very nice fortnights in Crete. It also can't be denied that people have had problems with Sigma's QC - soft and misaligned copies do exist but I've also heard reports of similar problems with main manufacturers' offerings, albeit fewer than Sigma.

TBH, I could fairly easily afford to upgrade the Sigmas in the bag (that have real eqivalents in the Nikkor range ) with the Nikkors but at a significant cost. The only real benefit (apart from the cachet of the Nikkor badges over the Sigma ones!) TO ME would be the f/2.8 on the 14-24 but at the loss of 2mm at the wide end - not much in terms of mm but around 16% in terms of width! The cost (ignoring any trade ins)? 14-24 f/2.8, £1337; 24-70 f/2.8, £1229; 70-200 f/2.8 (not always in the bag but would be upgraded at the same time), £1589. The 8mm fisheye has no AF competitors - certainly none in the Nikkor range, with the closest Nikkor being the 10.5mm fisheye but that's Dx and rectangular rather than (my preferred) circular. That's a total cost of a bit over £4000 and at a guess, the trade in value of what I have is roughly £200 for the 24-70 f/2.8, can't find a 12-24 Sigma 2nd hand, so would guess at 1/2 new cost, so around £350, maybe and for the 70-200 f/2.8, around £200-£250. Total, around £800 or so - far too much price differential for my wallet!

 

[Laudrup]

Is there an echo in the room? Or just a Canon/Nikon fanboy who believes that the object of his love makes the best lenses in the world at every focal length and price point? I'm no fan boy, I just buy what I think is the best at the price I'm willing to pay so rather than try and get me to do your homework for you you should just Google your way to some reviews with an open mind. Too much to ask I expect

You said:

Some Sigma lenses are generally accepted to be the best mass market choice at their focal length / price point.

What lenses?