Lens Quality? Sigma vs Canon

[photoknight]

I just bought a sigma 24-70 2.8 lens. Love it. Maybe the more expensive brands are a little sharper, but I've no issues with mine. If I had unlimited resources, I'd probably buy a more expensive lens, but I think a lot of the quality issues that the 3rd party lenses of the past had are gone now. The early sigma tamrons were not as good as todays lenses.

Best,
James

...my Sigma lens is about 5-6 years old. What quality is this time frame lens ?

I'm satisfied.

[Richie]

I still don't have any portraits up with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM but here is another image sample from a Canon 10D with the same lens.

-Richie

[photoknight]

6-10 years ago, I don't think anyone would argue that sigma and tamron were considered bargain, try at your own risk lenses. Since then, at least in my view, both made leaps and bounds in quality and now rival the pricey Nikon and Canon lenses. I think that now, a lot of the price in the, "premium brands" are for buying into the brand name and not necessarily the huge quality difference that the price would claim. If anyone has any scientific data on the quality of lenses in question and why there's such a price difference in seemingly similar lenses, I'd love to hear it.

Best,
James

I bought my Sigma 28-70 2.8 about 5-6 years ago, and I appear to get pretty sharp images, so guess I should compare mine to a newer model, it may be a bit better.

[photoknight]

Glad to hear it. I love sigma/tamrom lenses now. It's good to see there's a similar following and that you're happy with your lens.

Best,
James

[Soujrnr]

I just bought a new Sigma 24-70mm/f2.8 EX APO HSM and a similar 80-200mm/f2.8 EX yada yada yada and they are wonderful lenses!! I've used the Nikkor equivalents and I really can't tell the difference between the two. I've very happy with the quality and the price as well.

Good day!

Mike

[joel_j]

I have always and only have used Sigma lens, I started with an Pentax SF1 and Nikon 2020 using 35-70 and 70-210 lens. Now with my Nikon n80 I use 28-105 and 70-300. I shot alot celebratity, political events and they produce sharp images.

At first it was a matter of cost when I started in the late 80's now it's a choice. I may test the Nikon lens to see just how much sharper, if not significant to justify the cost different, I would stay with Sigma.

[actor-model-headshots.com]

the following is an email i sent a model of mine after getting sick of problems i'd been having with an expensive canon image stabilised lens 20-88 mm macro, and went back to a hundred dollar new sigma non-image stabilized 17-80 mm macro i'd gotten for fun...it really suggest canon should get out of the lens business:

after our talk about lenses, i put the sigma
on and took these real low lite pix of the cats...i
photoshopped them, but what i found was what i'd said,
the shape quality is really quite impeccable, which as
an 'artist' is what i personally go by, shooting
according to shape, composition, and the integrity of
the shapes and angles which give the look of beauty or
properness to a headshot, to you, to a cat...this lens
beats hands down the canon on shape retention and lack
of smearing and distortion...

however, the sigma is a smaller lens, and thus does
not have the glass of a larger lens...i think it
suffers in depth of colour and saturation, as i'd said
at dinner...but i'd much rather lose a bit there, and
have to try and pump it up in photoshop, and coming
close but not all the way...i'd much rather that than
have my main virtue (my abilities in shape alignment
in creating an artistic shot) be lost to a lens that
cannot hold shape, or produces shape that's a dice
roll as to whether it turns out like what i'm seeing
through the lens...i don't want to fight the lens, and
i'll give up some saturation for that...also, i can
only shoot down to about 1/25th of a second and hold
clarity of the image, whereas it is true the canon's
antishake lets me go down to 1/5th of a second...so i
am forced to shoot at 3200 iso (speed) vs. 1600, which
adds film noise...

so film noise and saturation are worsened and lost
somewhat, respectively, but my main ability and virtue
as a photographer is maintained, veracity of
shape...that which i see maintains the beauty i align
the shot up with when viewed on computer...this i must
have...

and as an aside, this is a better macro lens for
watches too...stronger macro magnification so my watch
fills the screen twice as much, and with something as
critical as a watch, the angles on the watch are more
important...i won't bore you with the watch pic i
took, but it has a beauty that i saw through the lens
that the canon does not maintain...

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

Here's some shots with my Canon 100mm f2.8 on a Canon 20D

http://rfredricksmith.com/macro/

I changed the fstop between each shot to illustrate the difference that DOF makes.

Cheers,
Roger