Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses

Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more] >> Digital Camera & Photo Editing

Message

Black Arrow -> Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (1/7/2007 1:07:15 AM)
I am going to buy either a Canon 20D ro 30D SLR camera. I was set on buying the 30D with the F-2.8, 70-200mm Canon zoom as part of the package. The guy at the LCS says that the Sigma lenses are every bit as good and I won't be able to tell the difference except that I will save about $400. He also says that the 20D is only different from the 30D in that it has a larger viewing screen and costs another $100. Any comments from the knowledgeable on these issues?

Tigger N. Bennie -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (1/7/2007 1:47:33 AM)
You may want to search around the following website, where he compares a lot of cameras and lenses. I do own a few Sigma lenses, but I use Nikon. My Nikon lenses are also a lot more expensive, are faster, and work better in low-level lighting. Of course, they should since they cost a lot more. http://www.kenrockwell.com

dcline47 -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (1/7/2007 1:54:32 AM)
I have a Canon Rebel and bought the Sigma 28x300 lens. I couldn't be happier and like they told you, it was half the price. I don't think you will be disappointed. Before buying the Sigma I check with a friend who is a professional photographer. He told me that the Sigma are top quality. Hope this helps.

Panzlflyer -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (1/8/2007 4:18:13 AM)
If you own a 20D dont upgrade to the 30 imo, but if you are getting into it new then go with the 30D, the little improvements to the software/firmware, shutter life and the screen plus little changes to the ergonomics make it worth it. Dp Review is worth looking at http://www.dpreview.com/ Sigma may be okay but you cant beat that Canon 2.8 if its the L although it is expensive its also faaaast and that and the glass is what you pay for. I thought the L line was pure hype until i got one!!! My cheap lenses just dont stack up when it comes to fast focusing on a moving model at 100mph There is quite a few sites that have comparison charts Also if you can afford it the Canon is sellable.

xrunner123 -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (1/9/2007 11:37:30 PM)
You can also look at Tamaron in addition to the Sigma. Both offer lens that are comprable to Canon but you have to look at the specific lens. Canon does make some models that are not very good. Pick a lens then find a review. http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/ is a good site to ask questions in. Also http://dpreview.com/ What lens are you looking at?

Black Arrow -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (1/11/2007 6:35:35 AM)
Thanks to all who have taken the time to repy to my original post. After spending a couple of hours reading the Ken Rockwell web site I am re-thinking the whole thing. There's quite a bit more here to consider than I realized. At this point I'm not even sure anymore that the cost of a higher end digital outfit is justified for a guy like myself. I started out doing black & White in my dad's darkroom when I was about 10 yrs. old. My dad taught me the basics but I was never into it to the same depth that he was. However, I always tried to make better than average pic's. Took nothing but color slides for about 30 years then went to prints because I just got tired of the hassle of trying to show slides. I always go for the Kodak Perfect Touch processing and get a lot of compliments on my photos. The most common one is: "That could be a postcard!" I, of course, know there are faoults but it still feels good to hear someone say nice things. A couple of things I've come to realize: With film, if you don't do your own darkroom work you are at the mercy of whomever does your processing. With digital you will always be limited by the quality of printers, scanners, etc. you can afford.

xrunner123 -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (1/11/2007 1:53:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Black Arrow With digital you will always be limited by the quality of printers, scanners, etc. you can afford. Are you comparing digital vs film or point and shoot digital vs SLR digital. That's a big difference. What do you want to take pictures of? Don't worry about the quality of printers, scanners, etc. You can aways just order your digital prints online from a professional place.

Black Arrow -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (1/13/2007 2:00:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xrunner123 quote: ORIGINAL: Black Arrow With digital you will always be limited by the quality of printers, scanners, etc. you can afford. Are you comparing digital vs film or point and shoot digital vs SLR digital. That's a big difference. What do you want to take pictures of? Don't worry about the quality of printers, scanners, etc. You can aways just order your digital prints online from a professional place. I doubt I could live with anything less than the advantages of an SLR so point and shoot cameras are not really in consideration. The Nikon 200D and the Canon 30D are the main contenders for my consumer dollars. I was really thinking more about the differences between film and digital. For me, the main attraction of digital cameras is the ability to see what the shot looks like on the spot without waiting for processing or spending the $ on pic's that are rejects. Most of my photos tend to be taken while traveling, a few are taken of models (trains & planes) and wildlife is always a thrill when the opportunity arises. I take all comments into consideration and appreciate the time and effort of those who are trying to educate me.

Panzlflyer -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (1/13/2007 3:20:26 AM)
Consider the Rebel XTi, at 10mp its a good buy plus it has some things that the others dont have, like an internal cleaning mechanism, its fast and really theres not much difference other than the body material. The cleaning mech is a must have on my next one as the dust gets tiresome and Canon only clean the sensor once for free!, look online at all the solutions and you will realise that its a pain especially as you will be sticking things in the camera to clean it that void the warranty, but not doing it leaves dust bunnies on all your shots, yeah I know theres photoshop. Most dont go back to film, my wife used to manage a photographer and studio and once I got the Rebel and then the 20D all questions of film were out the window. Most magazines are done digitally and most professionals are having to change as magazines are not willing to deal with film. Having the digital negative and being able to photoshop copies of it are also something you dont get to do with film, exposure etc can all be played with especially if you shoot in RAW . Scanners I use rarely and they are cheap now, a Good photo printer can be had for $200 so its the cost of paper and ink that gets you but I find that I only print what I want so it isnt that expensive. Memory cards lets you take say 200+ shots at a flyin for FREE and again you only use the ones that are good, you will find you take more pictures. As xrunner said, upload them or take them to a lab and have them printed, again you get to tinker with them unlike film. Good luck on your decision.

xrunner123 -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (1/13/2007 3:28:25 AM)
I never had a film SLR but I have the Canon rebel with a few lens. I have taken over 3000 shots over the past few years but only have printed out a handful. Create an online photo album where you can share your shots and whom ever wants to order prints, they can right in your album. The advantages of digital I think outweigh film.

Panzlflyer -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (1/13/2007 3:32:59 AM)
Oh and I read Rockwells comments and while he is right on some points he isnt on others, try shooting a moving model with an A540( I did it, as I owned one) and then with my 20D or Nikon or Rebel and tell me again you dont need the higher end equipment ( its called shutter lag) and no amount of posing is going to overcome that particular point and shoots camera inability to focus and click fast enough

Tigger N. Bennie -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (1/14/2007 3:20:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Black Arrow The Nikon 200D and the Canon 30D are the main contenders for my consumer dollars. I was really thinking more about the differences between film and digital. For me, the main attraction of digital cameras is the ability to see what the shot looks like on the spot without waiting for processing or spending the $ on pic's that are rejects. Most of my photos tend to be taken while traveling, a few are taken of models (trains & planes) and wildlife is always a thrill when the opportunity arises. I take all comments into consideration and appreciate the time and effort of those who are trying to educate me. I basically went through the same process. Here is a shot I took yesterday with my D200--the environment was a madhouse. [;)] I used a 17-55mm F/2.8 lens. Edit: The second photo I took tonight near one of the main roads into Hoover Dam using a handheld 70-200mm F/2.8 VR lens.

airborne -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (1/18/2007 2:22:28 AM)
Hello all, Having used the types of lenses mentioned here - Sigma, Tamron and Canon - as well as the Nikon and Canon cameras - I'd like to weigh in on a few things. First, having used lots of equipment over the years, I have settled on Canon - currently using a Canon 20D, a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS for the long distance and aerial shots (Model Aviation product review and contest coverage), and a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for the closer stuff (and indoor shooting without flash). To get back to the subject of this original thread, I believe that the lens choice depends on 2 things. First is your budget. Obviously, the Canon lenses are high dollar in comparison to the Sigma and Tamron, but there are reasons for that. This leads me into the 2nd thing which is: Can you tell the difference for the extra money? Definitely! The Sigma and Tamron lenses are fine for everyday vacation shooting or basically shooting things that don't move too much or don't require the utmost in sharpness. The Sigma lenses I have used were fairly sharp, but took a while to focus - sometimes having to focus to infinity and then come back to the proper subject focus. If you're trying to take a photo of a moving object, it's hit and miss at best. Tamron lenses are a bit faster to focus, but there seems to be more lenses out there which aren't as sharp as they should be. In both cases, neither focused anywhere near the speed of a Canon lens and also showed quite a lot of vignetting at the larger f-stops. The Canon lenses with the "L" series glass are a totally different breed, but you have to be able to appreciate the difference. Canon lenses focus extremely fast and extremely accurately. The also offer image stabilization which can give you an extra stop or two. The build quality is also much better since they don't rely on plastic for the casing. They are weather sealed and just plain awesome lenses. The problem in all this is that if you only go on price, you'll never know the true difference. You have to use a Canon lens to know why it costs so much. If you're lucky enough, find a camera store in your area that allows you rent the lens for the day. Hands on experience can answer a lot of questions that you won't be able to find off the internet. Also note, that I called out "L" glass Canon lenses. Canon also makes non-"L" glass lenses that are less expensive, but they are not as sharp, fast or built anywhere near as good as the "L" lenses. As for the bodies themselves, I have to agree with what has been posted. If you have a 20D (like I do), don't opt for the 30D. There's not enough to justify the difference. If you don't have anything, for the 30D. Yes, the Rebel XTi (400D) does have slightly better resolution, but the 30D has many more features and is not that much more in price for the performance. Of course, if money is not an option, you could always go for the EOS-1DS Mark II, (16.7 Megapixel) - at just under $7000! :-) Hope this helps.

Tigger N. Bennie -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (1/18/2007 9:33:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: airborne Of course, if money is not an option, you could always go for the EOS-1DS Mark II, (16.7 Megapixel) - at just under $7000! :-) Hope this helps. If money was not an option, one could simply go with a Hasselblad H3D 39 Megapixel camera--the world’s first 48mm. full-frame, large-sensor, medium-format DSLR camera system. Price : $ 31,994.95 at B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&ci=5517&Q=&O=NavBar http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h3d.aspx

MMallory -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (2/2/2007 2:09:46 PM)
There is some misinformation here. For some situations Sigma has a lens that will equal or best Canons lenses in sharpness. However, I do not believe there is a single Sigma lens which will focus as fast. Add to this Canon has manual full time manual focusing on many lenses. This gives you the ability to quickly override the autofocus. Canon also has what some people call hidden "L" lenses. These are the few where the optical qualities rival or exceed the "L" lenses while not having quite the robust build quality. Also, not all "L" lenses are weatherproof. The good news is you can save a ton of money by going with the 70-200 f4 (with or without IS). If you shop around and use the current rebate you can buy these lenses new for less than they sell for used. Resale is very, very good on the "L" line. Sigma can save you a few dollars if fast focus isn't a concern. Keep in mind Sigma have just as many quality levels as Canon. Stay with their pro level stuff. Also, Sigma is very good about reprogramming current lenses if they don't work well with your camera. Sigma must reverse engineer the link so they may need programming with each newer Canon body you buy. Two other Canon lenses you may want to research are the 70-300 IS DO and the 50mm f1.8. Both are known to product excellent images. Another place to save money is using Walmart for photo processing. They do a very good job and I use them for all snapshots and general viewing images. I only print my own in the rare case where I want something special. There are plenty pro labs for enlargement work. My picks would be the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 (this is a must have lens), 70-200 f2.8 L IS, 16-35 F2.8 L (if money is no object), 17-40 f4 L (full frame), 17-55 f 2.8 EFS IS (crop camera) and the 1.4x extender. I don't think you mentioned whiich 35mm you have. If it is a non-Canon autofocus SLR, you may want to skip this discussion and start looking for a digital body where you can use your existing lenses. Mark M

someonesaid -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (2/18/2007 5:02:15 AM)
Hey take time to check out the Nikon D40 as far as cameras go. Sigma lenses will work great for you. The faster Nikon lenses won't matter to you unless you fly at dawn or dusk!

Tigger N. Bennie -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (2/18/2007 5:11:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: someonesaid Hey take time to check out the Nikon D40 as far as cameras go. Sigma lenses will work great for you. The faster Nikon lenses won't matter to you unless you fly at dawn or dusk! And the best natural light is at dawn and dusk. Nikon D40 information: quote: Compatible Lenses1: Nikon F mount with AF coupling and AF contacts Type G or D AF Nikkor: 1) AF-S, AF-I: All functions supported; 2) Other Type G or D AF Nikkor: All functions supported except autofocus; 3) PC Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D: Can only be used in mode M; all other functions supported except autofocus; 4) Other AF Nikkor1/AI-P Nikkor: All functions supported except autofocus and 3D Color Matrix Metering II; 5) Non-CPU: Can be used in mode M, but exposure meter does not function; electronic range finder can be used if maximum aperture is f/5.6 or faster; 6) IX Nikkor lenses cannot be used *1. Excluding lenses for F3AF http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25420

someonesaid -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (2/18/2007 6:13:20 AM)
For portraits, but probably not for fast moving aircraft. At least in my admittedly limited experience, planes going slow go boom on the ground. Maybe one day when I am lots better, I can float one slowly past as the fog is clearing on a beautiful dawn. But then I will be busy flying it and someone else will have to snap the pic.

Tigger N. Bennie -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (2/18/2007 5:44:08 PM)
"Dawn and Dusk" is about lighting. It's the same for fast moving aircraft, fast moving cars, fast moving whatever as it is for people, as well as landscape unless someone plans to limit themselves and not take photos during certain hours--Landscape may also be part of the background scenery even for R/C aircraft. I've also been at numerous races and fly-ins where the races and the flying continues well into the night. Then there are conventions, i.e. RCX, iHobbies, Hobby Visions, etc. where the photographer may need a fast lens.... It's just that the photographer usually needs to have a fast lens and fast camera to capture photos of fast moving aircraft at either dawn or dusk without a flash. I own several Sigma lenses and one reason I own a Nikkor 70-200mm F/2.8 VR is because the Sigma lenses that I own are too dang slow to capture fast moving objects at dawn, dusk, or in low level lighting (including indoors)--the Sigma lenses I own simply waste time "hunting" instead of focusing (though there are faster Sigma lenses available). I also own the faster Nikon D200 since it's frame rate is twice as fast as the D50 (which I started out using and still own) and there is very little shutter lag. For kicks, pick up the March 2007 issue of Quiet Flyer sometime and check out the article on the Super Fly V held in Las Vegas. http://www.quietflyer.com/current_issue/current.html I both wrote the article and took the photos--check out the Parkzone Stryker C on page 18 which was taken at dusk. To me the colors stand out more because of the lighting conditions. I also own a Sigma 135-400mm F/4.5-5.6 APO lens but never even considered using it that day since that particular lens is slow, noisy, and would have probably had one heck off a time trying to focus in the overcast conditions that day. For that matter, the handheld cover shot was taken indoors at night with my Nikkor 70-200mm F/2.8 VR in very limited lighting using a Nikon SB-800 flash.

someonesaid -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (2/18/2007 6:33:30 PM)
WOW! I followed your link to check out your work and you do some great stuff! OK, if someone who is doing work like that says fast lenses, I'm convinced. Now, how fast is fast enough? My D40 came with an 15 - 55 1:3.5 to 5.6, is 3.5 fast enough? Also, what speed do you use for exposure? Do you use the equivelent of asa 200, or do you push it faster? Thanks

MMallory -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (2/18/2007 8:49:02 PM)
Your 3.5 is only 3.5 when the lens is set to wide. My suggestion is to go as bright as you can afford. I taken a lot of shots with an F4 zoom and they come out great. I prefer a zoom which doesn't vary the stop. Technique can make up for lack of speed in some instances (Tripod, monopod, manual focus etc). Your take rate will go up the faster the lens though. Keep in mind you don't need to take the pictures with the lens wide open. One of the main advantage to having a bright lens is the camera can focus better and faster since the lens is wide open for focus duties. Asa, F stop and shutter speed vary for the type of shot you want. Try http://www.dpreview.com/ there is a lot of good information there.

Tigger N. Bennie -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (2/18/2007 9:30:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: someonesaid WOW! I followed your link to check out your work and you do some great stuff! OK, if someone who is doing work like that says fast lenses, I'm convinced. Now, how fast is fast enough? My D40 came with an 15 - 55 1:3.5 to 5.6, is 3.5 fast enough? Also, what speed do you use for exposure? Do you use the equivelent of asa 200, or do you push it faster? Thanks Thanks. On a "bright" day, the F/3.5 should be fast enough if you get close enough since you'll probably be shooting at F/5.6 at 55mm. Myself, I use the 17-55mm F/2.8 in that focal range; however, that is one very pricy lens. For the most part, all the F/2.8 glass is expensive. If you visit my website, you'll notice some LPGA photos that I took with a Sigma 70-300mm F/4-5.6 where I was still able to catch the players, the ball, and still allow some motion blur with the subjects in focus. The extra reach was nice, but in low level lighting it is my opinion that the Sigma lens is too slow just as is the Nikkor 24-120 F/3.5-5.6 VR I own. Consequently, I started moving toward F/2.8 and faster lenses. I also passed on the 50mm F/1.8 and opted for the F/1.4 lens version though it is about 3x as expensive as the F/1.8. Regarding ISO and hand held action shots, I usually start at ISO 400 and try to drop it since the higher the ISO the grainier the image. Auto ISO is turned off since I don't want the ISO jumping up when I want to take "night" shots. In shutter priority, I usually start at "400" as well but that is because I am usually not trying to freeze everything and allow motion blur whether it is tires, prop, blades, etc. However, it is also going to depend on the speed of the subect as well as the lighting conditions. After all, the blades may spin faster on a heli in flight than when compared to some planes yet be slower than when trying to pan a fast moving wing. Consequently, I'll try to drop the shutter speed as well though it may not be possible, especially when shooting handheld. One thing to remember is that larger F# result in increased depth of field while increased shutter speed results in less depth of field (meaning the focus has to be right on). The following photo: Nikon D200 Nikkor 70-200mm F/2.8 VR 1/250 sec F/13 ISO 400 at 105mm [image]http://image.rcuniverse.com/forum/upfiles/70716/Fc90554.jpg[/image] Here is a link to some recent heli photos I took at a local fun fly--one of the helis was flown by a 4-year old. http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_5411052/tm.htm

someonesaid -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (2/18/2007 10:20:04 PM)
Love the shot, the fstop set for such a shallow depth of field and dead on focus, really well done.

MMallory -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (2/18/2007 11:01:55 PM)
Actually F13 isn't what I would call shallow. Had this been shot at f2.8 he may have too shallow a field and the plane would be partially out of focus.

Tigger N. Bennie -> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses (2/19/2007 12:30:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: someonesaid Love the shot, the fstop set for such a shallow depth of field and dead on focus, really well done. Actually, F/13 is very high--that photo was taken on a very nice day. The background is just blurred out because I had to pan the subject aircraft to keep it in focus. Now, the following hand held shot was another storey. [image]http://image.rcuniverse.com/forum/upfiles/70716/Tr50197.jpg[/image]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

SITE MAP! : : FORUM RULES

© 2001 - 2007 24-7 RC, LLC, all rights reserved.

0.453125