Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses

Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more >> Digital Camera & Photo Editing >> Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 1/7/2007 1:07:15 AM

Black Arrow

Posts: 41
Joined: 5/8/2006
From: , MI, USA
Status: offline

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?

< Message edited by Black Arrow -- 1/7/2007 1:27:20 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 1/7/2007 1:47:33 AM

Tigger N. Bennie

Posts: 8367
Joined: 9/28/2003
From: Track, USA
Status: offline

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

< Message edited by Tigger N. Bennie -- 1/7/2007 1:49:20 AM >

_____________________________

Lots of RCs, two cats, and two Nikon cameras.

(in reply to Black Arrow)

Post #: 2

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 1/7/2007 1:54:32 AM

dcline47

Posts: 4
Joined: 2/8/2005
From: , AZ, USA
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Black Arrow)

Post #: 3

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 1/8/2007 4:18:13 AM

Panzlflyer

Posts: 1937
Joined: 2/28/2002
From: Goldsboro, NC, USA
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to dcline47)

Post #: 4

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 1/9/2007 11:37:30 PM

xrunner123

Posts: 20
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: , USA
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

Spool up!

(in reply to Panzlflyer)

Post #: 5

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 1/11/2007 6:35:35 AM

Black Arrow

Posts: 41
Joined: 5/8/2006
From: , MI, USA
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to xrunner123)

Post #: 6

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 1/11/2007 1:53:32 PM

xrunner123

Posts: 20
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: , USA
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Spool up!

(in reply to Black Arrow)

Post #: 7

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 1/13/2007 2:00:58 AM

Black Arrow

Posts: 41
Joined: 5/8/2006
From: , MI, USA
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to xrunner123)

Post #: 8

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 1/13/2007 3:20:26 AM

Panzlflyer

Posts: 1937
Joined: 2/28/2002
From: Goldsboro, NC, USA
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Black Arrow)

Post #: 9

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 1/13/2007 3:28:25 AM

xrunner123

Posts: 20
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: , USA
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Spool up!

(in reply to Panzlflyer)

Post #: 10

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 1/13/2007 3:32:59 AM

Panzlflyer

Posts: 1937
Joined: 2/28/2002
From: Goldsboro, NC, USA
Status: offline

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

(in reply to Panzlflyer)

Post #: 11

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 1/14/2007 3:20:21 AM

Tigger N. Bennie

Posts: 8367
Joined: 9/28/2003
From: Track, USA
Status: offline

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.

Attachments

Click to see fullsize image.

Click for fullsize

Click to see fullsize image.

Click for fullsize

< Message edited by Tigger N. Bennie -- 1/15/2007 4:53:40 AM >

_____________________________

Lots of RCs, two cats, and two Nikon cameras.

(in reply to Black Arrow)

Post #: 12

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 1/18/2007 2:22:28 AM

airborne

Posts: 38
Joined: 12/12/2001
From: Liberty Twp, OH, USA
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Tigger N. Bennie)

Post #: 13

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 1/18/2007 9:33:58 PM

Tigger N. Bennie

Posts: 8367
Joined: 9/28/2003
From: Track, USA
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

Lots of RCs, two cats, and two Nikon cameras.

(in reply to airborne)

Post #: 14

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/2/2007 2:09:46 PM

MMallory