Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon L?  
User currently offlineYHU From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 429 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8230 times:

I'm in need of an upgrade from the 18-55mm stock lens that came with my Canon 300D. I'd love a Canon L lens, but they're so darn expensive. I was looking at this guy, but I'm torn on whether I "need" Image stabilization or not.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-17-40mm-...TF8&s=photo&qid=1173118358&sr=1-49

The f/4 also seems a bit slow.

So my question is, does Sigma make a lens that offers the quality of Canon L Lenses, but at a slightly lower price? I know you get what you pay for, but I always feel that about 10% of the Canon L price is for having the Canon name on it.

Otherwise, do you guys have any other suggestions?

Thanks!

Dave

36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMcG1967 From UK - Scotland, joined Apr 2006, 517 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8210 times:

Sigma make an EX series of lenses that would be their equivalent to a Canon L series lens. They offer a good quality lens at a reasonable price when compared to the L equivalent. I have a Sigma 24-60 F2.8 EX DG and a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG HSM along with a Canon 400 F5.6L. I have had no problems with the Sigma lenses, and was able to get both for less than the cost of the Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS. The Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG is around the same cost as the new Canon 70-200 F4L IS in the UK. The Fred Miranda forums have a lens review section. When picking my Sigma lenses, I went with the ones that had the highest ratings.
Also a lot of people use the Sigma 50-500 - the Bigma - for aviation photography.


User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1754 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8193 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quote:

Also a lot of people use the Sigma 50-500 - the Bigma - for aviation photography.

One thing to be careful with the Bigma is that the zoom lock switch has two screws that secure the lock mechanism to the switch. These screws can loosen over time and work their way into the lens, locking up the zoom mechanism or worse. I had this happen to me last week and I've sent the lens out to Sigma service.

Easy way to prevent this? Remove the switch from the lens body and tighten the screws down when you feel the switch loosening (or use some lock-tite and be done with it). Truthfully the switch should be a screwless design and they might have fixed this with the DG model.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8171 times:

Quoting YHU (Thread starter):
Does Sigma Have An Equivalent To The Canon

Dave,
I have both SIGMA and CANON and must say that, yes, Canon lenses are much more expensive, but hey, the speed, the contrast, in one word, the results, are completely different...Save your money for two months more and at the end go buy a Canon...

Ciao



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8168 times:

Quoting YHU (Thread starter):
The f/4 also seems a bit slow.

When and/or how many times do you think it will be a problem ?

I've used the Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX for a couple of years and always liked it a lot but with 82mm(filter size) it is quite bulky.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...ll_details.asp?id=3261&navigator=2

The 28-70/2.8 is a bit cheaper and 67mm
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...ll_details.asp?id=3264&navigator=2

I've heard good things about the 24-60/2.8 which has a more common filter size of 77mm
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...ll_details.asp?id=3260&navigator=2

More equivalent to the Canon 17-40/4 would be the 15-30/3.5-4.5 which I also used for a few years.
It's a nice thingy as well but very flare sensitive for which I sold it.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...ll_details.asp?id=3242&navigator=1

Then there is a 17-35/2.8-4
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...ll_details.asp?id=3258&navigator=1

and probably the best in this range the 20-40/2.8 which like the 24-70/2.8 is 82mm again.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...ll_details.asp?id=3259&navigator=1

If I had to choose I would take a serious look at the Tokina 16-50/2.8 DX
http://photo.net/equipment/tokina/pie2006/

[Edited 2007-03-06 18:29:25]


The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineYHU From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 429 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8158 times:

Hey, thanks for the replys (and all those links, Aviopic!). I probably wouldn't use anything below F4 for Aviation, but I'd be using it for non aviation as well. I think what it comes down to, if I'm paying a lot for a lens, I want to have the option of going lower if I need to.

So there seems to be a slight division on whether the Sigma EX is as good as the Canon L. I guess it comes down to personal preference.


User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8152 times:

Quoting YHU (Reply 5):
So there seems to be a slight division on whether the Sigma EX is as good as the Canon L. I guess it comes down to personal preference.

No division at all Dave, apart from one's salary....  Wink

Ciao



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8149 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Dave,

Quoting YHU (Reply 5):
there seems to be a slight division on whether the Sigma EX is as good as the Canon L.

Not really. I tried both before deciding each time for the Canon L lens (I bought the 17-40 and the 70-200), and I saw a noticeable difference in overall image and building quality between the Sigmas and the Canons. Not to say the Sigmas are bad, but they are not as good as the Canon Ls.
So, in the end it all comes down to: Is the difference in quality worth the difference in price? If you think that you are probably going to use these lenses for a long time, for me the answer was clear...



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineGraphic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8110 times:

As far as overall sharpness and lens quality goes, the EX lenses rank right up there with the L lenses, but specifically no, EX lenses aren't necessarily equivalent to L lenses, because the optics can be different. The "L" on Canon's lenses stands for "Ultra-Low Dispersion" meaning the lens has very thin glass elements inside it designed to reduce the effects of Chromatic Abherration. Sigma's equivalent to this is their APO lenses, APO standing for Apochromatic, meaning the inside of the lens elements are coated with special material designed to reduce chromatic abherration. These special lens elements are very expensive, hence Canon's L lenses and Sigma's APO lenses are very expensive.

btw I shoot the Sigma 80-400 EX OS APO, a fantastic lens.


User currently offlineYHU From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 429 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8101 times:

At this point I feel that just about anything would be an upgrade. As I said, I'm currently using the lens that came with my Canon 300D, the EF-S 18-55 model. For longer range, I'm using this guy:

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm...UTF8&s=photo&qid=1173208461&sr=1-3

Which is ULTRA Low End. But I feel the shorter lens should be replaced first since I use it a lot more.


User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1925 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8095 times:

I think select lenses by Sigma perform equally to the Canon's Ls. I've heard that not all lenses in Sigma's EX line perform equally unlike the "L"s by Canon, which have a more consistent pattern in regards to image quality.

I mean, do not be fooled by the EX logo. As said, some are equal to the Ls but some are said to be poor. My Sigma 100-300 F4 is a superb performer. Compared it with a friends 70-200 2.8 IS and boh were excellent.

Do some research before buying one. A lot say that Tamron's 28-75 2.8 is better than Canon's famous 24-70 2.8 which means that there are some that perform as equally to the Ls.

Regards.


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8089 times:

Quoting Acontador (Reply 7):
I saw a noticeable difference in overall image and building quality between the Sigmas and the Canons.

You must have better eyes then me Big grin

Quoting Graphic (Reply 8):
I shoot the Sigma 80-400 EX OS APO, a fantastic lens.

Think it is sort of ok, optics are pretty good but to call it fantastic..... mwaw  expressionless 
Try the 70-200/2.8 and you'll know what fantastic is. Big grin

Quoting YHU (Reply 5):
Hey, thanks for the replys (and all those links, Aviopic!).

You're welcome.

Quoting YHU (Reply 5):
if I'm paying a lot for a lens, I want to have the option of going lower if I need to.

Understandable but with the modern DSLR is not a problem to increase the sensitivity to ISO 200, 400 or even 800.
Personally I think you can get away with F4 in 99.99% of the cases as long as we are talking about the 17 to 100mm range.
That one extra stop will about double the price of a lens and just the option of having it would not be enough reason for me but that's personal of course.



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8074 times:

Quoting OD720 (Reply 10):
I think select lenses by Sigma perform equally to the Canon's Ls

No way man....Canon have better speed...sooooo much better speed...and better contrast/sharpness, soooooo much better contras/sharpness...I'm sorry. I told you : I have the Bigma 50-500 and the Canon 100-400 L IS....There's a huge difference between the two... Canon is more expensive and, yes, I prefer to pay 10% more (to say the least) to have a Canon....Sorry.

Ciao



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineYHU From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 429 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8068 times:

Another follow-up question.

As I said above, I have a Canon 300D. My current long zoom is quite light. Is it recommended to mount the heavier Pro-end lenses onto the Digital rebel? I'd hate to damage the plastic frame because the lens was too heavy for it. I know at the very least I should be holding both the Camera and the lens, which I generally already do.


User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8043 times:

Quoting YHU (Reply 13):
I'd hate to damage the plastic frame because the lens was too heavy for it. I know at the very least I should be holding both the Camera and the lens, which I generally already do.

Dave, no problem at all. You could also use a monopod if you need it, but usually it is not necessary...

Ciao



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8027 times:

Quoting YHU (Reply 9):
At this point I feel that just about anything would be an upgrade. As I said, I'm currently using the lens that came with my Canon 300D, the EF-S 18-55 model. For longer range, I'm using this guy:

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm...UTF8&s=photo&qid=1173208461&sr=1-3

Which is ULTRA Low End. But I feel the shorter lens should be replaced first since I use it a lot more.

I have the same equipment for my 400D except the EF 75-300mm that came in the kit that I bought was not USM III, just the standard kit lens. I also have the EF-S 18-55mm.

What I recommend you consider, and I was in your position last week is this lens - USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000AZ57M6/ref=pd_ys_qtk_rvi/102-0525788-0888158" target="_blank">Canon EF 24-205mm L IS.

I got it for just over $1100US delivered on eBay but I can't buy from amazon so if I were you I'd consider saving the extra money and getting something like this. It covers a good zoom range, is a great L series lens and if you go for something like the Canon EF 100-400 L IS in the future, you have yourself covered.

Just what I did, but I felt it was a good idea.



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8026 times:

Edit: Original message posted twice.

[Edited 2007-03-07 00:19:25]


It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4725 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8025 times:

Quoting Dvincent (Reply 2):
One thing to be careful with the Bigma is that the zoom lock switch has two screws that secure the lock mechanism to the switch. These screws can loosen over time and work their way into the lens, locking up the zoom mechanism or worse. I had this happen to me last week and I've sent the lens out to Sigma service.

I've had that happen in ACE, locked up and after a while the screw made some pretty deep grooves into the barrel. Service was really good tho, it was out of warranty but they repaired it free of charge within 2 weeks (including ordering parts).



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineAGD From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 204 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7982 times:

Quoting OD720 (Reply 10):
Do some research before buying one. A lot say that Tamron's 28-75 2.8 is better than Canon's famous 24-70 2.8 which means that there are some that perform as equally to the Ls.

Agreed! I have this lens and it performs really well! Only downside to me would be the build quality of the lense. Otherwise, it is a great piece of glass (sharpness is awesome). I wouldn't say it is as good as Canon's 24-70 2.8 lens, but for a third of the price, I will never complain.

I would highly recommend to anyone looking for something in that range to get that lens.

Alex



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1925 posts, RR: 32
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7971 times:

Quoting LIPH (Reply 12):
I have the Bigma 50-500 and the Canon 100-400 L IS....There's a huge difference between the two

In my post I said select lenses which means some and not all.

You are comparing two lenses which are very different. The 50-500 is a hyperzoom while the 100-400 is standard telezoom and it should perform a lot better.

It will be better to compare Sigma's 70-200 2.8 against Canon's 70-200 2.8. Some say, they are equal.

Regards.


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7965 times:

Quoting OD720 (Reply 10):
A lot say that Tamron's 28-75 2.8 is better than Canon's famous 24-70 2.8 which means that there are some that perform as equally to the Ls.

I've used the Tamron as well and I have to say with all pleasure, think it is even a little better then the Sigma 24-70/2.8.
Downside was the distortion and the Sigma feels a lot more solid.
However is the Canon 24-70/2.8L is a very good lens and I don't think the Tamron nor the Sigma will be equal let alone better then the Canon.
Whether the price difference is worth it remains a personal issue, for me it never was/will be.

Quoting OD720 (Reply 19):
It will be better to compare Sigma's 70-200 2.8 against Canon's 70-200 2.8. Some say, they are equal.

I am one of some  Wink



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineIngemarE From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 285 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7954 times:

Quoting LIPH (Reply 12):
No way man....Canon have better speed...sooooo much better speed...and better contrast/sharpness, soooooo much better contras/sharpness...I'm sorry.

...and I trust you have tried/tested them all in comparison to each other!?  scratchchin  Allow me to give you the benefit of doubt......

I'm actually surprized that the Tamron 28-75 only been mentioned twice, and the Tamron 17-50 not at all.
OK, so they give a little more distortion! So what!? (...unless you're doing architectual stuff!) Fix it PS! It's easy as pie.

Personally, I'd rather have a lens that I dare bring with me and actually use in all kinds of situations, without having to constantly worry about my "prrrrecioussss".
If I happen to break it, I can afford buying a new one,.....again, again, again and again. Finally adding up to the cost a signle new Canon or Nikon would run me.
See what I mean?



In thrust I trust.
User currently offlineYHU From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 429 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 7918 times:

All very interesting.

Of course, I'm also wondering if I really NEED and L Lens. I've also had my eye on this guy.

http://www.cameracanada.com/eNet-cart/product.asp?pid=9517A002

A couple of hundred cheaper than the 17-40 L lens, has IS and the extra zoom. Keeping in mind I'm currently using this lens:

http://www.cameracanada.com/eNet-cart/product.asp?pid=9475A002

...the 17-85 4-5.6 IS must still be quite an upgrade in quality. Is anyone using that lens?

Sorry if I'm full of questions. I've just been a lurker in this forum and have built up all of these questions.


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 7916 times:

Quoting YHU (Reply 22):
the 17-85 4-5.6 IS must still be quite an upgrade in quality. Is anyone using that lens?

I did.... for exactly 2 weeks then I was fed up with it and sold it with an enormous smile on my face.
It is of course not fair to compare a consumer with an L lens but for that money I would go for one of the other options.



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7907 times:

Quoting Graphic (Reply 8):
The "L" on Canon's lenses stands for "Ultra-Low Dispersion"

No it doesn't, it simply stands for 'Luxury'.

Go with the L series - tried and tested, with positive results every time. Think about it - some folk here with Sigmas and Tamrons are questioning the quality of their lenses when compared with Canon equivalents. You never get L owners doing the same. Everyone I know with an L is extremely happy and wouldn't swap it for the world. Says a lot.

In addition, whenever you go to a major sporting event (certainly here in Europe anyway), be if football, rugby, tennis or whatever, the pro photographers will all be using the grey Ls. They can't be wrong. If Sigmas and the like were better don't you think the pro's would be using them? Not to say Sigmas and the rest are bad lenses but I think my point is clear.

Karl


25 Post contains images Aero145 : All? Isn't that a bit exaggerated? There are quite a few with D2Hs (right?) and huge black Nikkors on the matches.
26 Tin67 : I've written this on a number of occasions, but this is my experience. In 2004 I wanted to buy a 300mm prime, I weighed up the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX HS
27 ChrisH : change the record, your needle's skipping... they are used at sports thanks to the IS in the big lenses. thats all. I know 4 people who own 100-400 L
28 Post contains images Aviopic : Because the get a hard dick from the Canon sticker Yes, I used to have a 17-35/2.8L Which didn't perform very good on a DSLR and was shortly after re
29 YHU : May I ask what about the 17-35/4L didn't perform well on a DSLR? The quality of the shot? Or it just didn't cooperate very well with the camera?
30 Aero145 : Then why do many people say that you should turn off the IS on your lens (if it has got one at all) if you're shooting sports (e.g. soccer)? I may be
31 JRadier : he said 17-35 F/2.8L, not the 17-40 F/4L. The lens he talks about was replaced by the 16-35 F/2.8L (which has a II version now)
32 Post contains links and images Aviopic : I think the problem was that the 17-35/2.8 was developed before the digital age. On my analog EOS the thing always performed quite well but on my fir
33 Post contains images ChrisH : soccer players tend to move along the Z axis mostly. id say some panning is in order Also imagine the set pieces, IS surely helps when you want to fo
34 Post contains links Aviopic : An extra note about the 16-35/2.8L and why I think a lot more people wander about Canon L glass policy. To illustrate this read this report: http://ww
35 Post contains images Aero145 : Understand. No surprise! You just found a place to work where everybody shoots Nikon.
36 Post contains images JakTrax : I think you mean stylus... And mine's not skipping - being a disc jockey, I know The question has been asked, admittedly for the umpteenth time, and
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
An Alternative To The RS-60E3 posted Mon Sep 25 2006 01:04:01 by NicolasRubio
Add Me To The Canon 10D User List! posted Fri Oct 8 2004 21:33:05 by Gmonney
It Does Not Have To Be A Widebody All The Time! posted Fri Jan 11 2002 21:09:34 by AKE0404AR
I've Decided To Buy The Canon EOS 30D posted Tue Aug 15 2006 11:25:03 by AussieAviator
Does This Have A Chance To Upload? posted Thu Feb 9 2006 18:58:26 by Danpio
Have They Permission To Use The Following Photos.. posted Wed May 19 2004 18:36:45 by Karlok
How Sharp Does It Have To Be? posted Wed Mar 3 2004 00:28:46 by Atco
How Does One Get Access To The Runway? posted Mon Mar 1 2004 20:54:25 by Roots
Sigma Lenses On The Canon 300D posted Fri Nov 14 2003 13:48:27 by BHXviscount
Does Anyone Have The TSA Letter On Photography? posted Thu Jan 23 2003 01:47:07 by 727LOVER
Does Anyone Own The Canon 800mm Yet? You Like? posted Thu Dec 25 2008 21:10:41 by Tappan
How Level Does Level Have To Be..? posted Thu Jan 10 2008 08:46:28 by Woody001