Airsnaps From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4352 times:
The best advice I can give is to stay away from Sigma lenses on a top-range Canon body. It will only lead to disappointment after disappointment, or at least that's from my own personal experience.
The Canon 28-135mm IS is extremely good and highly suited for aviation photography. However, when compared to the Canon L-series lenses you will notice a difference and begin to wish you could have put more cash down!
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4346 times:
"I am looking at the 28-135mm IS and the 75-300mm IS"
I use these two lenses with a D60, I think the results are very good for the price, and the IS really makes a difference, when the light is weak in late afternoon, you start to notice the advantage of IS.
2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4321 times:
I had very good luck with my Sigma 170-500 mounted on the D60...But when I moved over to a Canon L lens I saw how much I had been missing. If you can afford it go with Canon glass. But you can get nice results with Sigma if you buy the quality stuff.
A friend of mine in the UK just got a 10D and tried a prime Sigma 300 on it and just got error codes. (I had used the same lens on my D60 and it worked fine...?????) So be aware of a possible conflict. (And my 170-5 is built like a tank...)
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9698 posts, RR: 67
Reply 8, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4246 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hi Paul. I am currently reviewing some Sigma lenses, had a lot of fun with the 70-200 f/2.8 APO HSM EX (think they have enough letters in there) and the 15-30 wide angle. Both have performed well for me, I am waiting to get my hands on the 80-400 OS so I can compare it to my 80-400 VR.
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1730 posts, RR: 65
Reply 9, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4232 times:
Sigma seems good lens for the price you paid, I paid cheap on a Tokina 2.8 glass, and got excellent results.
Until one day I dropped the lens, and now the lens don't work too well with marginal area to focus, on the contrary, the 80-200 f2.8 Nikon lens I dropped 3 times, no problem still going strong. Thats the money you paid what you get. At the end, depends on your experience, there MAY be a difference.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4246 times:
I use 3 Sigmas (the 170-500 and 2 EX primes) and they're marvellous lenses.
Same for my 2 Tokinas.
As Sam says, the high-end Nikkors and Canons are may be somewhat better mechanically and may have a tiny optical advantage over the Sigma EX and Tokina AT-X but for that you pay so much more that for many people they simply aren't an option.
For most of us it's either a Sigma EX or a consumer grade Nikkor or Canon. Taken that comparison, the Sigma wins out on all fronts.