Sigma lens??

yeah, those pictures looked pretty good. It's just that sometimes I see decent camera packaged deals with sigma lenses. I kinda wondered if they were junk.
 
A buddy of mine has the Sigma 8mm fisheye and loves it. I've shot with it using his D-70. It's a great, solid lens. Don't know about the 50-500mm "Bigma" as it's called but I'm sure it's just as well built.
 
50F4 - 500 F6.3? Barf. Zooms with such a wide range like that are a pile of bad tradeoffs. You can get a great 50 1.8 for like $60, and you could get the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS for around 1300$, and it is a much better lens. Another far superior lens is the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS. WAY faster and more useful. Maybe it is just the shooter, but that gallery of images with the 50-500 looked very soft to me. If you need a long ass lens, you are much better off getting more dedicated TELE zoom, or better yet a prime.

RE: Sigma. They are decent, but they generally are not quite as good a performer as their Canon equivalents. One notable exception would be the Sigma 14mm -vs- the Canon 14mm. The Sigma is at least half the cost, and probably a better performer all around.
 
It really depends on the lens. Sigma has some real crap lenses out there, but they also have some good ones. I personally have never been impressed with the "Bigma" yes I said bigma 50-500. Personally, my favorite line of lenses right now, unless I could afford some nice L lenses would be the tokina line of lenses. They are built like tanks, have great quality control, and are very resonably priced. I have been using the Tokina 12-24 for a few months now, and that lens rarely leaves my camera. I have tested out the new 100mm macro, and was very impressed with the sharpness of the images, right up there with the L lenses that I have used, and about 1/4th the price.
 
I have a Sigma 12-24 and have been pretty happy with it. I do mostly architectural stills, and for most uses its been great. There is not much distortion for such a wide lens. The images have been used for several magazine covers, and look good. I wouldn't make 40" x 60" prints from the images, but I rarely need that. Most of my clients need magazine size or smaller, or digital slideshows, which it works great for. The thing I dislike most about the lens is that the front element is so round that it won't take screw on filters. Most filters can be imitated in PhotoShop, but I sure would like to use a polarizer! Scharky, will the Tokina take screw on filters? It seems like I remember seeing a pic of one, and it looked like it could...
 
Hi great photos love the work.Now go shoot the same shots with a 50/mm 1.8 nikkor or canon .other lenses to use if canon 70-200/f4 L in nikon 80-200/f2.8.you wont beleve your eyes.
 
Don Tucci said:
Hi great photos love the work.Now go shoot the same shots with a 50/mm 1.8 nikkor or canon .other lenses to use if canon 70-200/f4 L in nikon 80-200/f2.8.you wont beleve your eyes.
Click to expand...

Canon 70-200 2.8L IS trumps em both. My favorite lens in the world. Unless I can lock the Hubble to my camera.
 
pptphoto, yes the tokina allows for a screw on filters. I actually have a regular profile UV filter on there with no vignetting.
 
Thanks for the info. I'm going to have to check it out. I definitely would like to be able to use a filter from time to time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top