I think both Sigma and Canon both make good and bad lenses. You just have to know which is good and bad. People like to bash non Canon lens makers for some reason but you have to remember that Sigma is a maker of camera, lens, flash, much like Canon.
I think their lenses are cheaper b/c their market is bigger (since they make their lenses for most manufacturers). I persoanlly think most of the lens price is based on marketing, getting what the market will bear and does not have a close one to one correlation with optical quality.
Look at Popular photography's comparison of a $100 Canon 80-200 lens and the 70-200 f2.8L lens. Not a big difference in sharpness between the two. Most of the differnce is in distortion, color, construction, and wider aperature.
Most people justify the expense of their purchase by thinking an expensive Cannon lens is markedly sharper than a cheap consumer lens. Most of the time, it's not, unless you routinely make 11x14 or larger prints.
Sigma makes many excellent lenses, you can see the SQF chart from Popular Photography and see for yourself. Some may say that the SQF isn't enough, but I'll wait for their comparisons then.
Some fine examples from Sigma include 18-50 EX, 24-60 EX, 70-300 APO II, 70-200EX, 105 EX Macro, 120-300 EX, 50-500 EX, 300-800EX and I'm sure a few more.
Message edited by author 2005-06-23 11:32:15.
|
