canon vs sigma.. how to decide - DPChallenge Forums

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

11/07/2004 07:35:39 AM · #2

From my limited research on the subject and from results obtained by my brother, I would say gor the Sigma and put that extra $100 on another piece of equipment.

Chiqui

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

11/07/2004 09:03:45 AM · #3

I was in a similar situation a little while ago. I was torn between the canon 24(28?)-135 and the Sigma 24-135 2.8-4.5. The canon lens was more expensive than the sigma lens. The canon lens was slower too. I ended up going with the sigma and I dont regret it. It is a great lens. I love it.

June

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/07/2004 09:13:42 AM · #4

i put the extra $100 toward the canon 50mm f:1.8, and a UV filter for it. it just got mounted on my camera...

the sigma 105mm macro should be here shortly.

Message edited by author 2004-11-07 09:14:15.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

11/07/2004 09:23:21 AM · #5

Let me preface my remarks by stating that I have the Canon lens. You would be hard-presssed to tell a difference between shots taken with these two lenses. They're both stellar performers.
The advantage of the Canon, IMO, is it's friendliness in normal (non-macro) shooting. The USM AF (fast, and with full-time manual focus) and the range-limiter switch are very useful to speed up focusing. The Canon version focuses ver quickly at normal distances, but of course if it hunts (poor contrast or light) it will take a while, since it's got a long way to go!
The build quality of the Canon is also exceptional, IMO all it needs is a red stripe and you could call it an L. My one dig on the Canon is the lack of an included lens hood.
Another consideration is the fact that Sigma does not ahve a license for the Canon communications protocol so they have reverse engineered it. Their lenses will work fine with current cameras, but there is the possibility that down the road, it would need re-chipping for use with newer bodies. Some older Sigma lenses can no longer be re-chipped.
As a long-term purchase, if the extra $ is not a large consideration, go with the Canon. You will not regret it. If the extra dollars are a big deal, and/or youare not looking at it as a long-term item (may re-sell within a couple years), go for the Sigma, and don't look back.
In either case, you will very much enjoy either lens; don't limit them to macro, they're great for normal shooting.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

11/07/2004 01:11:44 PM · #6

this is the sigma lense i am getting.

the telephoto part of the description throws me off.
this is the lense in question i assume...

Sigma Telephoto 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS

rscorp

Nikon D70

11/07/2004 01:35:15 PM · #7

I just bought the same lens for Nikon from B&H and am once again informed it is back ordered. Tried to buy the D70 from B&H, and it wasn't expected for 3 weeks. Went to Ritz and they shipped it to me that afternoon.

Had a filter backordered at B&H and now the Sigma macro lens. Who's running the ordering for them lately?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/07/2004 01:53:20 PM · #8

The Canon 100 seems to do slightly better on photozone.de, the difference being the Sigma is slightly poorer quality wide open and has slight vignetting.

According to Fred Miranda user reviews the Canon 100 gets a score of 4.8, whereas the Sigma 105 gets a score of 4.5. Probably worth reading the reviews, I find they give you a very good idea of actual use.

Message edited by author 2004-11-07 13:54:48.

Jason

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/07/2004 02:12:39 PM · #9

I have the Sigma Macro and though it's a great lens. I don't like it just because of the controls. Personally, I want all my controls on my lenses to be the same no matter which one is mounted to the camera.

11/07/2004 02:17:15 PM · #10

I`m also thinking of buying the sigma 105mm EX DG.
This DG version is fairly new out but the old non DG version is still available.
Anyone know what the difference is between the two apart from about Â£40.

11/07/2004 02:36:14 PM · #11

new DG supposedly corrects for various abberations
better glass coatings i assume.

upped the aperture to f:45

Message edited by author 2004-11-07 14:36:31.

11/07/2004 02:57:12 PM · #12

new DG supposedly corrects for various abberations
better glass coatings i assume.

upped the aperture to f:45

Thanks Tim.
A review in UK photo mag gives the sigma the edge over the canon mainly this is down to value for money as they both scored 23/25 for optical quality.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/07/2004 03:35:41 PM · #13

Doesn't the Canon have a shorter minimum focus? Wouldn't that allow you to get closer to the subject?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

11/07/2004 03:45:10 PM · #14

Originally posted by kyebosh:

Doesn't the Canon have a shorter minimum focus? Wouldn't that allow you to get closer to the subject?

Both go to 1:1 magnification, implying nearly the same minimum focus distance.

leaf

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/07/2004 03:55:21 PM · #15

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by kyebosh:
Doesn't the Canon have a shorter minimum focus? Wouldn't that allow you to get closer to the subject?

Both go to 1:1 magnification, implying nearly the same minimum focus distance.

can someone explain what 1:1 means again.....

11/07/2004 03:56:36 PM · #16

i ordered mine today.
should be here wednesday ;}

i had $197 in change i turned in - was thinking it was like $40 - lots of pennies. so i found out today counting pennies is worth it...

11/07/2004 04:09:12 PM · #17

Originally posted by kirbic:

Yes both go to 1:1 but does one go past that?

Message edited by author 2004-11-07 16:09:22.

11/07/2004 04:10:28 PM · #18

Originally posted by leaf:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by kyebosh:
Doesn't the Canon have a shorter minimum focus? Wouldn't that allow you to get closer to the subject?

Both go to 1:1 magnification, implying nearly the same minimum focus distance.

can someone explain what 1:1 means again.....

1:1 means the actual size of the object is the same size as it gets shown on the sensor.

11/07/2004 04:12:42 PM · #19

Originally posted by kirbic:

According to B&H:

Canon minimum focus distance: 5.9"
Sigma minimum focus distance: 12.2"

11/07/2004 04:23:02 PM · #20

According to B&H:

Canon minimum focus distance: 5.9"
Sigma minimum focus distance: 12.2"

My magazine gives them both at 0.31m.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/07/2004 04:24:28 PM · #21

Originally posted by marbo:

According to B&H:

Canon minimum focus distance: 5.9"
Sigma minimum focus distance: 12.2"

My magazine gives them both at 0.31m.

I also checked Fred Miranda, which said the same as above. Apparently, both are at 1:1, which is interesting.

leaf

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/07/2004 04:24:51 PM · #22

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

if the minimum focus is 12 isn't that better than 5.. if they are both 1:1 on the sensor.. then being a little farther away would be better wouldn't it.

11/07/2004 04:26:32 PM · #23

Originally posted by leaf:

if the minimum focus is 12 isn't that better than 5.. if they are both 1:1 on the sensor.. then being a little farther away would be better wouldn't it.

That's what I was thinking. Seems like a huge advantage in Sigma's favour??

11/07/2004 04:30:20 PM · #24

I think the canon can be manualy focused even when in autofocus mode which sounds very handy
Can the sigma do this?