Sigma vs Canon?

[marioman38]

I'm planning on selling my current XTi and EF-S 18-55mm IS to fund a 40D body.

A lens for the 40D that has caught my attention is the Sigma 18-250mm DC OS HSM, it appears to be a relatively new lens, and I can't find any reviews on it. Any opinions on this lens? I have only ever had Canon lens.

If I can spare the $ I may end up with a 50mm f/1.8 II and 430EX II as well.

Sigma 18-250mm DC OS HSM vs. Canon 18-200mm IS?

Comments on the lens?

[HBOC]

here ya go

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_18-200_3p5-6p3_os_n15/

[marioman38]

Thanks, but I'm actually looking for the 18-250mm, I believe it uses different optics, and a new IS system. It also has the HSM focusing that the 18-200mm Sigma did not have on the Canon mount.

[bking1000]

This is not what you asked, but I will just say this: I have a Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 EX Macro that I'm trying to sell. The offers I've gotten on it show that Sigma's do not hold their value like Canon lenses that I've resold. So, if you are thinking Canon vs. Sigma because the Sigma costs less -- it might cost less in the short run, but maybe not in the long run.

Sorry this wasn't a direct answer to your question, but I thought I'd mention it. Please disregard if it's irrelevant to your decision.

[marioman38]

That is a good point, certainly helps when buying secondhand, but the 18-250mm just came out in April or May I believe.

[anubis]

If you're looking for something with decent image quality, honestly you're never going to find it in a Superzoom like that; there are too many tradeoffs the lens designers have to make to get a zoom range that wide. I couldn't find any reviews either but I'm sure they will find that the IQ is pretty terrible.

[marioman38]

I'm not looking for professional quality, but something "acceptable". Acceptable CA, and acceptable distortion levels at the extremes of the lens.

[bruinsrme]

This is not what you asked, but I will just say this: I have a Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 EX Macro that I'm trying to sell. The offers I've gotten on it show that Sigma's do not hold their value like Canon lenses that I've resold. So, if you are thinking Canon vs. Sigma because the Sigma costs less -- it might cost less in the short run, but maybe not in the long run.

Sorry this wasn't a direct answer to your question, but I thought I'd mention it. Please disregard if it's irrelevant to your decision.

When dealing with optics I would stick to Canon.
Its all about the glass, specs, and quality control.
Save a couple extra months for the good stuff. IMO once you start throwing Sigma on your body you just as well save your money and buy a point and shoot.
If you are going to take the time to capture something make it the best you can.

[marioman38]

Okay, well I was hoping someone had the lens and could comment.

The Sigma is 70 less, comes with the hood, has "USM", and 50mm more range.

Sometimes I feel when I buy canon I'm paying $$$ just for the name.

[bking1000]

Okay, well I was hoping someone had the lens and could comment.

The Sigma is 70 less, comes with the hood, has "USM", and 50mm more range.

Sometimes I feel when I buy canon I'm paying $$$ just for the name.

Do you know POTN? Lots of good lens suggestions there. You can also see a lens sample archive from forum members here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=107

Your lenses will have samples posted somewhere in those threads.

[TK2K]

sigma lenses tend to be medium grade, while canons are usually very high, ofcouse all depends...

[AlaskaMoose]

Okay, well I was hoping someone had the lens and could comment.

The Sigma is 70 less, comes with the hood, has "USM", and 50mm more range.

Sometimes I feel when I buy canon I'm paying $$$ just for the name.

I have a Sigma 70-300mm with a macro setting. Used it for a few weeks, and gave it to my wife along a Canon XT. Now I use a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8.

I agree with the others: save your cash, and buy a Canon L. For example, the EF 70-200mm f/4L is an outstanding lens that produces great IQ and costs just under $600.00. It's not a lens for low-light shooting (f/4), but one can't have it all for such a low cost. The same lens in f/2.8 costs a little more than twice.

One thing about glass and everything else is that in the long run one can spend a lot more cash buying a few lenses of lesser quality. Having a little patience, at least long enough to save the cash needed to buy a better lens, will save you cash. Buy the 40D body, and maybe the 50mm f/1.8. Later add the 70-200, and you will be much happier, specially since it will hold its value well compared to the Sigma lens.

Now, Sigma has a very nice 50mm f/1.4 lens.

[fiercetiger224]

I'm not looking for professional quality, but something "acceptable". Acceptable CA, and acceptable distortion levels at the extremes of the lens.

If you aren't looking for professional quality, then why are you getting a new body? There's no need for getting a new body if you're getting that Sigma, because it won't make the images any better. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'd look away from that lens. Grab the 70-200mm f4.0L like others have suggested. You'll be glad you did, since the IQ is tack sharp. There's no reason you should skimp on quality, especially if you're getting a higher quality body. Sigma has crappy quality control, since their lenses are produced inconsitently. Canon on the other hand, has great quality control, so all copies of their lenses will perform identically.

[marioman38]

Well the reason I'm going from the XTi to the 40D is that I decided I want to keep the body 4+ years, so the higher build quality was appealing, and with prices from $600 to $650 locally, it seemed like a good time to make the switch.

I'm also debating instead of a super zoom, going to a UWA to force myself to be more creative. The EF-S 10-22mm caught my eye. Except I heard UWA's were bad for panoramas which is something I wanted to try.

[compuwar]

I'm also debating instead of a super zoom, going to a UWA to force myself to be more creative. The EF-S 10-22mm caught my eye. Except I heard UWA's were bad for panoramas which is something I wanted to try.

Distortion hurts when stitching, definitely look for something with a flatter field.

I'm not looking for professional quality, but something "acceptable". Acceptable CA, and acceptable distortion levels at the extremes of the lens.

Look at the MTFs and/or see if you can rent one, or look for sample images online. One photographer's "acceptable" is another's "horrendous."

[marioman38]

A 50mm f/1.8 would be good for panoramas then perhaps?

I know the 10-22mm has high distortion especially at 10mm so that would be no good.

I checked out POTM, 7 pages of lens sample pictures, no Sigma 18-250mm :(

[compuwar]

I prefer about 35mm on a 1.5x crop body for panos personally, but a lot depends on what you're trying to achieve.


I checked out POTM, 7 pages of lens sample pictures, no Sigma 18-250mm :(
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quesabesde.com%2Fnoticias%2Fsigma-18-250-mm-tamron-18-270-mm-comparativa%2C1_5320&sl=es&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[marioman38]

I may be able to afford the 28mm prime.

Great review. It pretty much say's the opposite of users here.

"It is interesting to discover that the Canon, despite its more moderate focal range is undoubtedly the least recommended of the three tested. Both Sigma and Tamron will offer the greatest satisfaction to fans all in one."

I like the USM of the Sigma that the Canon EF-S 18-200mm does not have.

Sigma Superzoom, Canon 10-22mm, or EF-S 17-85mm IS

I've only ever had an 18-55mm IS so I don't know which length I will like best. Zenfolio focal range samples, here I come...

[joro]

I've dabbled with Sigma but I've always opted to go with Canon because even though it's more expensive, I feel the build quality of Sigma is inferior to Canon. That's not to say Sigma is a cheap P.O.S. rather that Canon is heavier (which I personally like, I know most don't) plus I know it's quality glass and is 100% compatible with my camera.

[jampat]

I have the 17-85 and have always regretted not saving up for the 24-70. f4-5.6 really does not work for me most of the time. If it were my money, I would be saving up for glass to let in more light. You may decide to do something completely different with your money however.

[marioman38]

Thanks for that! I was strongly considering the 17-85mm.

Now I think I'll get the EF-S 10-22mm now, and maybe pick up a 70-200mm f/4L in a few months if the budget allows.

I have an 18-55mm IS and always find I'm shooting on the 18mm side, so I think it would be better to get the 10-22mm prior to the 70-200mm?

I wanted the 18-250mm for a good "walkaround" lens. But when I "walkaround" with my 18-55mm IS, I find I always bias toward the 18mm end.

[fiercetiger224]

Thanks for that! I was strongly considering the 17-85mm.

Now I think I'll get the EF-S 10-22mm now, and maybe pick up a 70-200mm f/4L in a few months if the budget allows.

I have an 18-55mm IS and always find I'm shooting on the 18mm side, so I think it would be better to get the 10-22mm prior to the 70-200mm?

I wanted the 18-250mm for a good "walkaround" lens. But when I "walkaround" with my 18-55mm IS, I find I always bias toward the 18mm end.

The 10-22mm is a fun lens! I have a friend that has one, and I played with his a lot on a 40D. I had so much fun with it that I decided to grab myself a 16-35mm f2.8L (the equivalent version of the 10-22mm on a full-frame). I'm glad I grabbed it too! It's tack sharp even wide open! :D

The only thing to worry about is if you get a 10-22mm, you won't be able to use it on a full-frame is you decide to upgrade later. Otherwise, the 10-22mm is an awesome lens. And unlike most other EF-S lenses, this one will keep its value relatively well! So you can sell it at near retail price if you decide to grab a 16-35mm later. :rolleyes:

[marioman38]

Sounds good. I just finished my freshman year of college, so IF I ever upgrade to ff, it won't be in the budget for many years :rolleyes:

[OreoCookie]

Instead of getting a new body, I'd get a really nice lens for your existing body. Neither one of these superzooms are of sufficient optical quality for a 40D (or for any camera with similar resolution).

[Patriks7]

One thing I don't understand is why do you get a great body and stick a crappy lens on it? The main point of DSLRs is (wait for it...) ......... to have the option of using DIFFERENT lenses!

Just remember one thing: A better lens on a worse body will give you muuuuch better pictures than a crappy lens on a good body.

[pprior]

One thing I don't understand is why do you get a great body and stick a crappy lens on it? The main point of DSLRs is (wait for it...) ......... to have the option of using DIFFERENT lenses!

Just remember one thing: A better lens on a worse body will give you muuuuch better pictures than a crappy lens on a good body.

+1 this this.

It's the GLASS that takes picture, the body just hangs off the back :)

Spend money on quality lenses, and upgrade bodies only when you have a specific need (i.e. better low ISO performance, faster FPS, better low light focus).

In general wide zoom range (i.e. 20-200+) is always indication of crap picture quality. At the very least you'll get horrific light gathering (f5.6 or even worse sometimes) and the quality will be nowhwere near a prime, or even a good quality L zoom. The benefit of course is wide range of focal distance at a low price and some convenience. to me, it's not worth it.

[fiercetiger224]

Ahh I agree with the last two posters. The glass is definitely the most important part of the camera! Remember that better light gathering with better optics equals awesome photos! If you grab better lenses, I guarantee you'll already be taking much better photos, and be getting more jobs because people will be more impressed with the photos that you take! So think of it like, better quality means better business. ;)

[marioman38]

Well guys, if you've read through the thread you would have seen that I've decided on the EF-S 10-22mm and then saving for the 70-200mm f/4L aswell.

I have heard the 10-22mm uses "L" optics, but doesn't get the designation as it is EF-S mount.

I don't know why everyone hates superzooms so much. I have a Quantaray 28-200mm from my 35mm SLR that I put on my XTi, they weren't the greatest ever, but certainly miles better than my Canon P&S 8mp IS

[pprior]

We hate them because they suck. Unless you enjoy shooting at 5.6 aperture, which I certainly don't. You don't want advice, don't ask for it - you're wobbling with your decisions so I thought as a 20+ year veteran of photography I'd impart a bit of wisdom I've learned over time. But let me put it this way, until you've put some real glass on your camera and shot a few hundred frames and compared, just because you're satisified doesn't mean it doesn't get a LOT better.

My first quality lens was the 70-200L/2.8. When I got my first roll of pics back (yes, that was film) I was totally blown away at the bump in contrast, color and overall pic quality. I had been shooting typical kit lens quality before that (the kind of stuff you're talking about).

I guess it's like expensive cars, if you don't have the money, don't go shopping because once you drive one it's hard to go back to the econo-junk.

[marioman38]

Well I drive a 92 minivan with 302,380 miles (yea, its a toyota), so I suppose I shouldn't be looking at getting a new lens then :confused:

[pprior]

No, no, you're missing my point.

You were saying you hadn't seen anything wrong with your superzoom lens and what I'm saying is that you haven't yet shot with better glass so of course you won't see the limits yet.

I'm not advocating driving expensive cars - I don't myself. Maybe that was a poor analogy. Maybe a good quality computer monitor or something else would have been better. The point is, once you have experienced something of better quality, THEN you realize what you were missing.

Cheers

[marioman38]

kay, makes sense. Well my question originally was which of the three was better, knowing that none of them would be the best.

I have since taken the advice of you and others and am planning on

The EF-S 10-22mm which I have heard uses "L" glass.

And saving for the 70-200mm f/4L in the future.

If anyone else is interested, this review (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quesabesde.com%2Fnoticias%2Fsigma-18-250-mm-tamron-18-270-mm-comparativa%2C1_5320&sl=es&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) which compuwar posted the link to came to the conclusion that the Sigma and Tamron beat out the Canon nearly all around.

[fiercetiger224]

kay, makes sense. Well my question originally was which of the three was better, knowing that none of them would be the best.

I have since taken the advice of you and others and am planning on

The EF-S 10-22mm which I have heard uses "L" glass.

And saving for the 70-200mm f/4L in the future.

If anyone else is interested, this review (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quesabesde.com%2Fnoticias%2Fsigma-18-250-mm-tamron-18-270-mm-comparativa%2C1_5320&sl=es&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) which compuwar posted the link to came to the conclusion that the Sigma and Tamron beat out the Canon nearly all around.

The EF-S 10-22mm uses elements that are used in "L" glass lenses, but doesn't mean it is an L class lens. :p

I suggest you pick up a 17-40mm f4.0L lens instead. It has a constant aperture (vs 10-22mm which is 3.5-4.5). It won't be as wide on your 40D, but at least the IQ will be of L lens quality. Not sure what you really need a 10-22mm for; it's best for shooting architecture, etc. If you're going to be shooting people, etc, not the best choice, as you'll be finding yourself using the 22mm end of the lens. The distortion is fun, but will be boring if overused. Plus, you'll find the 10-22mm range limiting. Unless, you're into weird, stylized and distorted shots all the time... :rolleyes:

[OreoCookie]

The EF-S 10-22mm which I have heard uses "L" glass.
The moinker `L' (which I've heard stands for luxury) differentiates lenses Canon officially considers pro-grade. The lack of the letter L, though, has little to do with lack of quality nor is the L a guarantee of good IQ.

If you don't have that much cash, I recommend you have a look at Tokina's 11-16 mm or 12-24 mm UW zooms. They're also cheaper and the built quality is much, much better as well.

The 70-200 mm zoom is probably the best lens in Canon's current line-up in terms of price/performance.

[gkarris]

It all goes back to talent and fully using the equipment...

I've gotten some nice shots with the "crappy kit lens".

OP - Check out this forum for some real-world examples and make your decision:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=107

Hey folks, may be getting a job at the Apple Store - which means I can't post here anymore (but can lurk ;) ).

Will have to start posting at the Canon forum site for photography stuff... :)

[NeXTCube]

I actually own the Canon 18-200 IS; for what it is, it's not really that bad. Yes, there's distortion, and it's a little soft at the long end, but it's not the end of the world. However, with that said, the 18-200 IS is only an occasional use lens for me - pretty much only when I'm going into a situation where I only want to carry only one lens (e.g., taking the kids to Disney World). While the focus isn't as fast as it is on my USM lenses, it's certainly not embarassingly slow. And it's 1/2 stop faster than the Sigmas at the long end, FWIW.