Do Pro's use Sigmas?

pdechavez

macrumors regular
Original poster
Dec 26, 2007
235
0
Just a thought. Do professional photographers use Sigmas rather than camera manufacturer lenses like Nikon, Canon, Sony?

Thanks!
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
I do, though it's not always my first choice.

I currently have a 10-22 and owned their 12-24, which was a spectacular lens.
 

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,680
69
Sendai, Japan
Just a thought. Do professional photographers use Sigmas rather than camera manufacturer lenses like Nikon, Canon, Sony?

Thanks!
My cousin is a pro and he uses Sigma (a fisheye and I think the 1.4/30 mm lens) and Tokina (the 2.8/80-200 zoom) lenses and he's content with the IQ. Probably he owns others, I've never seen all of his equipment. Obviously we're talking about the more expensive Sigmas here with decent built quality.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G4
Jan 5, 2006
11,603
404
Redondo Beach, California
Just a thought. Do professional photographers use Sigmas rather than camera manufacturer lenses like Nikon, Canon, Sony?

Thanks!
I've seen pros use $20 toy plastic cameras and I've seen "pros" shoot wedding with a $200 Point and shoot. The word "pro" covers a huge range that covers thoe people who will shoot an entire wedding packing (prints included) for $100 and the guys selling their work out of galleries.

The better question is "can you shoot publishable work with a Sigma lens?" Answer is yes. There are two good reasons to buy third party lenses (1) Nikon does not make what you need, or (2) you can't afford the Nikon version.
 

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,680
69
Sendai, Japan
Just one note on reviews: even if they are objective in the sense that they measure `numbers', the conclusion may still vary widely. One example is Tokina's 28/28-70 Pro SV which has received rave reviews according to some and is not good according to others.
 

840quadra

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,096
3,405
Twin Cities Minnesota
Just one note on reviews: even if they are objective in the sense that they measure `numbers', the conclusion may still vary widely. One example is Tokina's 28/28-70 Pro SV which has received rave reviews according to some and is not good according to others.
Agreed.


I still think personal testing beats out everything. There is no way they can do a review of a product using your personal style of photography, in settings you intend to use. They are a good baseline however, and can help you decided on which lens may better fit your style, but are not the end all solution to lens selection.

According to reviews the setup I once used to shoot a MX event should have resulted in crap images. They in fact turned out great, and I got my first cover shot of a MX Magazine.


 

Padaung

macrumors 6502
Jan 22, 2007
462
78
UK
Just one note on reviews: even if they are objective in the sense that they measure `numbers', the conclusion may still vary widely. One example is Tokina's 28/28-70 Pro SV which has received rave reviews according to some and is not good according to others.
Ditto. I currently have a bum version of the Tamron version of that lens, but the first one (before I dropped it!) was a gem.

Pros certainly use Sigma and Tokina for various reasons as ChrisA already mentioned. Nikon/Canon don't have something that Sigma/Tamron make, price (especially if it is a lens you know you need but do not use very often), quality (sometimes they can be better).
 

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,680
69
Sendai, Japan
There are even some lenses neither Nikon nor Canon make (Sigma's 1.4/30 mm and 2.8/50-150 mm lenses come to mind, ditto for Tokina's 11-17 mm fisheye zoom or 2.8/50-135 zoom). In that case, you don't have a choice.

In case of my cousin, he needed a wide-angle lens and at that time, Canon didn't make one for his purpose (he owned a Canon D30 at that time, not a 30D ;)). Plus, he was strapped for cash.
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,378
110
Location Location Location
There is no way they can do a review of a product using your personal style of photography, in settings you intend to use.

Not to mention your particular lens. ;)

Lens variations make reviews rather useless, IMO. There are so many reviews done with lenses that aren't perfect. At least Photozone.de admits it, though. They'll even tell you if they clearly did not get a great copy of a lens, and that they'll update the review later when they do.

Just look at how many people complain about the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4, and yet I love mine. It never has trouble focusing, or front-focuses, so I don't know what all these other people are talking about.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G4
Jan 5, 2006
11,603
404
Redondo Beach, California
Ditto. I currently have a bum version of the Tamron version of that lens, but the first one (before I dropped it!) was a gem.
The above shows one difference between third party and Canon/Nikon lenses. With Tamron, Sigma and so on the quality varies a lot between examples of the same lens. What you get depends on luck. But Nikon has much better quality control and all of their lenses are truly identical. Quality controls typical add steps at the factory and those steps cost money.

Another issue is that the Nikon range of lenses seem to have a similar "look" in terms of color and contrast. But now maybe we don't care because every shot now is run through a post processor, I tweak absolutely everything in Aperture and these tweaks are larger then the difference between optical coatings. But for many people this "look" stuff matters