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.

 

[147798]

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.

 

[147798]

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.

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/transla...comparativa,1_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!

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.

 

[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

 

[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.