# Is it time to consider Sigma lenses seriously?? competitive to Canon?



## cellomaster27 (Jun 14, 2013)

Hey guys. I am an amateur/hobbyist photographer that loves to keep up on the forums and on cr. I was wondering what you guys take on the new lenses that Sigma has been putting out on the market. The price ranges are very competitive even to the Canon brand. I am a Canon fanboy (to put it best) but the recent 35mm f1.4, 120-300mm f2.8, and now the 18-35mm f1.8is making me think much more of a third party brand. A friend of mine had a sigma 50mm f1.4 that pulled some impressive pictures! I have bought and returned a sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens before... horrid lens (possibly the copy). 

Anyways, I want to hear from y'all before buying a few lenses. (10-22, 50 1.4, and 15-85 or 24-105) Thanks!


----------



## jhanken (Jun 14, 2013)

In a word, yes. At least the primes. I have shot with the 50mm for a couple years with my 5D Classic, love it wide open in low light, or stopped down with full light. Bokeh is fantastic, often resort to manual focus because I like to use it in such low light. Color, contrast and sharpness are excellent, out of focus areas are beautiful, construction great. Got the 35mm f/1.4 recently, even better construction, and image quality is fantastic. It feels like a million dollar piece of equipment. Still getting a feel for the output, but so far, it's excellent. It will allow me to create images that my 24-105L never will. I sincerely doubt that the most discerning photographer would be disappointed.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 14, 2013)

If budget is an issue Sigma lenses are definitely worth considering seriously. There hasn't been much info about the USB dock that can be used to fine tune the Sigma ART lenses ... if that USB dock works as well as they say it will, I think Sigma ART lenses are a great bargain.


----------



## wysiwtf (Jun 14, 2013)

Regarding the Dock: it seems to work just fine ...

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/sigma-optimization-pro-and-usb-dock


----------



## Forceflow (Jun 14, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> If budget is an issue Sigma lenses are definitely worth considering seriously. There hasn't been much info about the USB dock that can be used to fine tune the Sigma ART lenses ... if that USB dock works as well as they say it will, I think Sigma ART lenses are a great bargain.



Well, lens rentals seems to think it does:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/sigma-optimization-pro-and-usb-dock
Makes me really hopeful about it. Although I have to admit I've been a Sigma 'fan' for quite a while already. I had (and still have) several Sigma lenses and with the exception of the old 24-70 I really do like all of them. (The 85 1.4 is my favorite lens)


----------



## hamada (Jun 14, 2013)

one year ago my response would be: stay away from sigma.
to much luck involved to get a good copy.

today with the new lens line they seem to produce very good and constant quality.
i tried the 35mm f1.4 and i loved it. i only have not much use for it.


----------



## aj1575 (Jun 14, 2013)

Yes, I definitly think so. Beside the IQ of the lens, they also improved quality control and costumer service.

The 35mm F1.4 is really superb (check out the test images over at "the-digital-picture"). I'm not that much impressed with the new 30mm f1.4, we have to wait and see what the 18-35 f1.8 has to offer, but only the fact they offer such a thing is impressive. The 17-70 f2.8-4 is also a nice lens on APS-C, it is optically better than the EF-S 15-85, with a little bit less range but in a smaller, cheaper package.

I'm looking forward to new Sigma lenses in the future. We as costumers can only profit from some competition in the lens market, especially in the APS-C segment.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Jun 14, 2013)

Well the 120-300 is nothing new, just a cosmetic update from before but it is good, their 85mm F/1.4 is still fantastic, and I used to have a 10-20mm F/3.5 and that was almost perfect except for the field curvature on the wide end. Now I've got the 35mm F/1.4 and man of man I am complete with it~
Just recently I dropped it on some concrete though... and the thing still works, perfect AF accuracy and no optical problems, just won't mount of the camera as smoothly. So yes, why not consider Sigma? Well, the only reason to still not consider Sigma is if you really need weather sealing, if you're camera's sealed and you want equally sealed lenses then Canon has them, and Tamron has started to offer dust/moisture resistant models but I don't know how well they're sealed.

And being a fanboi of anything is amateurish, what's good is good whoever makes it, Canon themselves have made and proudly sold poor lenses themselves (and still do, or at least "ok" lenses at extreme prices), so really, if you don't want Sigma just because they're not Canon, or are afraid that other people will judge you with your gear then get over it, go make art and have fun knowing that the brand doesn't matter so long as it gets the job done and achieves the results you like~


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 14, 2013)

Sigma have always been fairly canny at plugging holes in other manufacturers ranges, lenses like the 12-24 (full frame) and the 50-500 bigma were at the time of their launch pretty unique to Sigma.

I've owned a fair few sigmas over the years, the DC 10-20 f4-5.6, the DG 12-24 mk1, the DC 18-50 f2.8 EX, the 24mm f2.8 MD II, the 28mm f1.8 MD (one of my most favourite lenses ever) DG EX 70mm f2.8, the DG EX 50-500 and the 600mm CAT (on Minolta MD and Canon EOS) and I would vouch for all of these, I still own and use the 18-50mm and the 70mm, both of which were best in category at time of purchase.

I've owned 2 sigma lenses that I wasn't happy with, the 17-35 f2.8-4. I kept it one day and returned it and got a 17-40 f4L instead. It was a horrid horrid lens, and I had the 30mm f1.4 DC, which I loved for video (in MF mode) but was terrible at focusing, +18AFMA on my 7D and unusable on my 600D. Also returned.

I've not had any hands on with their new, well reviewed art series lenses, they seem to be getting very good, but also getting less of a value proposition. Other manufacturers also seem to be plugging interesting holes, like Tokina with my 11-16 f2.8 UWA. Nobody else makes anything like it. 

I am tempted to get the Sigma 8-16mm, but theres a few more practical things on the list ahead of it.


----------



## bchernicoff (Jun 14, 2013)

I LOVED the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS when I had a 7D.

And I love the 1.4 primes that I use now.


----------



## John (Jun 14, 2013)

all of my lenses now are Canon, but i have owned sigma lenses in the past and liked each and every one of them. i could easily recommend that someone buy a sigma lens. i've owned a few tamron lenses that i liked as well. so why do i only own canons? i love my canon lenses. they provide sharp detail and fast focus and they are designed to work exclusively with canon cameras. the quality is very good and very consistent. i trust them and i am quite happy with them. plus, i have the money to afford the L series lenses. 

if the amount of money that i had to spend on a lens was a limiting factor for me, then i would own some sigma lenses. u can great sigma lenses for less than a comparable canon. personally, if u can afford canon lenses, then i would recommend getting canon lenses.


----------



## fugu82 (Jun 14, 2013)

I am about to pick up the Sigma 15mm diagonal fisheye. I will use it on my 5D3, but primarily I chose it for my IR converted 40D; it is supposedly fairly free of hotspots for IR. Anyone have any experience with this lens?


----------



## Malte_P (Jun 14, 2013)

Nishi Drew said:


> Well the 120-300 is nothing new, just a cosmetic update from before but it is good,



it´s a revised version.
a bit more then a cosmetic update. 

nobody would pay nearly twice as much just for a cosmetic update.


----------



## cayenne (Jun 14, 2013)

I was looking up the Sigma 120-300...when I look on Amazon, I see about 3x of them...from $2499 - $3500+....

How do I differentiate between the latest version of this and the older ones when shopping online?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne


----------



## Pi (Jun 14, 2013)

fugu82 said:


> I am about to pick up the Sigma 15mm diagonal fisheye. I will use it on my 5D3, but primarily I chose it for my IR converted 40D; it is supposedly fairly free of hotspots for IR. Anyone have any experience with this lens?



I returned it. Soft corners (not a problem with your 40D, of course), 1 stop overexposure, so-so colors.


----------



## Pi (Jun 14, 2013)

IMO, no. No Sigma lens appeals to me, and I tried the 50, the 85, and the 15. I am planning to test the 35 but what I have seen so far does not excite me. I am not a crop body user anymore, so the new 1.8 zoom is of no interest to me. The samples on dpreview however confirm what I expected - horrendous OOF blur.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Jun 14, 2013)

Pi said:


> fugu82 said:
> 
> 
> > I am about to pick up the Sigma 15mm diagonal fisheye. I will use it on my 5D3, but primarily I chose it for my IR converted 40D; it is supposedly fairly free of hotspots for IR. Anyone have any experience with this lens?
> ...



I just picked one up from B&H last weekend...I love it. It's better then the Canon 15 I rented...I shoot it on my 5D3...its clean...colors are just fine...


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jun 14, 2013)

Posted by: cayenne
« on: Today at 12:16:53 PM » Insert Quote
I was looking up the Sigma 120-300...when I look on Amazon, I see about 3x of them...from $2499 - $3500+....

How do I differentiate between the latest version of this and the older ones when shopping online?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne
--------------------------------------------
Well, it has better weather sealing and os system. If you look at fro's review comparing the two models, there are some critical updates. I want to get that but I don't earn money shooting so... 

I always look for the very best deals on the lens that I KNOW I wouldn't regret purchasing. I even purchased a canon 20mm f2.8 for 80bucks! Haha! Recently sold that for 200 profit. Anyways, I have found most canon lenses to maintain their resale value fairly high. I have had a difficult time deciding on a UWA for my crop body.. I've been reading many reviews on the sigma 8-16, 12-24, 10-20, tamron 10-24, tokina 11-16, and the canon 10-22mm. Again, I tried the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 before returning it. I borrowed a canon 10-22mm a couple days after and for me, it really wasn't much of a comparison. Canon>sigma. I am biased towards canon from that instance as well as comparing the sigma 70-200 2.8 vs canon 70-200 f2.8 II.  but considering budgets and my rather low budget, as much as I don't want to admit it, I am considering third party sources. Canon's prices are ridiculous. 

So instead of the canon 15-85 the sigma 17-70 f2.8-4? Hmm, I haven't even considered that one. I was thinking either the 15-85 or the 24-105. Haha! Biased, I know.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 14, 2013)

The new 35 FF prime is supposed to be a complete game changer for them -- I've not tried it on my 5D3 but I'm keen to rent it soon. Many reviewers have noted that 35's sharpness is _spectacular_, and the build quality, feel, and user experience is all significantly upgraded from their past offerings.

- A


----------



## Kendo (Jun 14, 2013)

First post - long time lurker 

I've only got a Canon 600D (t3i) and haven't long been enjoying photography with a DSLR, previously only on bridge type cameras. I've only owned a DSLR for a little over a year and really got into it when I was off sick from work for 4 weeks early this year and started photographing the birds in my garden and wanting to get better at it.

Anyway, I quickly found myself wanting more than the kit lens and the 55-250IS I purchased (which is actually not that bad). I longed for the 70-200 f2.8 IS II but could never justify that amount of money (£1800 in the UK) so I read lots about the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 DG OS HSM and saved up what I could and bought one for my birthday in April and I absolutely love it. The images are fantastic, really sharp and the colours are great, it feels solid as a rock and is lovely to use. I paid £835 for it and haven't regretted it for a second.

Obviously Canon are the daddy of lens makers, but Sigma are very good too, especially for the money.

The next lens on my list is the Canon 100mm f2.8L macro so I'm not a fanboy of either Canon or Sigma. Just go with what suits your needs and your pocket.

Great site, thanks for all the thousands of posts I've read in the past ;D


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 14, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> Hey guys. I am an amateur/hobbyist photographer that loves to keep up on the forums and on cr. I was wondering what you guys take on the new lenses that Sigma has been putting out on the market. The price ranges are very competitive even to the Canon brand. I am a Canon fanboy (to put it best) but the recent 35mm f1.4, 120-300mm f2.8, and now the 18-35mm f1.8is making me think much more of a third party brand. A friend of mine had a sigma 50mm f1.4 that pulled some impressive pictures! I have bought and returned a sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens before... horrid lens (possibly the copy).
> 
> Anyways, I want to hear from y'all before buying a few lenses. (10-22, 50 1.4, and 15-85 or 24-105) Thanks!



First of all, no offense but I would sell the T2i and buy a newer, better Canon body before upgrading lenses. Certainly if you are considering buying a "super-tele" like the 120-300 f/2.8, or a Canon super-tele...you definitely simply must buy a better camera.

My experience with one copy of the Canon 10-22 was horrible. Very soft in the outer 60% of the image at all apertures. This was in 2010. I can't believe the lens is still in production.

I've not tried one, but from what I have read on here and at the rental websites, I would avoid the Sigma 50 f/1.4. Too many focus issues. Also, even Sigma's own published mtf chart shows a steep drop-off in resolution toward the corners of a crop camera image, and basically the whole outer half of a full frame image. If I were going to stay with the crop camera format, and I really wanted a fast 50mm lens, the Canon 50 f/1.8 ii is kind of a no brainer. It punches well above its price class.

If I was still tied to crop cameras, I would personally heavily consider buying the new Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. It could take the place of a lot of prime lenses, including Sigma's own new 30mm f/1.4. I tried the older version, and loved the color palette...but in the outer edges of the crop image area, it had some weird distortions, probably coma...at least when viewed at 100%. The bokeh was less than perfectly smooth at times, as well.

I have owned (including the 120-400 zoom I have now), three Sigma lenses, and rented a fourth (at least that I can recall right now). In my opinion, they all offered good-to-excellent value for money, which is more than I can say for many (but not all) Canon lenses.

I like the Canon brand a lot, but to spend more (usually double the price) on some of their lenses, when they don't offer better overall performance, let alone better value, is silly to me. Photography isn't about bling. That said, if the particular Canon lens offers something that you must have, that the Sigma lens does not...then that makes more sense. However, if that's the case, those people shouldn't sit back and spout that the Canon version is "better" overall, when in those situations, it likely is not.

Now that the Canon 100-400 replacement will likely be priced in the $2500 range (Canon simply can't stand idly by while Nikon sells their new 80-400 at that price level)...that will help hold the value of the previous version on the used market. But it just might also help support the value of competitors like Sigma's similar lens on the used market. I feel I made the right decision in all of my Sigma purchases and rentals, and have never regretted any of them. One of them even helped me get published in a national photography magazine in 2012. I can't say the same for some other brands. Even a recent Tokina purchase proved to be inferior to the sample I rented a while back.

Realize that much of Sigma's reputation for poor design and quality control of lenses in the past, was earned. But starting in about 2007, and especially by 2008-'09...they really seem to have turned things around. For example, lenses are no longer painted with cheap paint that flakes off. And the lens designs improved a lot.


----------



## SithTracy (Jun 14, 2013)

I think it boils down to making a living at photography. I make some side coin with it. I have a Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG and love it. Works well for me. Is the Canon better? Sure... all the experts say it is. Is the image from a Sigma usable? For me, the answer is absolutely!

Perhaps rent one, or buy it from a dealer with a good return policy. Lenses are an investment and if I did not like one, I would want to be able to return it regardless of the mfg.


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 14, 2013)

SithTracy said:


> I think it boils down to making a living at photography. I make some side coin with it. I have a Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG and love it. Works well for me. Is the Canon better? Sure... all the experts say it is. Is the image from a Sigma usable? For me, the answer is absolutely!
> 
> Perhaps rent one, or buy it from a dealer with a good return policy. Lenses are an investment and if I did not like one, I would want to be able to return it regardless of the mfg.



From what I have seen, that Sigma lens is very soft. It's possible the tests I saw used bad samples. Do you find yours to be "usably sharp", and what body do you use it on, if I may ask?

For the price, certainly it's tempting...but I had thought the Tamron might be better. As it stands now, I need a wider angle zoom, before I need a 24-70. But I definitely want a 24-70 in the future.


----------



## RGF (Jun 14, 2013)

Reading the thread I see comments about IQ but little discussion on build. How well do Sigma lens hold up to routine (heavy) usage - not just dropping. How bad is the weather sealing?


----------



## SithTracy (Jun 14, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> From what I have seen, that Sigma lens is very soft. It's possible the tests I saw used bad samples. Do you find yours to be "usably sharp", and what body do you use it on, if I may ask?
> 
> For the price, certainly it's tempting...but I had thought the Tamron might be better. As it stands now, I need a wider angle zoom, before I need a 24-70. But I definitely want a 24-70 in the future.



Use mine on a 5D Mark III.

Here is a photo I took a couple of weeks back, processed through Lightroom:


----------



## bholliman (Jun 14, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey guys. I am an amateur/hobbyist photographer that loves to keep up on the forums and on cr. I was wondering what you guys take on the new lenses that Sigma has been putting out on the market. The price ranges are very competitive even to the Canon brand. I am a Canon fanboy (to put it best) but the recent 35mm f1.4, 120-300mm f2.8, and now the 18-35mm f1.8is making me think much more of a third party brand. A friend of mine had a sigma 50mm f1.4 that pulled some impressive pictures! I have bought and returned a sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens before... horrid lens (possibly the copy).
> ...



As a former T2i (550D) owner, I would argue that it's a pretty good camera capable of taking excellent pictures. The T2i's IQ is very comparible to Canon's newest crop body cameras like the T5i and SL1, as well as the older but higher end 60D and 7D. The newer bodies may have better AF, more solid build, better viewfinders, more features, but its picture quality is roughly the same. To significantly improve IQ, you would need to invest in a full frame 6D, 5D2/3 or 1DX.

I never owned an EF-S 10-22, but rented one two years ago to use on my T2i for a 2-week vacation in Yellowstone, Glacier and other western National Parks. I came away with lots of very good images with this lens and probably would have bought one at some point if I hadn't made the move to full frame last December. It's reasonably sharp across the frame and distortion is modest. Not a great lens, but a very solid performer.


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 15, 2013)

SithTracy said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > From what I have seen, that Sigma lens is very soft. It's possible the tests I saw used bad samples. Do you find yours to be "usably sharp", and what body do you use it on, if I may ask?
> ...



From what I can tell, it looks ok, except for the upper left corner. Would be better to see a full size jpeg. That's a very cool lighthouse!


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 15, 2013)

bholliman said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > cellomaster27 said:
> ...



Your experience with the 10-22 was the opposite of mine. I rented it in 2010. I have yet to get to those parks, but want to. However, I will be renting Canon's future big megapixel full frame when I go (and hopefully the upcoming Canon 14-24 lens)...probably next year. I can't imagine going to that much time and expense, to visit those parks with just a crop body as the main camera. 

As for going full frame, I did as well. Again, I want to reiterate to the original poster, that it makes no sense to spend a lot of money on lenses to use with a crop camera...any of them...even a Nikon D7100, in my opinion (which is miles better than the 7D or any Rebel, regarding image quality). That is my bias, but it's based on some experience. As for Canon, I owned a 50D for over 4 years, and had an Xsi before that. I was grateful to be able to sell them both for a fantastic sum. Having used a 7D, I can honestly say the image quality was no better than the 50D, with huge amounts of luminance noise even by ISO 640. Identical to, or worse than the 50D, with perhaps the chrominance noise only barely improved over the 50D. Obviously the 7D has a nice AF sensor and can shoot very fast, but after buying the 6D...I could care less about ever buying another 1.6x crop sensor camera, no matter what the claimed improvements are. The 6D's image quality in some ways is better than the 5D3 and the 1DX, which I have also tried, and edited their RAW files (my cousin now owns both of them).

To each their own, of course...and if you are planning to stick with crop cameras for a while, I still say the new Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 looks like _the_ lens to try. For anything wider than 18mm, it's going to be hit or miss, unless you spring for a Zeiss full frame, manual 15mm f/2.8. Of course, on a crop body, 15mm is still not super wide...but it certainly can be wide enough.


----------



## Pi (Jun 15, 2013)

mycanonphotos said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > fugu82 said:
> ...



I have exactly the opposite experience. I had rented the Canon 15 before. The Sigma was kinda OK aside form the gross overexposure problem but I remembered that the Canon was better. Then I bought a used Canon. I had them side by side for a week, and the (second) Canon was clearly better.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jun 15, 2013)

What I look for in lenses is sharpness and focus speed. Good coloration* is a major plus. The issue with sigma seems that everyone has a different opinion about them. Even from pros. And it really depends on what type of photography you are going to take right? Chromatic aberration, vignetting, a little distortion isn't a killer for me. But you want a good general lens. Getting good number of copies of the same lens shows quality production instead of hoping to land a good copy... :/

+1 for not having to upgrade body. The t2i is my first dslr that I purchased from 3 years ago. It was an upgrade from a Panasonic Lumix point and shoot..Horrible camera. Haha. Though I would like to buy the upcoming 70D, it still takes great pictures. I am trying to invest in EF lenses though just in case I go FF. my rear and front rubber grips have fallen off or is about to but it works just the same! Went to Europe and South America besides all over the US.  

So what lenses then do you guys recommend? 
I already got the sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4, 18-35mm f1.8 as recommendations. On my list to buy is a UWA and a standard zoom (want to upgrade from the terrible 18-55). Again, I've been thinking of the 10-22mm, 15-85, or the 24-105. 
Thanks in advance~


----------



## bholliman (Jun 15, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> I have yet to get to those parks, but want to. However, I will be renting Canon's future big megapixel full frame when I go (and hopefully the upcoming Canon 14-24 lens)...probably next year. I can't imagine going to that much time and expense, to visit those parks with just a crop body as the main camera.



I don't mean to hijack the thread, but...

When we visited Yellowstone and Glacier In 2011, I had just moved up to the DSLR world from a cheap P&S. I was very happy with my T2i, 18-55, 55-250 and rented 10-22. I have plenty of great shots from that vacation. Fortunately I shot in RAW, so have been able to re-PP them in LR4 which I didn't buy until last year, so they look much better now.

Of course I look forward to returning with my 6D and L lenses. I will add a 24-70 2.8 II shortly and am debating between buying a 16-35 II or do as you mentioned and just rent a 14-24. I really don't need anything wider than 24mm 98% of the time, so renting might be the way to go.


----------



## Pi (Jun 15, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> So what lenses then do you guys recommend?
> I already got the sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4, 18-35mm f1.8 as recommendations. On my list to buy is a UWA and a standard zoom (want to upgrade from the terrible 18-55). Again, I've been thinking of the 10-22mm, 15-85, or the 24-105.


Since you own the 17-70, you do have a standard zoom. The 24-105 does not make much sense at this point, and it is not even a good investment since you may buy it in an FF kit for much less. 

The 10-22 is excellent. The only lens I miss from my crop days.


----------



## bholliman (Jun 15, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> So what lenses then do you guys recommend?
> I already got the sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4, 18-35mm f1.8 as recommendations. On my list to buy is a UWA and a standard zoom (want to upgrade from the terrible 18-55). Again, I've been thinking of the 10-22mm, 15-85, or the 24-105.
> Thanks in advance~



The EF-S 15-85mm is by far my favorite crop lens. I think it's a better lens than the 24-105. I mostly use it for landscapes and outdoor photography. If you need a faster, low light lens the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is also excellent. I own a 15-85 and have borrowed a 17-55 on several occasions.

I recommend the EF-S 10-22 for UWA. I rented one twice and was very happy with the results.

For longer range lenses, the EF 70-200's are outstanding, as is the 70-300L.


----------



## cayenne (Jun 15, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> Posted by: cayenne
> « on: Today at 12:16:53 PM » Insert Quote
> I was looking up the Sigma 120-300...when I look on Amazon, I see about 3x of them...from $2499 - $3500+....
> 
> ...



I was asking given the older and newer model of the 120-300...how do you tell which is the newer one? Is there a model number difference? Looking on amazon, I couldn't tell which was the newer and which was the older model....

Thanx,

C


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 15, 2013)

cayenne said:


> I was asking given the older and newer model of the 120-300...how do you tell which is the newer one? Is there a model number difference? Looking on amazon, I couldn't tell which was the newer and which was the older model....
> 
> Thanx,
> 
> C


I looked at Amazon, the difference is very subtle, there is a obscure not saying a newer model is available, there is a part number 137101 on the new model, and, there is the price difference which someone might use to further baffle the issue if they list their old one for the same price as the new one.

Clearly, Sigma did not intend to emphasize the new model, or they would have named it differently. I think that's why many early reviewers do not believe it is optically different.

Sigma's MTF charts tend to support that view.

You can save $1000 and get the same optical performance if the charts are true. (They do have different URL's)

Sigma MTF Chart for old Version:












Here is the Chart they show for the new version:


----------



## ksagomonyants (Jun 15, 2013)

I think when you consider purchasing a lens, you think about not only image quality but also how reliable it is in terms of build quality. I've never owned any Sigma lenses, so I don't know, but maybe others can comment on how good Sigma's technical support and repair centers are?


----------



## Pi (Jun 15, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> as I said before, chose the right lens from Sigma and they are good as Nikon,Canon, Pentax or whatever to the half price.



How many "right" Sigma lenses are out there?

This one: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=469&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0 does not seem right to me, for example.


----------



## SithTracy (Jun 16, 2013)

People have opinions about Sigma/Tamron/Tokina; good and bad. I take photographs as a hobby and sometimes I get asked to do side jobs for money. At the end of the day, I am quite happy with my images. Again, if you are on a budget and looking to save some coin and know what focal length you need and why you need it, get the Sigma from a reputable dealer with a good return policy. If you are not happy with the lens, exchange it, if the next copy is not what you expected, get a refund and save for the Canon.

A camera is a tool, be it Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc. I am a customer, of Canon, not because they are better than the other tools, it comes down to how the camera fits in my hand. It is how intuitive the menu is to me. It is the results I get shooting it. I will one day get a Canon 24-70mm F2.8, but for now, I am very happy with the results I get using a Sigma lens on my Canon.


----------



## garyknrd (Jun 16, 2013)

Dumb question. will the new Sigma crop zoom work on my mark IV? I am fixing to do some traveling I hope. And only want to bring one lens for landscape and people.


----------



## aznable (Jun 16, 2013)

garyknrd said:


> Dumb question. will the new Sigma crop zoom work on my mark IV? I am fixing to do some traveling I hope. And only want to bring one lens for landscape and people.



is it will work, as all others DC sigma lenses; it's likely you will get an heavy vignetting at 18mm. i guess we will have more reports on this when the lens will become widely avaiable


----------



## mwh1964 (Jun 16, 2013)

To the poster. I would go with the 24-105L for traveling. Will give you the flexibility needed.


----------



## rs (Jun 16, 2013)

aznable said:


> garyknrd said:
> 
> 
> > Dumb question. will the new Sigma crop zoom work on my mark IV? I am fixing to do some traveling I hope. And only want to bring one lens for landscape and people.
> ...


There were some pics taken with the 18-35 on a 5D mk II, but those images seem to have disappeared:

http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-18-35mm-f18-with-5D-Mark-II

As far as I remember they were only thumbnails, and it only gave coverage of the whole sensor near 35mm. I guess a 1.3x crop would get full coverage around half way through the zoom.

Do bear in mind that this lens is not designed to cover a sensor larger than APS-C. I've tried out my 10-22 with the rear cap popped off on FF, and the corners aren't black from about 13mm onwards. However, even stopped down to f16 at any zoom setting between 13mm and 22mm, the corners are complete mush.


----------



## JurijTurnsek (Jun 16, 2013)

This thread title made me very angry - it's Canon fanboys like OP that drive the insane Canon glass prices up. 3rd party lenses can be just as good as Canon's at fraction of the cost. Don't blindly recommend Canon's glass against Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang etc. - they all have some outstanding products, while having to reverse-engineer the AF communication.

/rant


----------



## MRLinVA (Jun 16, 2013)

Nothing to get angry about - everyone is entitled to their opinions. Having only used Canon glass for as long as I can remember, I broke down and bought the new Sigma 35 1.4 and it is AWESOME on my 1Dx. Looing forward to seeing what they do next


----------



## silat shooters (Jun 16, 2013)

Like others here, I have been a long time Canon lens shooter. The new Sigma 35mm is the first lens that had me thinking outside the Canon 'box'. I'm hoping they come to market soon with a new 24-70 f2.8 that is stabilized at a terrific price around $1K. The Sigma brand appears to have stepped up their offering significantly. It can only be seen as a good thing for us, the consumer. Instead of feeling like the only lens available to us is "L" glass, it's good to finally have an alternative that comes in significantly less.


----------



## Pi (Jun 16, 2013)

JurijTurnsek said:


> This thread title made me very angry - it's Canon fanboys like OP that drive the insane Canon glass prices up. 3rd party lenses can be just as good as Canon's at fraction of the cost. Don't blindly recommend Canon's glass against Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang etc. - they all have some outstanding products, while having to reverse-engineer the AF communication.



The flip side is to get angry at Sigma, etc. fanboys for not being picky enough. This keeps the QC of the Sigma, etc., low; and allows Canon to keep high prices!


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 17, 2013)

Pi said:


> JurijTurnsek said:
> 
> 
> > This thread title made me very angry - it's Canon fanboys like OP that drive the insane Canon glass prices up. 3rd party lenses can be just as good as Canon's at fraction of the cost. Don't blindly recommend Canon's glass against Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang etc. - they all have some outstanding products, while having to reverse-engineer the AF communication.
> ...



I hear both sides of this debate. Canon does prey on our wallets, but they've done that from the high ground of providing an all-around high quality product. Sigma has only starting providing such quality recently.

Sigma's only value proposition can't just be 'same as Canon for less money' because discerning professionals will see _exactly how_ 3rd party lenses saved that money. In many cases, things other than the brute force metrics of sharpness and widest aperture are sacrificed to keep those lenses cheaper than Canon.

Remember that for a very long time, Sigma had quality issues: paint peeling, AF issues, odd copy to copy variation, etc. I am not a fanboy saying this -- Bryan Carnathan and Roger Cicala were saying this based on using, tearing down and repairing a ton of their products.

That said, Sigma is starting to move past being a 2nd-tier manufacturer and is finally making products that out-perform the Canon lenses. I cannot say enough how a _single_ lens -- the new 35 prime -- is changing people's opinion of Sigma.

So Sigma getting better is a problem for Canon but a gift for us. Here's to seeing more lenses like that 35 prime.

- A


----------



## meenanm (Jun 17, 2013)

I can share an opinion on the new 120-300 f2.8. I got one about 2 weeks ago.

It is a good lens. Images are pretty sharp and focus is fast. I do not think it tracks as well as the Canon 70-200 f2.8 II or the 400 2.8 II and focus is not L fast, still fast. But, it cost about 1/3 of the 400L and 1/2 of the 300L. The zoom capability is really nice IMO.
I think the dock should be included with this lens, I did get it, retail is $59. I needed it to correct a back focus issue on the 1Dx. Putting it on the 5DIII after adjusting and it seems equally capable at focusing on both bodies.

I may opt to send it to Sigma as I don't tink so much adjusting should be required. I'm waiting to see if others have issues similar to mine. This is the first Sigma I've had in quite some time. It seems to be a solid lens. 

Some samples are on this forum link I opened last week. (Page2 are after USB dock Adjustments) http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15291.msg280833#msg280833


----------



## garyknrd (Jun 23, 2013)

I have two Sigma lenses. One the paint is coming off. Looks just awful. the optics are ok only compared to Canon.
The other has fair opts. I cannot sell either one? Even if the optics are good. So for me it will take more than one or two lenses for me to ever buy another Sigma lens again.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 23, 2013)

Sigma can be cheaper by economics of scale, such as designing and manufacturing a lens for a variety of system users.

Canon are of course always better and thats why you pay more. How's that 1DX servicing going folks?

I can't be too saracastic of course as it appears my BG-E7 has really had a good go at breaking my 7D.

I remember trying to convince Canon that their XL zoom lenses weren't parfocal and that this made them unfit for video use. 

I remember trying to convice Canon that the CCDs they were using in their video cameras were failing left right and centre before the Sony recall was widely acknowledged.

I had to buy a second DSLR body to shoot video because my 7D wasn't reliable with Sandisk UDMA cards 'no issue' 'no issue' 'no issue' until they proudly announced a firmware fix for an issue that had screwed up a couple of important jobs and relegated my 7D to back up camera body (to a rebel), my 7D which i currently getting repaired, and then getting punted asap.

Not that my path with Sigma has always been smooth. But then I'm not saying that paying extra for canon means quality control. I couldn't. Not with a straight face.

Who needs Sigma to screw up QC when Canon really do have their moments?


----------



## fstoparmy (Jun 27, 2013)

if the current sigma 35 1.4 is anything to go on, i think they will start making some great lenses


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 27, 2013)

garyknrd said:


> I have two Sigma lenses. One the paint is coming off. Looks just awful. the optics are ok only compared to Canon.
> The other has fair opts. I cannot sell either one? Even if the optics are good. So for me it will take more than one or two lenses for me to ever buy another Sigma lens again.



Buy a Sigma lens that was introduced after 2008.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 29, 2013)

JurijTurnsek said:


> This thread title made me very angry - it's Canon fanboys like OP that drive the insane Canon glass prices up. 3rd party lenses can be just as good as Canon's at fraction of the cost. Don't blindly recommend Canon's glass against Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang etc. - they all have some outstanding products, while having to reverse-engineer the AF communication.
> 
> /rant



Do you find yourself in fits of rage at night, yanking at your hair and pounding your fist against the desk repeatedly?


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jun 29, 2013)

Technology moves on - with todays design systems there's a careful balance of optical design and coatings 
formulation, computer controlled lens grinding takes the craftsmanship out of the glassworks into the NC programming lab and the secret to a quality lens is still the assembly process and the fine tuning of the unit as a whole. That's why people pay an extreme premium for Leica lenses and why neither Sigma, Tamron, and even Canon nor Nikon can build a high quality CHEAP lens. Robots can do a lot, but not the fine adjustments necessary to consistently produce high quality optics. Look at the Canon 70/75-300 in its many current models to instantly
see the difference. Even the Canon 50mm - you want good at $100, better at $400 or best at $1200 - take your
choice - and if you want a slightly different look, try a zeiss at $800.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 29, 2013)

dickgrafixstop said:


> Technology moves on - with todays design systems there's a careful balance of optical design and coatings
> formulation, computer controlled lens grinding takes the craftsmanship out of the glassworks into the NC programming lab and the secret to a quality lens is still the assembly process and the fine tuning of the unit as a whole. That's why people pay an extreme premium for Leica lenses and why neither Sigma, Tamron, and even Canon nor Nikon can build a high quality CHEAP lens. Robots can do a lot, but not the fine adjustments necessary to consistently produce high quality optics. Look at the Canon 70/75-300 in its many current models to instantly
> see the difference. Even the Canon 50mm - you want good at $100, better at $400 or best at $1200 - take your
> choice - and if you want a slightly different look, try a zeiss at $800.



Well, I'm not sure I would have used the 50mm lenses as your example, but, we know what you mean.


----------



## meli (Jun 29, 2013)

I think these are pretty exciting times for APSc folks and Sigma's lineup is just second to none in this category. If i was still shooting APS -regardless of brand- i would be really happy with pieces like the 8-16, 17-50, 50-150 & 120-300 or the prime-pack 18-35/1.8. I've seen first hand what 8-16 & 17-50 can deliver and the reviews of 50-150 & 18-35 are mostly praises.

FF is another story and apart from primes sigma has still a way to go. Tamron on the other hand seems to be doing quite well with their 24-70, 70-200 kits.

All in all I'm really happy that the 3rd party manufacturers are breaking away from the 'affordable alternative' realm and into the serious contender territory.


----------



## WillThompson (Jun 29, 2013)

JurijTurnsek said:


> This thread title made me very angry - it's Canon fanboys like OP that drive the insane Canon glass prices up. 3rd party lenses can be just as good as Canon's at fraction of the cost. Don't blindly recommend Canon's glass against Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang etc. - they all have some outstanding products, while having to reverse-engineer the AF communication.
> 
> /rant



Can be but are not up to canons quality. The only contender is Tamron due to the fact that they are only mfg. that canon has contracted with. This is why you never hear of a Tamron lens needing to be rechipped, still junk compaired to canon build quality just like all the other third party mfg.'s.

Will T.


----------



## tron (Jun 29, 2013)

JurijTurnsek said:


> This thread title made me very angry - it's Canon fanboys like OP that drive the insane Canon glass prices up. 3rd party lenses can be just as good as Canon's at fraction of the cost. Don't blindly recommend Canon's glass against Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang etc. - they all have some outstanding products, while having to reverse-engineer the AF communication.
> 
> /rant


If you think so highly of third party lenses I must ask you to buy my Tokina ATX28-70 f/2.8 which although very sharp with my EOS1n and EOS620 cameras it is a nice PAPERWEIGHT on my EOS5Dx cameras. 
So except for a case where I bought a Zeiss lens 3rd party is not an option. PERIOD.
Everyone who tries to tell me otherwise, they have to buy my nice Tokina paperweight first.

I was lucky to get rid of 2 Sigma lenses in part exchange in a shop.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 29, 2013)

tron said:


> If you think so highly of third party lenses I must ask you to buy my Tokina ATX28-70 f/2.8 which although very sharp with my EOS1n and EOS620 cameras it is a nice PAPERWEIGHT on my EOS5Dx cameras.
> So except for a case where I bought a Zeiss lens 3rd party is not an option. PERIOD.
> Everyone who tries to tell me otherwise, they have to buy my nice Tokina paperweight first.



Is it the f2.6-f2.8 version or the constant f2.8?

If it's the first one send me some pics and I will seriously consider buying it (if it is marked pro II rather than pro SV and working to specification in good order etc) if it's the constant f2.8 / SV, you are probably right about it.


----------



## tron (Jun 29, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > If you think so highly of third party lenses I must ask you to buy my Tokina ATX28-70 f/2.8 which although very sharp with my EOS1n and EOS620 cameras it is a nice PAPERWEIGHT on my EOS5Dx cameras.
> ...


It's the constant f/2.8


----------



## AJ (Jun 29, 2013)

I only put Canon lenses on my Canon bodies ... not
I only put Microsoft software on my Windows PC ... not
I only put genuine Ford parts in my Ford Focus ... not

wake up people. A Canon body is a platform on which you can mount a whole slew of lenses: Tamron, Zeiss, Sigma, Tokina, Canon, Rokinon, you name it.

Canon lenses are generally awesome, but if you limit yourself to Canon lenses only then you are limiting yourself.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 29, 2013)

AJ said:


> I only put Canon lenses on my Canon bodies ... not
> I only put Microsoft software on my Windows PC ... not
> I only put genuine Ford parts in my Ford Focus ... not
> 
> ...



So exactly what non-Canon lenses do I need to purchase then to round out and complete my photography experience? I'm clearly limiting myself.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jun 29, 2013)

AJ said:


> I only put Microsoft software on my Windows PC ... not



just curious... what type of PC (Personal Computer) can you put MS software on?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 29, 2013)

ishdakuteb said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > I only put Microsoft software on my Windows PC ... not
> ...



It doesn't matter. If you don't buy third party stuff, you're just not getting the well-rounded experience of the technology you are involved with and using, even if that third party stuff sucks. Get with it man.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jun 29, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > AJ said:
> ...



i actually do use third party such as yongnuo and carl zeiss as long as it either better or less price with about the same performance... just curious a little bit about that sentence


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 30, 2013)

bdunbar:

Sigma do actually plug a few holes in other manufacturers ranges. A canon 12-25 for example. The 50-500 is another.

They might not be holes in your range, or lenses that you want, I've had good and bad experiences with Sigma, but I've also had good and bad and some very bad experiences with Canon too.

Canon innovate and make great products, as do Sigma, neither get it right all the time. I would say that where there is a comparable product, I would usually pay the extra for the canon over the sigma, and the sigma lenses I've enjoyed using most have been genuinely unavailable from Canon.

And for the other guys... I run Microsoft office on my macs, does that count?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 30, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> bdunbar:
> 
> Sigma do actually plug a few holes in other manufacturers ranges. A canon 12-25 for example. The 50-500 is another.
> 
> ...



paul,

The comment I was making fun of so vigorously, and will probably to continue to do so, is the one where if you don't have any third party lenses, you are missing out and not well-rounded. I realize that there are good lenses, but if those are already covered by my Canon lenses, how can that be? As if JUST BECAUSE I don't own third-party, I am so severely limited in my photography.

That's what's making my sides hurt.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 30, 2013)

I get it bud.

My video work would be a poorer place without the Tokina 11-28 f2.8, and the lensbaby to an extent, but I do understand your point. Some third party is crap like slow 7x-300 zooms costing £100, some third party is pretty exceptional like cp.2's.

All depends on your needs. If you need you'll have. If you don't you won't.

My needs are more fulfilled by third party, or more accurately, using third party when required. My needs aren't yours. Broad church and all that. If I used a full frame camera I would have 12-24 though. It was immense on my 3.


----------



## tron (Jun 30, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > AJ said:
> ...


 ;D


----------



## gwflauto (Jun 30, 2013)

I am quite happy with my Sigma 35/1,4. I bought it a couple of weeks ago. The dealer told my to shoot as many pictures as possible, check if focus is ok, and he offered that I could return the lens without any reason within the next four weeks. He was positive, I would keep it, and he was right.


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 30, 2013)

AJ said:


> I only put Canon lenses on my Canon bodies ... not
> I only put Microsoft software on my Windows PC ... not
> I only put genuine Ford parts in my Ford Focus ... not
> 
> ...



+1!! Looks like some of the usual suspects have found someone else to pile on unfairly.

Frankly if anyone gets good results from third party lenses on Canon cameras, then who the hell are we to make fun of them? The term coolaid drinker comes to mind in the above diatribe. 

Canon do make some great lenses, but so do other manufacturers, that's the bottom line.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Jul 1, 2013)

Where I'm from, the market has spoken and the Σ 35/1.4 | Art, 18-35/1.8 | Art and 120-300/2.8 | Sport are all back-ordered with a few months-long waiting list, according to the authorized distro (and all 3 lenses are on my must-buy list). So my only other option is to buy it gray, which I'm reluctant to do. Even the USB Tuning Dock is not available currently.


----------



## danski0224 (Jul 29, 2013)

tron said:


> If you think so highly of third party lenses I must ask you to buy my Tokina ATX28-70 f/2.8 which although very sharp with my EOS1n and EOS620 cameras it is a nice PAPERWEIGHT on my EOS5Dx cameras.
> So except for a case where I bought a Zeiss lens 3rd party is not an option. PERIOD.
> Everyone who tries to tell me otherwise, they have to buy my nice Tokina paperweight first.
> 
> I was lucky to get rid of 2 Sigma lenses in part exchange in a shop.



I had a Tokina ATX 28-80 f/2.8 and it worked just fine on my 5dII and a 1DIV. While the lens worked fine, the images certainly did not stand up to scrutiny. If I chose to view at normal 35mm print sizes (4x6 or so), it would be OK I suppose. I even sent it back to Tokina and all was normal with the lens.

Not the same exact lens as yours and I haven't looked up the release dates of both.

I also own an EOS 620. First real camera I bought, brand new in 1987. I still have it but haven't used it in a long time. Regrettably, I sold off a minty 50mm purchased at the same time a few years ago.

If your 28-70 is from the late 80's, and doesn't work on camera equipment produced in the 2000's, I can't say that I would expect differently. 

I am amazed that, for the most part, Canon EF lenses all seem to work with anything made from inception to present day. The exceptions seem to be current IS lenses mounted to early EF film bodies. As I understand it, the EOS 1-V is the only film body that can use all current specification EF lenses.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 29, 2013)

Yes. We've seen some quite fantastic 3rd party glass this year. 

Sigma 35mm 1.4 
Tamron 24-70 VC
Tamron 70-200 VC - new version

That kit alone is a perfect replacement for canon stuff. Unfortunately for me, no 135mm f/1.8 IS yet.... :


----------



## MK5GTI (Jul 29, 2013)

^ i am waiting for a 135L alternative as well, hoping for something cheaper


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 29, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> Hey guys. I am an amateur/hobbyist photographer that loves to keep up on the forums and on cr. I was wondering what you guys take on the new lenses that Sigma has been putting out on the market. The price ranges are very competitive even to the Canon brand. I am a Canon fanboy (to put it best) but the recent 35mm f1.4, 120-300mm f2.8, and now the 18-35mm f1.8is making me think much more of a third party brand. A friend of mine had a sigma 50mm f1.4 that pulled some impressive pictures! I have bought and returned a sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens before... horrid lens (possibly the copy).
> 
> Anyways, I want to hear from y'all before buying a few lenses. (10-22, 50 1.4, and 15-85 or 24-105) Thanks!



For the home / hobbiest, yes it's a great idea. Some of the 3rd party vendors are really coming out with some great stuff. But for a pro...no, it's still not quite up to the reliability and AF speed of the top Canon gear. Pro's generally want to buy once and use a lot with no worries or little down time. Sigma / Tamron just isn't as reliable in a professional contex and certainly doesn't carry the same fast service ability.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 1, 2013)

MK5GTI said:


> ^ i am waiting for a 135L alternative as well, hoping for something cheaper



Cheaper than ~$900 for the 135L? How? It's one of the best values in the Canon line, just buy it.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> MK5GTI said:
> 
> 
> > ^ i am waiting for a 135L alternative as well, hoping for something cheaper
> ...


$871 in the canon refurb store, now with a year warranty:
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductListingViewAll_10051_10051_-1_22751?WT.mc_id=C126149

It's out of stock now, but it is replenished periodically.

- A


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 1, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > MK5GTI said:
> ...



Yea, so you're waiting for a refurb unit that's only $50 cheaper than a brand spanking new one? Why? And I thought you were implying you were waiting on Sigma to introduce their own 135 at a cheaper price than $900...because I can guarantee you that will never happen, unless it is an f/2.8.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 5, 2013)

Those interested in Sigma may like to read this, if they've not seen it yet:

http://www.lenstip.com/136.1-article-Interview_with_constructor_of_Sigma_lenses.html


----------



## surapon (Aug 5, 2013)

Yes, Before I buy my first Sigma Lens 50 mm. F/ 1.4---I compare with Canon Lens 50 mmm. F/ 1.4, and I read many Compare/ Review both Lens, And in the review tell me that Sigma Lens* in this Category is Better than Canon Lens in the Sharp area, and in the Color Contrast Area---BUT COST MORE THAN CANON = $ 50 US Dollars.
Yes, I buy this First Sigma Lens and Very Happy of this Big Babe.
Yes, I have 14 Canon Lenses, 2 Tamron Lenses, 1 Bower Lens, and 1 Sigma Lens---From 8 MM. Fish eye Lens to Canon EF 600 mm. F/ 4.0 L IS USM. 
Surapon
PS. AF. for Sigma Lenses are not good or FAST as Canon Lenses*


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 5, 2013)

sdsr said:


> Those interested in Sigma may like to read this, if they've not seen it yet:
> 
> http://www.lenstip.com/136.1-article-Interview_with_constructor_of_Sigma_lenses.html



That was an interesting article. Thanks for posting the link


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 14, 2013)

surapon said:


> Yes, Before I buy my first Sigma Lens 50 mm. F/ 1.4---I compare with Canon Lens 50 mmm. F/ 1.4, and I read many Compare/ Review both Lens, And in the review tell me that Sigma Lens* in this Category is Better than Canon Lens in the Sharp area, and in the Color Contrast Area---BUT COST MORE THAN CANON = $ 50 US Dollars.
> Yes, I buy this First Sigma Lens and Very Happy of this Big Babe.
> Yes, I have 14 Canon Lenses, 2 Tamron Lenses, 1 Bower Lens, and 1 Sigma Lens---From 8 MM. Fish eye Lens to Canon EF 600 mm. F/ 4.0 L IS USM.
> Surapon
> PS. AF. for Sigma Lenses are not good or FAST as Canon Lenses*



The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is not a good lens, don't buy it.


----------



## tron (Aug 14, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> I also own an EOS 620. First real camera I bought, brand new in 1987. I still have it but haven't used it in a long time. Regrettably, I sold off a minty 50mm purchased at the same time a few years ago.
> 
> If your 28-70 is from the late 80's, and doesn't work on camera equipment produced in the 2000's, I can't say that I would expect differently.


My 28-70 is from the late 80's and doesn't work on some camera equipment produced in the 90's (like EOS 50E). You cannot expect differently but then feel free not to expect that your super Sigma lenses will work one decade later. If you have used them a lot it will not matter much probably but a Canon 24-70 2.8 L II will still be great even then!


----------



## rs (Aug 14, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, Before I buy my first Sigma Lens 50 mm. F/ 1.4---I compare with Canon Lens 50 mmm. F/ 1.4, and I read many Compare/ Review both Lens, And in the review tell me that Sigma Lens* in this Category is Better than Canon Lens in the Sharp area, and in the Color Contrast Area---BUT COST MORE THAN CANON = $ 50 US Dollars.
> ...


I'm very happy with my Sigma 50/1.4. It's up there with my three L lenses, and easily beats them with regards to the quality of the bokeh.


----------



## vlad (Aug 14, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, Before I buy my first Sigma Lens 50 mm. F/ 1.4---I compare with Canon Lens 50 mmm. F/ 1.4, and I read many Compare/ Review both Lens, And in the review tell me that Sigma Lens* in this Category is Better than Canon Lens in the Sharp area, and in the Color Contrast Area---BUT COST MORE THAN CANON = $ 50 US Dollars.
> ...



Disagree completely. I'm using mine on full frame and it rocks. Great image quality, solid build, good AF. In the areas where Canon stagnates, Sigma picks up the slack. I'm considering getting the 15mm fisheye and the 35 1.4 next.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 14, 2013)

vlad said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > surapon said:
> ...



+1!!!


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 14, 2013)

vlad said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > surapon said:
> ...



So your Sigma 50mm somehow has no AF issues at all, and is sharp to the full frame corners? Hard to believe, but ok.


----------



## rs (Aug 14, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> vlad said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...


Mine has reliable, accurate AF. And wide open at f1.4, the corners are more than usable on FF. Stopped down a little, they are very sharp. The sharpness and the creamy smoothness of the bokeh put it leagues ahead of the Canon 50/1.4.

What negative experiences have you had with the Sigma 50/1.4 for you to be so vocally negative about it?


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 14, 2013)

rs said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > vlad said:
> ...



Never tried it for myself, never claimed I did...but have read what Lensrentals had to say, as well as the reviews...as well as Sigma's own MTF chart of the lens in their display of the product on their own website...which clearly shows a steep dropoff in sharpness in the image even before the aps-c crop ends...let alone to the corners on full frame.

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/sigma-50mm-f1.4-dg-hsm-for-canon

_"
Roger's Take

Roger Cicala

President of LensRentals.com

It’s become apparent through many tests and online forums that the Sigma 50 is a ‘special’ lens. I was glad to find this out because it was driving me nuts. It’s a very nice lens when you use it just right, with superb sharpness and smooth bokeh. But here’s the summary:

1) It works very well on crop frame cameras and at middle (5 to 15 feet) distance, so its a wonderful indoor lens.

2) On full frame cameras and to a slight extent on crop frame cameras, the lens exhibits what I will term ‘schizophrenic autofocus’: Closer than 5 feet it will front focus, further than 20 feet it will backfocus. This is not a calibration issue, its just how it is."_

Apparently yours differs from the normal production?


----------



## rs (Aug 14, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > What negative experiences have you had with the Sigma 50/1.4 for you to be so vocally negative about it?
> ...


There is a definite QC issue with this Sigma lens. I exchanged my first copy because it had terribly inaccurate AF. It showed signs of brilliance though because manually focusing it produced some amazing results. I was expecting a similarly bad experience with the second lens, but I was pleasantly surprised to find it is consistently accurate with its AF. I do admit this is performing beyond my expectations set by reading reviews, but I certainly can't complain about owning a lens this good.


----------



## Policar (Aug 14, 2013)

The 20mm f1.8 is the softest lens I've ever used (worse than the Nikon 24mm f2 AIS and much worse than the Rokinon 24mm f1.4, all wide open), whereas the 18-35mm f1.8 is one of the best. Oddly it won't autofocus properly on my old Digital Rebel XT, but on new cameras it's pretty accurate.

AF does seem to be an issue with Sigma lenses. My 50mm f1.4 is not very accurate with AF, but CarlTN must have a worse sample than I do by a lot to be so vocally negative about his experiences with it. It has amazing bokeh and is pretty sharp in the center, which is all that matters for that focal length and speed.

However, wide open the 50mm f1.8 Canon is my favorite lens I must admit. Just wish it had more aperture blades. It's sharp and so cute. That it's the best general-purpose 50mm available for Canon (excepting its awful bokeh) is kind of insane.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 15, 2013)

Policar said:


> The 20mm f1.8 is the softest lens I've ever used (worse than the Nikon 24mm f2 AIS and much worse than the Rokinon 24mm f1.4, all wide open), whereas the 18-35mm f1.8 is one of the best. Oddly it won't autofocus properly on my old Digital Rebel XT, but on new cameras it's pretty accurate.
> 
> AF does seem to be an issue with Sigma lenses. My 50mm f1.4 is not very accurate with AF, but CarlTN must have a worse sample than I do by a lot to be so vocally negative about his experiences with it. It has amazing bokeh and is pretty sharp in the center, which is all that matters for that focal length and speed.
> 
> However, wide open the 50mm f1.8 Canon is my favorite lens I must admit. Just wish it had more aperture blades. It's sharp and so cute. That it's the best general-purpose 50mm available for Canon (excepting its awful bokeh) is kind of insane.



Wide open, the 20mm may be soft BUT it's the only 20mm f/1.8 prime for full frame - a unique lens. Stopped down a little it gives stunning results. It's an older lens in the Sigma line-up, like the 50 mm so does not have the same type of quality assurance as the newer models - the old hit and miss may apply here but I've got excellent copies of both these lenses. Now the 30mm f/1.4 I owned previously was absolutely a dud; no sharp images with AF, soft wide open and a 'dragging' noise in the focus ring. I still loved it at the time for its format and dreamy bokeh but it was as unreliable as a lens can get.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 15, 2013)

rs said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



Well I am glad to hear that. I own the Cosina Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4, and I absolutely love it, even though it's a manual Nikon-mount lens. It very well could be the sharpest 50mm f/1.4 lens. Its bokeh isn't exactly perfect, but is more than smooth enough for me. The only other fast lenses I want now are a 24mm and an 85, or preferably a 95 f/1.0...Sigma needs to make one!


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 15, 2013)

Policar said:


> The 20mm f1.8 is the softest lens I've ever used (worse than the Nikon 24mm f2 AIS and much worse than the Rokinon 24mm f1.4, all wide open), whereas the 18-35mm f1.8 is one of the best. Oddly it won't autofocus properly on my old Digital Rebel XT, but on new cameras it's pretty accurate.
> 
> AF does seem to be an issue with Sigma lenses. My 50mm f1.4 is not very accurate with AF, but CarlTN must have a worse sample than I do by a lot to be so vocally negative about his experiences with it. It has amazing bokeh and is pretty sharp in the center, which is all that matters for that focal length and speed.
> 
> However, wide open the 50mm f1.8 Canon is my favorite lens I must admit. Just wish it had more aperture blades. It's sharp and so cute. That it's the best general-purpose 50mm available for Canon (excepting its awful bokeh) is kind of insane.



I never claimed I owned that Sigma. I have owned the Canon f/1.8 in the past. It was fine for the money. I like the 40mm f/2.8 pancake a lot more. I've owned other Sigma lenses, and own one of their telephoto zooms now. It is quite nice. The only time I've been published, the image was shot with an older Sigma 17-70 on my old 50D...

I am far from biased against Sigma.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 15, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > The 20mm f1.8 is the softest lens I've ever used (worse than the Nikon 24mm f2 AIS and much worse than the Rokinon 24mm f1.4, all wide open), whereas the 18-35mm f1.8 is one of the best. Oddly it won't autofocus properly on my old Digital Rebel XT, but on new cameras it's pretty accurate.
> ...



I rented the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 back in 2009. It may have been a bit better sample than the one you describe above. I recall its AF was a bit hit or miss, and certainly it had a curved plane of focus...but then so does my Voigtlander 58mm...it's just a lot closer to flat. I loved the color from that 30mm Sigma...

They have a new 30mm f/1.4 for aps-c...not sure how much better it is than the old one. I have no doubt it is better, though. As for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 being "old", the design is quite a bit newer than the 20mm f/1.8. I believe the Sigma 50mm came out in '07 or '08? Not sure...might have been '09. The 20mm came out in the early to mid 2000's...or else in the '90's...not sure. That narrows it down for you doesn't it?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 15, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Policar said:
> ...



I'm sure my '30' was an outlier, on the bad side. The 20 and 50 I love, but I'm hesitant to get the 35 too; it's absolutely fabulous from what I've read, but at the moment I can't justify the price for the occasional use it'll get. Maybe when the days shorten and light gets dim I'll reconsider...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 15, 2013)

These days, everyone expects a lot more out of pro lenses than they did even 5 years ago. If Sigma had made their current range 5 years ago, with the proper service levels, they would have a much larger market share. 
In that respect, they are a little late to the party but most welcome anyhow! 

Who would have expected Sigma to crack out a fantastic 35mm f1.4? Or their 50mm? 

No one has made the definitive 50mm fast prime on the Canon mount yet. Sigma are close but the Canon 50mm f1.2 L still is a peerless but faulted king. This should not be!

It would be wise for Sigma to build a 500mm f4 lens which is light and can take 1.4 and 2x TC's....while being sharp and with excellent AF abilities.


----------



## surapon (Aug 15, 2013)

Dear Friends.
I am sorry to Answer the Sigma Lens Question, Which I have the Fist Sigma Lens in my Life ( And Seem to get the Best one from The Batch/ From MFG. too)---Yes, Some time, My Friends who have Sigma Lens Complaint about Sigma Lens for Canon have a slow or Miss AF---But May be the Quality control of Their MFG. And more than 5 years ago, One of my Dear Friend from Japan, The Optical Engineer, Who work for Canon, he told me that, Sigma company try to save their money, not to buy the Patent of AF/ EOS from Canon, But They Use Reverse Engineer to Make their Lens work with Canon EOS, Yes Tamron Company Buy the AF / EOS patent from Canon, and have a great AF to Match Canon too----Sorry, That is the Truth or not, Or Just Canon Company try to make me Feel Good ???, and Want Me to buy only Canon Lenses.
Sorry again that I start to Make two fan Clubs= Ford and Chevy , try to tell another side that their truck a lot better than another brand name Truck.
Yes, If Your AF. ( for Canon EOS Body) of Sigma Lens are not Perfect, Please try to Adjust the Back Focus/ AF. Microadjustment = C. FN III-8.
Yes, Sigma 50 mm. F/ 1.4 ( $ 460 US Dollars), are not Perfected Lens as Canon EF 50. MM. F/ 1.2 L ( $ 1600 US Dollars), But I need a Good Lens for 50 mm, and Save some money to buy Canon Lens EF 1200 mm ( $ 120,000 US Dollars)---That is my Dream before I die ( my Wife might Kill me---Ha, Ha, Ha ).---JUST KIDDING.
I am very glad to be your friend in CR. Yes, I read most of your Answers and Learn a lot of Things = New infor/ New Ideas from you.
Thousand Thanks.
Surapon.
Apex, NC., USA.

Here are the comparision Between Canon 50 mm, F/ 1.4 and Sigma 50 mm f/ 1.4---Just move your mouse to left and right , to see the difference.


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=473&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## roadrunner (Aug 17, 2013)

I think Sigma should have always been taken seriously. Don't get me wrong, I've never wanted a sigma lens prior to the art 35mm (Which I now own) as I would prefer Canon, but that doesn't mean I didn't take Sigma seriously. I seriously considered a couple of their lenses. Mainly the 50mm f1.4 and the 150mm 2.8 OS Macro lens. 

In the end, I didn't want to struggle with the QC issues of the Sigma 50mm (Though, by most accounts, it is the better lens on paper when compared to Canon's offerings) and I wanted the weather sealing, smaller, lighter 100mm Macro L. So I have always seriously considered Sigma, I just never actually chose them until the current 35mm. I am definitely looking forward to an art version of their 50mm though.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 5, 2013)

roadrunner said:


> I think Sigma should have always been taken seriously. Don't get me wrong, I've never wanted a sigma lens prior to the art 35mm (Which I now own) as I would prefer Canon, but that doesn't mean I didn't take Sigma seriously. I seriously considered a couple of their lenses. Mainly the 50mm f1.4 and the 150mm 2.8 OS Macro lens.
> 
> In the end, I didn't want to struggle with the QC issues of the Sigma 50mm (Though, by most accounts, it is the better lens on paper when compared to Canon's offerings) and I wanted the weather sealing, smaller, lighter 100mm Macro L. So I have always seriously considered Sigma, I just never actually chose them until the current 35mm. I am definitely looking forward to an art version of their 50mm though.



A number of years ago I compared my then new Siggi 70-200 f2.8 DG EX HSM to a friends Canon 70-200 LIS. I was thrilled with my lens until I compared it and on every point, the Canon was slightly better (ignoring the excellent IS unit). It was better built, has a paint finish which didn't flake off, it's AF was faster and more accurate and it was sharper wide open and 200mm. It handled flare way better and was loser to the 200mm stated than the quite obviously shorter Sigma (around 185mm by my estimations). While the Sigma was a very good lens, the Canon was superior in every aspect except cost and weight. The AF considerations were considerable too...what's the point of a sharp lens if it's AF is inconsistent? 

I have a soft spot for Sigma, I like their lenses a lot. But in a fair Sigma to Canon comparision, the Canon lenses are generally better in most regards. That said, there's a lot to like about the new Siggi 35mm f1.4..but then again, I've been using the Canon variant for the last 6 years and it's a very special optic.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 5, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> I'm sure my '30' was an outlier, on the bad side. The 20 and 50 I love, but I'm hesitant to get the 35 too; it's absolutely fabulous from what I've read, but at the moment I can't justify the price for the occasional use it'll get. Maybe when the days shorten and light gets dim I'll reconsider...



I feel the exact same way about the Sigma 35 as you do...


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 5, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> These days, everyone expects a lot more out of pro lenses than they did even 5 years ago. If Sigma had made their current range 5 years ago, with the proper service levels, they would have a much larger market share.
> In that respect, they are a little late to the party but most welcome anyhow!
> 
> Who would have expected Sigma to crack out a fantastic 35mm f1.4? Or their 50mm?
> ...



Nice to see Sigma enthusiasm like this!


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 5, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > I think Sigma should have always been taken seriously. Don't get me wrong, I've never wanted a sigma lens prior to the art 35mm (Which I now own) as I would prefer Canon, but that doesn't mean I didn't take Sigma seriously. I seriously considered a couple of their lenses. Mainly the 50mm f1.4 and the 150mm 2.8 OS Macro lens.
> ...



No doubt Canon will eventually answer Sigma's 35mm "art" lens, but they have other higher priorities. I certainly want to buy the Sigma, especially to use for fall foliage, but am weighing my options...because I also want something a bit wider and something a bit more telephoto...


----------



## tron (Sep 5, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> [weighing my options...because I also want something a bit wider and something a bit more telephoto...


Hmmm a bit weider? hmmm how about 24mm, hmmm a bit more telephoto how about 70mm, 24 70 24 70 ohhh wait 24-70 28L II 

Unless you want a 24 1.4L II and an 851.2L II 8)


----------



## Radiating (Sep 6, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> Hey guys. I am an amateur/hobbyist photographer that loves to keep up on the forums and on cr. I was wondering what you guys take on the new lenses that Sigma has been putting out on the market. The price ranges are very competitive even to the Canon brand. I am a Canon fanboy (to put it best) but the recent 35mm f1.4, 120-300mm f2.8, and now the 18-35mm f1.8is making me think much more of a third party brand. A friend of mine had a sigma 50mm f1.4 that pulled some impressive pictures! I have bought and returned a sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens before... horrid lens (possibly the copy).
> 
> Anyways, I want to hear from y'all before buying a few lenses. (10-22, 50 1.4, and 15-85 or 24-105) Thanks!



The sigma 10-20mm is a horrible lens and should never be used.

Sigma doesn't just make "good lenses" they make lenses that in some cases are the best in the world for their focal range and aperture, and much better than Canon's Nikon's Sony's or Zeiss's lenses.

The Sigma 35mm 1.4 for example is light years ahead of Canon's offering. It's like night and day. The 85mm 1.4 is also light years ahead of Canon's offerings and is literally one of the top 4 sharpest lenses ever made by any company period, it's mind blowing, while Canon's 85mm 1.2 II suffers from almost twice the purple fringing at f/1.4, and while most people talk about how good the Canon 85mm 1.2 II is, the Sigma is much sharper. Furthermore Sigma's 18-35mm f/1.8 for crop is light years ahead of anything offered by any brand. It's amazing. The 120-300mm f/2.8 is also one of the best lenses in the world. Sigma's 8-16mm crop lens is also one of the best in the world delivering better image quality than Canon's 15-85mm which itself is one of the best lenses you can get for crop.

Sigma is no joke, in certain categories they offer products which are simply unmatched by any other brand.

The problem is that other than the products I listed, no other Sigma lenses are the best in their class, while some may be a "good" most are just half baked bargain lenses, meaning "half the image quality at best for a 30% lower price". Not a good trade off. 

So Sigma used to make lenses that were absolute junk, and in the last 2-3 years they've made some of the best lenses in the world. I really like their new lenses and I'm hoping they make a 55mm f/1.4 next like Zeiss's new lens.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 6, 2013)

Radiating said:


> The problem is that other than the products I listed, no other Sigma lenses are the best in their class,



Sigma 50 f/1.4.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 6, 2013)

Radiating said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey guys. I am an amateur/hobbyist photographer that loves to keep up on the forums and on cr. I was wondering what you guys take on the new lenses that Sigma has been putting out on the market. The price ranges are very competitive even to the Canon brand. I am a Canon fanboy (to put it best) but the recent 35mm f1.4, 120-300mm f2.8, and now the 18-35mm f1.8is making me think much more of a third party brand. A friend of mine had a sigma 50mm f1.4 that pulled some impressive pictures! I have bought and returned a sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens before... horrid lens (possibly the copy).
> ...



I'm not sure you've even used a Canon 35mm f1.4 L or 85mm f1.2 II L. I use both of these day in day out in a professional basis and they have produced some of the best photographs in my portfolio. I have found them both to be more than sharp enough....and my particular copy of the 85mm f1.2 II L is one fo the sharpest lenses I have ever handled. Purple fringing is strong against strong contrasted background but it is easily correcting in LR...it's a single slider. It's AF might be slow, but it's more accurate and consistent than anything I've ever tried from Sigma. The 12-24mm is a truly remarkable but flawed lens. The 120-300 is not a world beater....sorry but it's also got some great benefits, but some serious flaws too. It's good but it's not a world beater. Compared to a mkI Canon 300mm f2.8 LIS it falls short in every area. I sold my copy months after obtaining it due to it's focal length drop at MFD, excessive size and weight and bad focus inaccuracy. It's a nice lens but it's not a white lens competitor. I've already stated my feelings and obserations on this lens in previous threads, so I'm not going to repeat myself here. It's marketed to people who don't want the expense of a Canon White lens but want to kid themsleves that it's just as good. It's not, it's a good lens but it's not in the same league. 

Sigma do make some great lenses, but they are still a little short of Professional use and still a bit behind Canon's finest. Their 35mm f1.4 might be slightly better at shooting lens charts, but there's more to a lens than sharpness. Both the Canon 35L and 85IIL make such beautiful photos, they have a charectoristic look to the photos they produce.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 6, 2013)

Radiating said:


> The sigma 10-20mm is a horrible lens and should never be used.



Which version? My f4-5.6 was fine.



Radiating said:


> Sigma's 8-16mm crop lens is also one of the best in the world delivering better image quality than Canon's 15-85mm which itself is one of the best lenses you can get for crop.




These lenses are not comparable, other than by charts. You would choose the FL you needed, not one instead of the other.



Radiating said:


> The problem is that other than the products I listed, no other Sigma lenses are the best in their class, while some may be a "good" most are just half baked bargain lenses, meaning "half the image quality at best for a 30% lower price". Not a good trade off.



You missed out the 70mm Macro. Better than the equivalent Canon and Nikon lenses. At the time of launch it was the sharpest lens some reviewers had seen. The Bigma is quite unique.


----------



## Pi (Sep 6, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > The Sigma 35mm 1.4 for example is light years ahead of Canon's offering. It's like night and day. The 85mm 1.4 is also light years ahead of Canon's offerings and is literally one of the top 4 sharpest lenses ever made by any company period, it's mind blowing, while Canon's 85mm 1.2 II suffers from almost twice the purple fringing at f/1.4, and while most people talk about how good the Canon 85mm 1.2 II is, the Sigma is much sharper.
> ...



+1. He is way over the top. The Sigma 85 is not really sharper than the Canon, when it can focus, which is almost never. The 85L is designed for its bokeh, and sharpness is not everything, but it is sharp. I used them both, and the Sigma is a 85L wannabe but not there yet.


----------



## Radiating (Sep 6, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > cellomaster27 said:
> ...



I've owned multiple copies of both of the Canon 35mm 1.4 and the Canon 85mm 1.2 II, as well as 2 copies of the Sigma 85mm 1.4, and 1 copy of the Sigma 35mm 1.4. The Sigma versions are simply put sharper and have other advantages. While the Canon versions have produced SOME of the best images I have ever taken. The Sigma versions produce THE best images I have ever taken and redefine what is possible in photography.

The biggest advantage of the Sigma 85mm 1.4 over the Canon 85mm f/1.2 II is reduced purple fringing and the second greatest difference is improved sharpness and reduced haziness. You can see this comparison demonstrates both of those factors:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=756&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

Sharper less hazy and most of all the Sigma has much less purple fringing. Most photographers dismiss PF as an afterthought because it's usually not a great issue, with the 85mm f/1.2 II, the PF is so far off the charts that many times you cannot not remove it in post without hours of work by hand, and remember many agencies and stock photo companies will not accept photos with PF. The issue with the Canon is especially common when shooting models with brownish purplish hair against bright backgrounds. The purple fringing of many short telephoto primes is very high, The Canon 85mm f/1.2 II's PF can be literally off the charts and very annoying in many situations, nobody likes to be surprised by several days of post work that they thought they didn't have to do, and again there is a quite significant difference in sharpness in favor of the Sigma.

Don't even mention autofocus. With the Sigma 85mm 1.4 I've shot basketball, and BMX biking with tight framing and split second focus. The Canon is one of the slowest lenses I've ever seen.

The differences are equally profound with the 35mm, especially slightly stopped down from wide open where I like to shoot. The Sigma version has much less chromatic aberration and is sharper.



> I have found them both to be more than sharp enough....and my particular copy of the 85mm f1.2 II L is one fo the sharpest lenses I have ever handled. Purple fringing is strong against strong contrasted background but it is easily correcting in LR...it's a single slider.



LR won't remove PF from brown hair against a sky if it's significant enough, which is one of the most common shooting scenarios. The PF of the 85mm 1.2 II is so over the top of that even when converting using DXO mark, that program doesn't even have a setting that's high enough in the remove PF tool to deal with the 85mm 1.2 II.





> It's AF might be slow, but it's more accurate and consistent than anything I've ever tried from Sigma. The 12-24mm is a truly remarkable but flawed lens. The 120-300 is not a world beater....sorry but it's also got some great benefits, but some serious flaws too. It's good but it's not a world beater. Compared to a mkI Canon 300mm f2.8 LIS it falls short in every area.



You're comparing a prime against a zoom, of course the Sigma 120-300mm isn't as good. You have to compare it to other zooms and in that regard you get an amazing focal range and a top of the line lens. The 200mm f/2.0 can beat the Canon 70-200mm II as well in every conceivable way too, but that doesn't mean the 70-200mm II is not one of the best zoom lenses you can buy. In fact the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II are fairly similar in performance across the board.



> I sold my copy months after obtaining it due to it's focal length drop at MFD, excessive size and weight and bad focus inaccuracy. It's a nice lens but it's not a white lens competitor.


 All lenses severely drop their focal length at MFD. The Canon 70-200mm actually achieves only 2/3rds it's maximum focal length at MFD.

Sharpness wise the 120-300mm f/2.8 from Sigma is very close to the Canon, to the point where copy variation plays a role between comparisons at most focal length. However the Sigma's bokeh is significantly better in many situations than the Canon as the Canon suffers from very busy background blur, especially around trees:

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8:






Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II:







While you can't argue that the lens is small, and that some copies have issues with AF, the Sigma is still a fantastic lens if you want a 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom, a copy without flaws is in the same league as other top telephoto zooms, which wasn't true of Sigma in the past.



> I've already stated my feelings and obserations on this lens in previous threads, so I'm not going to repeat myself here. It's marketed to people who don't want the expense of a Canon White lens but want to kid themsleves that it's just as good. It's not, it's a good lens but it's not in the same league.



How? Compared to the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II, the Sigma has better sharpness at 200mm and 150mm and slightly worse at 120mm. Better bokeh, can provide great focus accuracy with a good copy and has equal or better chromatic aberration and both of those lenses have serious zoom fall off at MFD. It's every bit in the same league as a 70-200mm f/2.8 II, just serving a different focal range.



> Sigma do make some great lenses, but they are still a little short of Professional use and still a bit behind Canon's finest. Their 35mm f1.4 might be slightly better at shooting lens charts, but there's more to a lens than sharpness. Both the Canon 35L and 85IIL make such beautiful photos, they have a charectoristic look to the photos they produce.



I think that both Sigma and Canon are producing optical designs that are the absolute top of the line, and both suffer from issues with shooting lens charts versus the real world. The 24-70mm f/2.8 II and 70-200mm f/2.8 II both suffer from weird bokeh issues, which is why I keep a 24-105mm and 70-200mm f/4.0 IS on hand. On Sigma's side, the Sigma 35mm 1.4 suffers from weird bokeh issues which is why I keep a Rokinon 1.4 on hand, and the Sigma 85mm 1.4 is just flawless, while the Canon version is deeply flawed.

Sigma makes pro lenses, in fact you'd be crazy not to use Sigma as a pro because their stuff is better than Canon's in many regards. 



paul13walnut5 said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > The sigma 10-20mm is a horrible lens and should never be used.
> ...



The f/4.5 to f/5.6. The problem with it is that it's not a 10-20mm lens. It's 10mm OR 20mm lens, any focal range in-between has poor image quality. The 8-16mm is a much better bet.



> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma's 8-16mm crop lens is also one of the best in the world delivering better image quality than Canon's 15-85mm which itself is one of the best lenses you can get for crop.
> ...



I agree that you wouldn't pick between those lenses I was just making a point to establish that the 8-16mm is regarded as better than a well regarded lens. The Sigma 8-16mm is also better then Canon's 10-22mm, although that lens isn't regarded as being very good. Suffice it to say the 8-16mm blows the 10-22mm Canon out of the water.



> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that other than the products I listed, no other Sigma lenses are the best in their class, while some may be a "good" most are just half baked bargain lenses, meaning "half the image quality at best for a 30% lower price". Not a good trade off.
> ...



Yep you're right I missed the 70mm Macro. I also missed Sigma's 105mm OS Macro which is both sharper and has better bokeh than Canon's 100mm IS Macro.

I wouldn't consider the Bigma a lens worth getting for myself. It offers a very unique set of features but it's very soft.



Pi said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...



It's a well known fact that Sigma's initial run of the 85mm 1.4 had focus hunting issues due to a software defect that was covered under warranty. I had 2 copies one with the issue and one without. With the fix the Sigma focuses dead on every single time.

Sharpness wise the Canon looks like a hazy blurry mess at f/1.4, the Sigma is much clearer.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=756&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is almost non-existant. Due to the way that digital sensors are designed and different from film - a digital sensor actually exponentially ignores light that hits the sensor at higher and higher angles of incident (which is how a faster lens gets more light). Meaning that the faster your lens is, the less additional light will actually strike a digital sensor's photo sites.

This effect starts to happen after f/2.8. So an f/2.8 lens will be identical to an f/2.8 lens on film. An f/2.0 lens however will actually only add maybe 70% more light on digital where as it would add 100% more on film. And an f/1.4 lens will add only 150% more light, on digital where it would add 300% more on film. To compensate for this the camera boosts the ISO rating in the background (without changing the ISO rating on the display or file) to achieve the correct exposure. You can verify this yourself by doing tests with a fast lens and comparing noise vs exposure time (ie a f/1.4 photo at 1 second 800 ISO will strangely have more noise than a f/2.8 photo at 2 seconds 800 ISO), many others have verified this as well.

So here's the difference between the magical bokeh of the f/1.2 and the Sigma:











I'm an extremely picky photographer which is why I obsessively test every lens. Many photographers tend to be deluded by brand name or price thinking that a more expensive lens is better than a cheap lens when it may be worse or a lens from a worse brand name is worse, when it's better. 

I've had photographers swear up and down that their new super expensive lens is so much better than their old one, right up until I take both of their lenses and do a back to back comparison and show them that their new very expensive lens which they thought was so much better than their older cheaper one, was in reality noticeably worse in every way.

Sigma makes, in certain categories, the best lenses 35mm lenses in the world, especially with their newer releases. They also used to make some really bad lenses. Being an extremely selective photographer who is picky about the details, I would like to see many more world class and ground breaking lenses released from any manufacturer and I really respect Sigma for refusing to compromise and release another budget piece of junk.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 6, 2013)

I think I´m willing to bet that the two pictures of Bryan´s daughter are shot with the same lens. I even think I´m willing to bet they are shot with the 85mm 1.2L II. 

Great ....


----------



## Pi (Sep 7, 2013)

Radiating said:


> So here's the difference between the magical bokeh of the f/1.2 and the Sigma:



That is the difference when you focus close. For full body portraits, for example, the difference is much more pronounced. If you focus very close, every lens which can actually focus there will have "great" bokeh. 

I do not have direct comparisons because I used them at different times. I love to push the lens and focus at 10m, for example. Then you can see the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4. I have done such experiments with the 50L. At 1.5 m or so, you cannot tell. Focus much farther away, you can.

Funny that you should mention PF. I found that the Sigma changes the color of large black areas to something like dark purple even away from the edges. AF depended heavily on the distance to the subject, which for my shooting style means - totally OOF at 10m, if I calibrate at 3 m, for example.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 8, 2013)

Radiating said:


> The Sigma 35mm 1.4 for example is light years ahead of Canon's offering. It's like night and day. The 85mm 1.4 is also light years ahead of Canon's offerings and is literally one of the top 4 sharpest lenses ever made by any company period, it's mind blowing, while Canon's 85mm 1.2 II suffers from almost twice the purple fringing at f/1.4, and while most people talk about how good the Canon 85mm 1.2 II is, the Sigma is much sharper.
> 
> Sigma is no joke, in certain categories they offer products which are simply unmatched by any other brand.
> 
> ...



I'm just stunned by the quantity of wide generalizations and personal opinions which you have passed off as fact hidden inside such a gigantic post....quite baffling really. I'm also unimpressed that to justify your arguments, you post shots from the digital picture....I hope you asked their permission to use their photographs to promote your opinion? 

Here a few highlights from your post

_"All lenses severely drop their focal length at MFD. The Canon 70-200mm actually achieves only 2/3rds it's maximum focal length at MFD."_ I don't know what 70-200 you are quoting there, but the Canon has the least Focal length breathing of all 70-200 lenses. Not even the Nikkor mkII breaths as much as your quoted 30% and that's considered to be the worst in that regard. I have tested my Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS and found it breathes less than the Canon 200 mm 2.8 II L prime I had. You have two claims here, "all lenses severely drop focal length at MFD" and the Canon 70-200 looses 30%.... both are misleading and inaccurate. 

_"The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is almost non-existant."_...sounds like you are trying to justify your purchase.

_"Sharpness wise the Canon looks like a hazy blurry mess at f/1.4, the Sigma is much clearer."_ Ah...so the 85mm f1.2 is a hazy mess is it? Roll on the floor with laughter....you've just lost ALL credibility!

_"LR won't remove PF from brown hair against a sky if it's significant enough" _
last weekend I shot a wedding in Mallorca, Spain...lost of black suites and white shirts and sunny skies. There was purple fringing on the contrast line between the gentlemen's white shirt and dark morning suits. LR completely removed this issue with a slider set to "2"...just "2" out of a possible "20" in the purple CA slider band, so I certainly wouldn't call that even slight, certainly not excessive. The only thing flawed about this lens is your opinion of it.

_"Sigma makes pro lenses, in fact you'd be crazy not to use Sigma as a pro because their stuff is better than Canon's in many regards."_ As a Pro, I used to use a lot of Sigma and I found them to be quite fragile and fault prone compared to Canon...which as a general brand is a lot more resilient to pro use. Canon gear is repaired in around 3 days here in the UK, Sigma takes over 2 weeks if their engineers even fix the fault. In Sigma land, i've had whole element groups work loose, aperture motors burn out, AF motors burn out. I've had lenses so far out of calibration that Micro adjust couldn't fix. I've had ribbon cables dislodge inside sigma lenses too. But Sigma weren't the worse, no that was Tamron, but that's another story. 

_"Sigma doesn't just make "good lenses" they make lenses that in some cases are the best in the world for their focal range and aperture, and much better than Canon's Nikon's Sony's or Zeiss's lenses."_ I feel sorry for the original poster of this thread, having to read such misleading dialogue as this...

You are quite welcome to look though my wedding photography blog site and look at 7 years plus of using the 35L and 85IIL and you'll see lots of clear and sharp images which have won me plenty of acclaim in my genre and a strong customer base. I have also used both of these lenses for landscape work, although I tend to prefer zooms for this genre, please take a look at my Flickr account. It's not hard to find me, GMCPhotographics is the only search variable you'll need.


----------



## comsense (Sep 8, 2013)

Radiating said:


> Sharpness wise the Canon looks like a hazy blurry mess at f/1.4, the Sigma is much clearer.
> 
> The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is almost non-existant. Due to the way that digital sensors are designed and different from film - a digital sensor actually exponentially ignores light that hits the sensor at higher and higher angles of incident
> So here's the difference between the magical bokeh of the f/1.2 and the Sigma:
> ...



It is amazing how biased some people can be. They can go to the extent of falsifying data... although not a smart attempt. The image examples you show are of Canon vs Canon at f1.2 vs f1.4
Infact, your file links for images shows this correct info.
If you show correct examples like here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Aperture.aspx

You will see that bokeh of Canon f1.2 is way better than Sigma f/1.4

But with the intensity of your rabid defense of Sigma f/1.4 on display; it might likely prevent you from seeing any difference 
On the record, I like third party underdogs as it fosters innovation and forces giants to keep prices sane.
However don't try to discredit a better lens just because you bought a cheaper one. And I am not arguing whether its better worth the double price tag. It's up to buyer to decide that.
And don't try to drag me into arguments; only reason I replied was to point out that you falsified your examples...


----------



## cellomaster27 (Sep 9, 2013)

Okay. Now I'm realizing that sigma is pretty much up there, or should i say been there?  Maybe the question should be "is canon stepping up to sigma's push?" Lol the newer lenses are showing signs of future great lenses to come in the future. 

Thanks for the photos from the 120-300 2.8. Love it!


----------



## drjlo (Sep 10, 2013)

Radiating said:


> The Sigma 35mm 1.4 for example is light years ahead of Canon's offering. It's like night and day. The 85mm 1.4 is also light years ahead of Canon's offerings



"Light years" and "night and day?" To me, light years is something like the difference between iPhone shooting in pitch darkness vs. full frame. While I am very happy that Sigma (and Tamron) are coming up with competitive lenses, which hopefully drives Canon to more R&D and to lower their crazy prices, my concern about how these lenses will behave with FUTURE Canon bodies remains. 

For example, I did have the Sigma 70 Macro, which was one sharp lens, but it would not autofocus properly in live view with my new-then Canon body, and Sigma service could not fix it, either.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 10, 2013)

tron said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > [weighing my options...because I also want something a bit wider and something a bit more telephoto...
> ...



Good point I'm also considering the Tamron 24-70...


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 10, 2013)

Radiating said:


> Sigma makes, in certain categories, the best lenses 35mm lenses in the world, especially with their newer releases. They also used to make some really bad lenses. Being an extremely selective photographer who is picky about the details, I would like to see many more world class and ground breaking lenses released from any manufacturer and I really respect Sigma for refusing to compromise and release another budget piece of junk.



Your post is too long to read, but I'll say I'm surprised you think the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is sharper than the Canon 85mm f/1.2. I've only rented the Canon (not tried that Sigma yet). I agree the Canon has purple bokeh fringing, or longitudinal CA, if that is what you are referring to. Even its overall color rendition is quite cool, which I don't care for. And at f/1.4 the Canon very well could be less sharp than the Sigma. But how about at f/5.6? Surely you're not saying the Sigma is "lightyears" sharper there? There could be some sample variation I suppose. In any case, to each their own...I'm a fan of Sigma, myself. The price difference is like comparing an Acura to a Mercedes E class. Both cars will get you there at the same time, assuming you obey the law.


----------



## wickidwombat (Sep 17, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma makes, in certain categories, the best lenses 35mm lenses in the world, especially with their newer releases. They also used to make some really bad lenses. Being an extremely selective photographer who is picky about the details, I would like to see many more world class and ground breaking lenses released from any manufacturer and I really respect Sigma for refusing to compromise and release another budget piece of junk.
> ...



when i compared the 2 side by side I felt the canon 1.2 was sharper wide open than the siggy
by f2 they are pretty similar and stopped down further there is so little in it you wont see difference in prints
the siggy AF on 5D body was noticably faster, its smaller and lighter and 1/3rd the cost
for me the sigma was a clear winner on value for money but I still feel in absolute image quality the canon has a tiny edge and 1/3rd stop aperture advantage. 
My lens had to go back to sigma to be recalibrated as it was heavily back focusing or front focusing I cant remember which but when it came back it was spot on and ive tried it on 6 or 7 bodies including rebels and its still great

I cant wait to see what a sigma art revamp does to this lens
wide open sharpness could be improved, if it ends up being anything like the 35 it will be amazing


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 17, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...



No doubt about that. I just still wish we weren't locked into prime lenses being either 50mm or 85mm....95 to 110mm at f/1.2 or f/1.0 would be nice...Sigma could do that for under $2800 I bet, even with IS. But because people are so locked into 85mm, I guess it will never happen. Sure there are macro lenses in that focal length, but I want a fast lens in that focal length, and don't care if it's 2.5 to 3 pounds...that's still hand-holdable...and still lighter than the proverbial 70-200 f/2.8 (would also be way less front heavy than the 70-200). I prefer the angle of view...seems like a good compromise between 135mm and 85mm.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 17, 2013)

I would love a Sigma 100mm F1.4 OS. : Currently this is restricted to focal length F2 aperture ... :-\ However, it was only a distant dream to have a lens 100mm F1.2 OS. :'(


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 17, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I would love a Sigma 100mm F1.4 OS. : Currently this is restricted to focal length F2 aperture ... :-\ However, it was only a distant dream to have a lens 100mm F1.2 OS. :'(



After I win the powerball, I will be putting some people on it and produce my own lens, and sell it to the world. Nothing else will compete with it because nobody else will ever build anything like that...it's outside the realm of what they want or can imagine. The outer lens body will be painted metallic auto colors similar to some highend stereo speakers...and the hood will have a built in taser, for when those wedding photogs get in my way!!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Sep 17, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> No doubt about that. I just still wish we weren't locked into prime lenses being either 50mm or 85mm....95 to 110mm at f/1.2 or f/1.0 would be nice... <snip> I prefer the angle of view...seems like a good compromise between 135mm and 85mm.



If people were locked into primes being either 50mm / 85mm / 135mm, why would Canon keep producing the 100mm f/2 (which isn't macro)?


----------



## sandymandy (Sep 17, 2013)

100mm f1.0 = 10 cm lens diameter ;D same as the 200mm f2.0. Are you sure you wanna carry that?  100mm f/2 from canon is a good alternative, no? What about using TC 1.4X ?


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 17, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > No doubt about that. I just still wish we weren't locked into prime lenses being either 50mm or 85mm....95 to 110mm at f/1.2 or f/1.0 would be nice... <snip> I prefer the angle of view...seems like a good compromise between 135mm and 85mm.
> ...



Because it's an old lens and apparently not expensive to make, I guess. It looks like a fine lens to me though, I considered buying one. Or you could just lend me yours? In any case it's not an f/1.0...


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 17, 2013)

sandymandy said:


> 100mm f1.0 = 10 cm lens diameter ;D same as the 200mm f2.0. Are you sure you wanna carry that?  100mm f/2 from canon is a good alternative, no? What about using TC 1.4X ?



Yes I want to carry that! It wouldn't be much heavier than a 70-200 f/2.8. I wouldn't say the 100 f/2 is a good alternative to such a mythical lens, no (is the 70-200 f/4 a good alternative to the 200 f/2? Not really, optics-wise anyway!) 

But like I said above, I've considered trying the 100 f/2. However, if they can make a 135mm f/1.8, why can't they make a 100mm lens faster than f/2? Could it be because they think the consumer considers this focal length only good for macro photography, and thus Canon and all the others just keep making new f/2.8 macro lenses in this focal length? Well this consumer wants something different!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Sep 21, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



It isn't free to make, so it would still have to sell, and I'll be happy to loan you mine.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 11, 2014)

Nikon has taken Sigma seriously and sued them for US$ 116 million and the Tokyo district court ordered Sigma to US$ 14.5 million, for patent infringement case for lenses with VR technology. Here is teh summary of judgement as posted by Nikonrumors site:
Here is the summary of the judgment:

"Nikon obtained the patent related to VR technology in 2002. The content of the patented invention relates to technology wherein a vibration detection device, which detects the amount of camera vibration at angles around photographic objects, prevents the influence of vibration of a motor for lens and thereby allows more accurate photo shots. Sigma affirms that the scope of the patented invention does not include any functions which reduce the influence of camera shake. However, Mr. Osuga, the Judge in Chief, states that the effects of the invention in Nikon’s specification is described as “it allows image blur to be reduced” and that the specification clears that it includes camera shake. Thus, Mr. Osuga stands for Nikon’s assertion. In addition, Mr. Osuga points out that image blur prevention system requires various control functions, and he states that this patented invention of Nikon’s should be rewarded based on the contribution of the patent to the defendant’s products, that is 15%. Therefore, the Tokyo District Court calculated profits earned by Sigma to be a maximum of 10.1 billion JPY, and found compensation of damages to be 15% of the profits of the accused products earned by Sigma."


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 11, 2014)

i would like sigma to make the following lenses all full frame of course
16-35 f2 OS
35-85 f2 OS
85-135 f2 OS

if these were sharp wide open size be damned they would be flat out awesome
and i wouldnt need primes anymore 

I believe if anyone can do it sigma can, and making wide aperture zooms seems to be the direction sigma are going
canon are going the exact opposite buy pumping out lots of new slow glass :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 11, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> i would like sigma to make the following lenses all full frame of course
> 16-35 f2 OS
> 35-85 f2 OS
> 85-135 f2 OS


Sounds great ... count my vote for your proposal


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 11, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> 85-135 f2 OS



That one is likely feasible


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 11, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > 85-135 f2 OS
> ...



the 35-85 f2 shouldnt be too hard it would wedding and event heaven
the only one that would be hard would be a 16-35 f2 that is sharp all over

Personally i would find these zoom ranges much more useful i am sure many others would too


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 13, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Nikon has taken Sigma seriously and sued them for US$ 116 million and the Tokyo district court ordered Sigma to US$ 14.5 million, for patent infringement case for lenses with VR technology. Here is teh summary of judgement as posted by Nikonrumors site:
> Here is the summary of the judgment:
> 
> "Nikon obtained the patent related to VR technology in 2002. The content of the patented invention relates to technology wherein a vibration detection device, which detects the amount of camera vibration at angles around photographic objects, prevents the influence of vibration of a motor for lens and thereby allows more accurate photo shots. Sigma affirms that the scope of the patented invention does not include any functions which reduce the influence of camera shake. However, Mr. Osuga, the Judge in Chief, states that the effects of the invention in Nikon’s specification is described as “it allows image blur to be reduced” and that the specification clears that it includes camera shake. Thus, Mr. Osuga stands for Nikon’s assertion. In addition, Mr. Osuga points out that image blur prevention system requires various control functions, and he states that this patented invention of Nikon’s should be rewarded based on the contribution of the patent to the defendant’s products, that is 15%. Therefore, the Tokyo District Court calculated profits earned by Sigma to be a maximum of 10.1 billion JPY, and found compensation of damages to be 15% of the profits of the accused products earned by Sigma."



That really seems unjust! Canon has image stabilization too, how come Nikon isn't suing them?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 13, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon has taken Sigma seriously and sued them for US$ 116 million and the Tokyo district court ordered Sigma to US$ 14.5 million, for patent infringement case for lenses with VR technology. Here is teh summary of judgement as posted by Nikonrumors site:
> ...


I guess the little guys are easier to target ;D


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 13, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



Indeed, amazing how things in real life translate back from the playground in school? Maybe this will make Sigma ripe for a takeover...by Canon!!


----------



## tron (Mar 13, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Nikon has taken Sigma seriously and sued them for US$ 116 million and the Tokyo district court ordered Sigma to US$ 14.5 million, for patent infringement case for lenses with VR technology. Here is teh summary of judgement as posted by Nikonrumors site:
> Here is the summary of the judgment:
> 
> "Nikon obtained the patent related to VR technology in 2002.
> ...


2002?  Shouldn't Canon sue Nikon :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 13, 2014)

tron said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon has taken Sigma seriously and sued them for US$ 116 million and the Tokyo district court ordered Sigma to US$ 14.5 million, for patent infringement case for lenses with VR technology. Here is teh summary of judgement as posted by Nikonrumors site:
> ...


Actually Nikon was the first to come up with image stabilization in 1994, in a 38–105 mm f/4-7.8 zoom lens built into the Nikon Zoom 700VR (Zoom-Touch 105 VR) camera. 
Canon produced their first Image Stabilized lens (EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM) in 1995
I think what Sigma copied was the 2002 "version" of Nikon's VR technology.


----------

