# Philosophical question about Sigma Lenses - Why?



## EricFiskCGD (Mar 27, 2014)

Just out of curiosity thanks to a conversation in Marketing 101 - why would a company like Sigma create products for other brands, specifically lenses for Canon? I'm curious about the thought process that went into a decision by such a company to create accessories and devices for someone else's products since they already have their own line of camera bodies...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Mar 27, 2014)

To make money?

Why limit your product to only one camera system?

I don't own any Sigma cameras, but I own several Sigma lenses. 

Sigma made money off of me.


----------



## EricFiskCGD (Mar 28, 2014)

“To make money” was the most obvious answer and I thought that was already covered but I appreciate your take on that – why limit your production to only one camera system.

It was only until today that I discovered that Sigma also makes camera bodies… I can’t recall a company making parts for themselves and and a competitor / rival. It’s akin to finding out Chevy also builds parts for their trucks and for Ford, too.

I am more interested in the actual thought process beyond that such as; “here’s a great company that makes great camera body – like us – let’s make lenses for them, too.” Was there a eureka moment that someone had and said “Since we can’t make the best cameras out there, why not we make the best lenses for the best cameras!?”


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 28, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> “To make money” was the most obvious answer and I thought that was already covered but I appreciate your take on that – why limit your production to only one camera system.
> 
> It was only until today that I discovered that Sigma also makes camera bodies… I can’t recall a company making parts for themselves and and a competitor / rival. It’s akin to finding out Chevy also builds parts for their trucks and for Ford, too.
> 
> I am more interested in the actual thought process beyond that such as; “here’s a great company that makes great camera body – like us – let’s make lenses for them, too.” Was there a eureka moment that someone had and said “Since we can’t make the best cameras out there, why not we make the best lenses for the best cameras!?”



Actually...

I like your car example... it is very fitting.

In the camera world you have a couple of big players and a bunch of small players... same as the automotive world. In the automotive world it is very normal for specialty companies to take motors and transmissions from larger companies and to use them in their vehicles... remember Delorean and Bricklin???

I believe Sigma started off making lenses and did not have their own camera at first... the camera came later.


----------



## m (Mar 28, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> I am more interested in the actual thought process beyond that such as; “here’s a great company that makes great camera body – like us – let’s make lenses for them, too.” Was there a eureka moment that someone had and said “Since we can’t make the best cameras out there, why not we make the best lenses for the best cameras!?”



AcutancePhotography's answer is spot on.
There isn't really any eureka moment or philosophical question behind it.
It's straight forward business logic.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 28, 2014)

because only 3 or 4 people bought the sigma camera bodies...

if they only made lenses for themselves they would certainly be broke
but by undercutting the oems prices of nikon and canon they instantly are open to a massive potential market


----------



## IMG_0001 (Mar 29, 2014)

Lets see,

Sony makes sensors for their cameras and sensors for... well Nikon, Fuji and Pentax and probably a few point and shoot and smart phones as well.

Samsung is one of the largest manufacturer of LCD panels for their own TVs and cell phones and most other as well.

In the car industry, ever realized the resemblance between a Ford Escape and a Mazda. Check out how many cars were built around Ford C1 platform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_C1_platform). Sahred car platforms are a norm, not an exception. Same for engines. Same for transmissions...

Markets are globalized and most people don't realize that very often, only a few companies provide the technologies globally.


----------



## Steve (Mar 30, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> Markets are globalized and most people don't realize that very often, only a few companies provide the technologies globally.



Its a little different since your examples are for corporations selling/licensing tech to other corporations, whereas Sigma, Tamron, etc are selling pieces directly to the consumer that are intended to be used with a competitors product. To keep with the car analogy, its like if Kia was making aftermarket parts for BMW's or something. It is a little odd but it's been going on in the camera industry for decades and decades and helps to fill a niche left wide open (possibly intentionally?) by Canon and Nikon.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Mar 31, 2014)

Steve said:


> IMG_0001 said:
> 
> 
> > Markets are globalized and most people don't realize that very often, only a few companies provide the technologies globally.
> ...



Personally, from the philosophic perspective, I see very little difference between a moral person selling to another moral person 
(company A to company B) or a moral person selling to a physical person. 

Otherwise lets try HP makes computers and printers but there is no garanty that an HP printer will be matedd to an HP printer...

Sigma produce optical components with the objective of selling them. Canon is the largest producer of interchangeable lens cameras. Sigma has all reasons to try and tap on that market. They are designing the lenses and there is only a fraction of the initial effort required to adapt these for multiple platforms. It is not like the market is saturated with affordable lenses...


----------



## AlanF (Mar 31, 2014)

Sigma started off as a lens company and started making cameras as a sideline. It makes its cash from lenses.
Fuji started as by making film, went into making cameras as a sideline before the advent of digital, which saved them as they were pre-adapted to digital.

What would happen if Canon started producing their lenses with other mounts? Well, there would be lots of happy Sony bunnies and maybe some Nikons. But, Canon might lose more of its profitable sales of bodies that rapidly become obsolete than it gains from long-lived glass. Canon has most certainly done the calculations and will stick to Canon-only lenses.


----------



## Halfrack (Mar 31, 2014)

The lenses came before the cameras. Sigma makes lenses for multiple platforms as a cost savings - literally taking one optical design, adjusting the distance from the flange to the sensor and swap out the AF control and selling it for what ever platform they decide on. Check out the Sigma zoom in either mount - the both zoom the same direction (Canon and Nikon oems zoom opposite each other).

The lifespan of a lens is also much longer than for a camera - notice how up in arms everyone is if there isn't a refresh every 12 months in the camera models? A good lens design with solid components can last for years.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 31, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> Just out of curiosity thanks to a conversation in Marketing 101 - why would a company like Sigma create products for other brands, specifically lenses for Canon? I'm curious about the thought process that went into a decision by such a company to create accessories and devices for someone else's products since they already have their own line of camera bodies...



Sigma is the third lens manufacturer in Japan by market share, not soooo far away from Canon and Nikon. When Canon sells lenses to Canon users only, Sigma sells to Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, etc etc.


----------



## ecka (Mar 31, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> “To make money” was the most obvious answer and I thought that was already covered but I appreciate your take on that – why limit your production to only one camera system.
> 
> It was only until today that I discovered that Sigma also makes camera bodies… I can’t recall a company making parts for themselves and and a competitor / rival. It’s akin to finding out Chevy also builds parts for their trucks and for Ford, too.
> 
> I am more interested in the actual thought process beyond that such as; “here’s a great company that makes great camera body – like us – let’s make lenses for them, too.” Was there a eureka moment that someone had and said “Since we can’t make the best cameras out there, why not we make the best lenses for the best cameras!?”



Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss, Samyang, Voigtlander - they are all making money from bigger players lens mounts. There's nothing wrong with it. Samsung is making computer parts for Apple too.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Mar 31, 2014)

Why is Canon making a camera (M15P-CL) that only comes in a Nikon F mount?

To make money from companies/people who have been investing in Nikon lenses for years.

Imagine if Canon were to attempt breaking into the industrial camera business by proclaiming "hey buy a Canon camera oh and by the way, you also need to buy all new lenses from Canon too." Probably would not get too far.

Much better to be able to say "you can keep all the Nikon lenses you have already purchased and like, but let us show you how using your existing Nikon lenses with our new Canon camera is better than your old Nikon camera system."

Politics may make for strange bedfellows but that's only because companies have been shacking up for far longer. LoL


----------



## Longexposure (Mar 31, 2014)

Just like apple with iTunes


----------



## Famateur (Mar 31, 2014)

Microsoft makes Office for Mac OS.
Amazon makes Kindle app for iPad.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Mar 31, 2014)

Famateur said:


> Microsoft makes Office for Mac OS.
> Amazon makes Kindle app for iPad.



Excellent examples! Micro$oft and Apple don't often see eye to eye but Micro$oft sure recognizes a way to get more money from Apple users.


----------



## brad goda (Mar 31, 2014)

canon does the same and has been making huge lenses for TV production and have been making cinema lenses PL mount for years. when a manufacturer wants to make money and is confident in their product they make something .... when Zeiss released EF mount lenses everyone said wow... must be good. whats the diff "IF" its a good product.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 31, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> “To make money” was the most obvious answer and I thought that was already covered but I appreciate your take on that – why limit your production to only one camera system.
> 
> It was only until today that I discovered that Sigma also makes camera bodies… I can’t recall a company making parts for themselves and and a competitor / rival. It’s akin to finding out Chevy also builds parts for their trucks and for Ford, too.
> 
> I am more interested in the actual thought process beyond that such as; “here’s a great company that makes great camera body – like us – let’s make lenses for them, too.” Was there a eureka moment that someone had and said “Since we can’t make the best cameras out there, why not we make the best lenses for the best cameras!?”



It seems you are new to digital photography...it's good you are here trying to learn.

Canon are the largest manufacturer of DSLR cameras in the world. Nikon and Sony are somewhere below that. Are you suggesting that a company that primarily makes lenses, only make lenses that will not fit on the cameras most people own? 

Sigma have made camera bodies since around 2000. They are all a crop sensor (originally 1.7x crop factor, now 1.5x). It only makes sense that they would make lenses for all "35mm" camera mounts, if they want to sell lenses. 

Their biggest mistake, was not making their own mount, an EF Canon mount. That would have helped them sell more of their own camera bodies!


----------



## willchao (Apr 3, 2014)

Sigma was and forever will be, a lens manufacturer

They started off as a third party lens company and why would they stop just because they introduced their own line of camera bodies?

Plus their bodies are very niche and unpopular

Microsoft just announced Office for iPad, you ought to ask them why they would bother introducing software for competitors when they have their own Surface tablets?


Why does Sony make CMOS for rival Nikons?

Why does Samsung make hardware for Apple who wants to sue them for everything they have?

etc...

the list can go on




but the point is



Sigma made lenses first, there's no Eureka moment 'because our bodies are bad', but rather, there are probably moments like 'We made a lot of money making third party lenses, let's start creating our own bodies yada yada'


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 3, 2014)

willchao said:


> Sigma was and forever will be, a lens manufacturer
> 
> They started off as a third party lens company and why would they stop just because they introduced their own line of camera bodies?
> 
> ...



Have you ever owned or tried a Sigma camera or body? Or are you just spouting bandwagon platitudes?


----------



## SoullessPolack (Apr 3, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Have you ever owned or tried a Sigma camera or body? Or are you just spouting bandwagon platitudes?



I have, and I can back him up on his statement. It's sad really, because they have the capability and potential of being a real big player in this arena, but unfortunately aren't.


----------



## jrista (Apr 3, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> Just out of curiosity thanks to a conversation in Marketing 101 - why would a company like Sigma create products for other brands, specifically lenses for Canon? I'm curious about the thought process that went into a decision by such a company to create accessories and devices for someone else's products since they already have their own line of camera bodies...



There have been a bunch of good answers from other people, so I'll take a different tack.

I'm not sure the question needs to be "philosophical"...I think it really just boils down to a question of mere survival. If it wasn't for the fact that Sigma made lenses for other brands, there probably wouldn't be a Sigma! ;-P I mean, when you get right down to it, Sigma's cameras have basically "nil" for market share. Of the total camera market, Canon, Nikon, and Sony command some 87-92% (depending on which years data you reference, from the last 10 years). On average, there has been about 11.5% "other" market share, and from that 11.5%, Sigma doesn't even come up in any searches, graphs, charts, or tables, indicating it's share of that share is only a few percent.

Without lenses, Sigma's ~1-2% market share in cameras wouldn't be enough to keep them alive. They wouldn't have any money for R&D of any kind, let alone for lenses. Sigma is a lens company first and foremost, and they have become a good lens company. They are a camera or general photography company a distant second. 

So, why does Sigma make lenses for other brands? Because *THAT *is their business: Lenses.  (Just to be clear, I'm not bashing Sigma for this. I applaud Sigma for moving beyond their prior status as an "Decent" lens manufacturer in years past, and have moved into the realm of "Great" lens manufacturer. It's just that, quite simply, that's what Sigma is...a lens manufacturer. They aren't really a full blown imaging company like Canon or Nikon...who's core businesses involve several lucrative divisions and large, broad R&D departments spanning multiple markets from medical to industrial to cinematography to photography. Sigma's primary business is lens design and manufacture...so it's no surprise they produce lenses for third parties as well as their own cameras.)


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> EricFiskCGD said:
> 
> 
> > Just out of curiosity thanks to a conversation in Marketing 101 - why would a company like Sigma create products for other brands, specifically lenses for Canon? I'm curious about the thought process that went into a decision by such a company to create accessories and devices for someone else's products since they already have their own line of camera bodies...
> ...


Says a lot about Foveon doesn't it. 
Some capitalist have surmised that DSLR bodies are loss leaders to sell lenses, which is assumed where all the profit margins are.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 4, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever owned or tried a Sigma camera or body? Or are you just spouting bandwagon platitudes?
> ...



I was talking to him, not you, but ok. What Sigma camera have you owned, and for how long, and how many images did you take with it?

So this is yet another Sigma bashing thread, big surprise. Yawn...


----------



## GaryJ (Apr 4, 2014)

No offence but when CarlTN starts attacking it all becomes somewhat Ho-Hum


----------



## EricFiskCGD (Apr 4, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> It seems you are new to digital photography...it's good you are here trying to learn.


You’re absolutely right – I’ve always had a P&S (Point and Shoot) Canon camera for all of my work just to take pictures of things to put in my graphic design work but recently I’ve become far more serious about my images and upgraded to the Rebel to work with different settings, higher resolutions, and long exposures. I came here to learn via advice from my professor – gravitate to where all the smart people hang out and interact with them with intelligent questions.

Thank you and everyone for merely participating on this forum and contributing to the education of newbies like me and others.


> Canon are the largest manufacturer of DSLR cameras in the world. Nikon and Sony are somewhere below that. Are you suggesting that a company that primarily makes lenses, only make lenses that will not fit on the cameras most people own?



Since I’ve had more time to think about this topic and read other people’s responses I think the title of this thread should have included the words “business model” like – Business Model & Philosophical question about Sigma Lenses - Why?”

Thanks to my marketing class I have my head full of questions about companies I like and admire (and some I’m interested in) and wonder out loud about their business plans. In fact I was actually thinking that if I could find enough information to cite in a bibliography I could do a report on Sigma’s original vision.

I’m not suggesting that Sigma do anything besides what they’re already doing – being a company that primary makes lenses for other people’s camera bodies and when I get enough scratch together I’ll be sure to buy one of their products.


jrista said:


> There have been a bunch of good answers from other people, so I'll take a different tack.
> 
> I'm not sure the question needs to be "philosophical"...I think it really just boils down to a question of mere survival. If it wasn't for the fact that Sigma made lenses for other brands, there probably wouldn't be a Sigma! ;-P I mean, when you get right down to it, Sigma's cameras have basically "nil" for market share. Of the total camera market, Canon, Nikon, and Sony command some 87-92% (depending on which years data you reference, from the last 10 years). On average, there has been about 11.5% "other" market share, and from that 11.5%, Sigma doesn't even come up in any searches, graphs, charts, or tables, indicating it's share of that share is only a few percent.
> 
> ...



And another great post. Like I said before – If I could rename this thread I would replace “Philosophy” with “Business Model.” From what I’ve read from almost all of the posts in this thread is that Sigma might have been better off remaining just a lens company because there seem to me more than a few who haven’t been happy with the Sigma bodies. 

The question I have for you folks now (besides “What do you think their original business model looked like?”) is there ONE must-have Sigma lens for Canon owners?



CarlTN said:


> So this is yet another Sigma bashing thread, big surprise. Yawn...



I hope that comment isn’t directed towards me – I have no opinion for nor against Sigma. I’m only interested in their original business model and how the founders of the company came to the conclusion of making lenses for other camera bodies out of pure academic curiosity.


----------



## kphoto99 (Apr 4, 2014)

I'm late to this thread, but I will give you a real car company example.

AC Delco (A GM company) makes car batteries for GM products, but also batteries for most other cars.

Batteries are bought by end customers, unlike examples of Sony sensors or Samsung LCD screens where the end customer does not have a choice what part is put into the final product.


----------



## EricFiskCGD (Apr 4, 2014)

Thanks for the reply – regardless of how late to the party you are.


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 4, 2014)

"I have no opinion for nor against Sigma. I’m only interested in their original business model and how the founders of the company came to the conclusion of making lenses for other camera bodies out of pure academic curiosity."



3rd party accessories is a standard business practice across all consumer product categories. This is not unique to Sigma or the lens/ photography market.

Where there is a market, there will be competition to get a piece of the pie.

You have the products/ accessories from the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) that set a price. Then 3rd party manufacturers can offer more "cost effective" alternatives, or fill holes in the market by offering unique products not offered by the OEM.

Sometimes a cheaper product isn't even inferior to the original, but they can undercut the MSRP because they have a smaller advertising/ marketing budget, inferior customer service, or are using "open market" parts, or they can operate on making a smaller margin, etc...

Sigma can also reduce the cost of production because they create products for multiple mounts. This increases their MOQ (minimum order quantity), which helps drive down manufacturing costs.

There is a lot more that goes into the cost of a product than just cost of goods.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 4, 2014)

Pentax makes bodies and lenses but they aren't really on our radar screen. 

It just depends on what you want to be. Do you want to make lenses and bodies or do you want to make systems. I think sigma is more the former than the latter.


----------



## Grumbaki (Apr 4, 2014)

despite all relevant comparison already mentioned, I think I'd point out the Sega story. Better make money with other companies than die trying to force your proprietary system on consumers. (before all the others 80's kids come down on me, I have to say I was a a Sega boy  )


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 4, 2014)

Grumbaki said:


> despite all relevant comparison already mentioned, I think I'd point out the Sega story. Better make money with other companies than die trying to force your proprietary system on consumers. (before all the others 80's kids come down on me, I have to say I was a a Sega boy  )



I liked the dream cast... but I want motivated to buy it. I went ps2. But I did buy crazy taxi and the other Sega related games... not all.. but some.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 4, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> EricFiskCGD said:
> 
> 
> > “To make money” was the most obvious answer and I thought that was already covered but I appreciate your take on that – why limit your production to only one camera system.
> ...



This is not unusual. It's probably unusual for a big company to not bleed into competitors products. Especially the way they buy smaller companies and sell of branches. When i worked for Lucent technologies we looked into buy a smaller company only to find out they were owned by a company we already owned. And we were their major supplier.

2nd, To borrow from your car theme, look at Lotus. They make cars, and they also provide engineering services for their clients including: Ford, Delorean, Vauxhaul, Dodge, Tesla, Austin Martin, Toyota, and I'm getting tired of typing them.

But this is far more common than you think. Sony sells cameras… and sensors to almost everybody who sells cameras. Microsoft sells Operating systems, and products for other operating systems. 

But I think the best thing about Sigma is the are the wolves nipping at the heals of Canon and Nikon. Canon and Nikon are spurred to innovate to stay ahead, and keep prices tolerable.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 4, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > It seems you are new to digital photography...it's good you are here trying to learn.
> ...



Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Sigma. I don't think the company began very recently, they have quite a history. Began in 1961.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_Corporation

I'm not sure there is "one" Sigma lens that every Canon owner must have. Why would there need to be one "must have" lens? Does any camera company produce one "must have" product? And if so, is that a positive attribute for that company? Or would that serve to highlight the company's weaknesses? 

Eric, I was not meaning to offend you. But it does seem your thread is meant to question Sigma's motives, implying you are wondering whether they should be in business or not. Naturally the snobs on this forum enjoy bashing third party lens manufacturers as often as they can, with Sigma being their number 1 target. Their thought process is "well, if you can afford to commit to photography, you buy the best, and in general Sigma are not the best camera company or lens manufacturer. Therefore, I'll get my jollies deriding Sigma and anyone who purchases its products, because I'm a forum troll overloaded with testosterone, and I need to point out the inferiority of others so that I can try to fill the hole of hate and inferiority in myself."

A thread like this, is kind of like a net, and the trolls, are the fishermen.

In my opinion, I wonder why more people don't bash Tamron? Their lenses, as a whole, are inferior to Sigma's. They don't even attempt to make cameras. Does that mean they are the inferior company?

Really, how dare Sigma manufacture cameras...the nerve of them. The nerve of anyone who would ever try one. They'd have to be a complete idiot, wouldn't they? What motivates them to be such an idiot?


----------



## EricFiskCGD (Apr 5, 2014)

Hey again, Carl;

My curiosity was spurred by a conversation in Marketing class and the question “Why do companies do what they do, besides for money?” In my experience, nobody does something just for the money. They do what they because they are very good at something *and* they want to make money while doing that.

I have no reason nor desire to trash Sigma – if anything I’m extremely curious about their products and I’m looking forward to trying one of them out in the near future. I’m also curious about the company’s history after reading their website “about” page and watching their promotional video. 

I’m not offended by your comments and I totally admit that I’m questioning Sigma’s motives but only in a positive way – how does one go about saying “I want to only make lenses for other people”? Or how does someone start a company specializing in a very specific aspect of the market; akin to why would Logitech want to build nothing but after-market keyboards and mice, or the origins of Wacom who makes tables. I’m curious about the origins of ventures and in this case I’m curious about the ‘origin story’ of Sigma.

I hope you didn't think I'm out to trash Sigma - not in the slightest bit. If so, amends.

As for my question about what’s the Sigma lens to have, you’re right that it’s an invalid question since it’s not specific enough… too general of a question. In the immediate future I need to do macro photography, closes ups of specific objects for graphic design projects like catalogs. What I really want to do is to astro-photography.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 5, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> Hey again, Carl;
> 
> My curiosity was spurred by a conversation in Marketing class and the question “Why do companies do what they do, besides for money?” In my experience, nobody does something just for the money. They do what they because they are very good at something *and* they want to make money while doing that.
> 
> ...



Those are different types of photography, but very likely what most other posters will suggest, is that you just buy the Canon 100L, and forget ever even trying Sigma lenses.

And again, it says Sigma started as a camera company, in the film days, 1961. This is just off the top of my head, but Post World War II Japan saw the influx of capitalism and free markets...the profit motive. Before this their markets were centered around pleasing their emperor, and his desire was to conquer the Pacific Rim countries. So it was an economy based on building the machines of war, since the early 20th century. America didn't like this, so we fought them...and they gave us a good excuse when they drew first blood attacking Pearl Harbor. Sigma's founders loved cameras and photography, so that was their motivation. I suspect that after a few years, they realized they couldn't compete with Canon and Nikon, so the focus turned more to just lenses (this likely became their primary focus by the late 1980's, if not before). As for their "foveon" sensor, it was designed by an American in California named "Merrill" in the late 1990's, hence they later named a recent generation of their cameras "Merrill".


----------



## EricFiskCGD (Apr 5, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> And again, it says Sigma started as a camera company, in the film days, 1961. This is just off the top of my head, but Post World War II Japan saw the influx of capitalism and free markets...the profit motive. Before this their markets were centered around pleasing their emperor, and his desire was to conquer the Pacific Rim countries. So it was an economy based on building the machines of war, since the early 20th century. America didn't like this, so we fought them...and they gave us a good excuse when they drew first blood attacking Pearl Harbor. Sigma's founders loved cameras and photography, so that was their motivation. I suspect that after a few years, they realized they couldn't compete with Canon and Nikon, so the focus turned more to just lenses (this likely became their primary focus by the late 1980's, if not before). As for their "foveon" sensor, it was designed by an American in California named "Merrill" in the late 1990's, hence they later named a recent generation of their cameras "Merrill".



Thanks! I think that's the background story I've been looking for.



> Those are different types of photography, but very likely what most other posters will suggest, is that you just buy the Canon 100L, and forget ever even trying Sigma lenses.



I don't rule anything out and Sigma will be welcome in my Camera bag in the near future.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 5, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > And again, it says Sigma started as a camera company, in the film days, 1961. This is just off the top of my head, but Post World War II Japan saw the influx of capitalism and free markets...the profit motive. Before this their markets were centered around pleasing their emperor, and his desire was to conquer the Pacific Rim countries. So it was an economy based on building the machines of war, since the early 20th century. America didn't like this, so we fought them...and they gave us a good excuse when they drew first blood attacking Pearl Harbor. Sigma's founders loved cameras and photography, so that was their motivation. I suspect that after a few years, they realized they couldn't compete with Canon and Nikon, so the focus turned more to just lenses (this likely became their primary focus by the late 1980's, if not before). As for their "foveon" sensor, it was designed by an American in California named "Merrill" in the late 1990's, hence they later named a recent generation of their cameras "Merrill".
> ...



Well, that is good, glad I could help...I've not seen your posts before today, so I welcome you to the forum!


----------



## AlanF (Apr 5, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> EricFiskCGD said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



According to Sigma's own official history, they started to produce their first lenses in 1961 but didn't produce their first SLR until 1976.

http://www.sigmauser.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=67


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 5, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> As for my question about what’s the Sigma lens to have, you’re right that it’s an invalid question since it’s not specific enough… too general of a question. In the immediate future I need to do macro photography, closes ups of specific objects for graphic design projects like catalogs. What I really want to do is to astro-photography.



Sigma (and Tamron) are companies in transition. For a long time (with a few exceptions) both have been known for fairly poor quality optics but at a great price.. Recently, both have been coming out with good to great optics at a good price.... The Sigma ART lenses and the Tamron 150-600 shocked everyone. For wide skies astronomy, I would be very tempted with the 35F1.4... It is supposed to be a great lens, although I have not heard anything about it from the astronomy crowd..

If you do decide to go into astrophotography, look at tracking mounts.... they will do more to help you than and camera or lens will...


----------



## EricFiskCGD (Apr 5, 2014)

AlanF said:


> According to Sigma's own official history, they started to produce their first lenses in 1961 but didn't produce their first SLR until 1976.
> 
> http://www.sigmauser.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=67



Wonderful link, Thanks, Alan! 



Don Haines said:


> Sigma (and Tamron) are companies in transition. For a long time (with a few exceptions) both have been known for fairly poor quality optics but at a great price.. Recently, both have been coming out with good to great optics at a good price.... The Sigma ART lenses and the Tamron 150-600 shocked everyone. For wide skies astronomy, I would be very tempted with the 35F1.4... It is supposed to be a great lens, although I have not heard anything about it from the astronomy crowd..



Again, more great lenses to put on my Amazon wish-list. 



> If you do decide to go into astrophotography, look at tracking mounts.... they will do more to help you than and camera or lens will...



There's a thread here that I've been following that's more of an education on the topic that I hope to join in after I get some deep sky images under my belt.


----------

