New Lens!

[UncleGrumpy]

No comparison between the L series and any sigma I've used. I got a bargain with my lens.. only paid £300 for it.

I hate you

 

[RyanD]

No comparison between the L series and any sigma I've used. I got a bargain with my lens.. only paid £300 for it.

Out of all of the sigmas and L glass ive used Id say sigma are producing some very good glass. Ok so my 10-20 wont come near my 16-35 L but then my 300 prime is sharper and focuses better than my 70-200. Then theres the sigma 120-300 that is a very good and very popular piece of glass, id take that over a canon 100-400 any day. People imo get to hung up on L glass at times i feel.

One of the best things about L glass is that it holds it's value so well. Buy a lens, try it out and sell it as no loss if you don't like it. Sigma and the standard EF(s) can't really compete in that respect.

L glass does hold value well, although the sudden 30% price increases in march 2009 helped that, I mean my 70-200 was circa 1-1.2k not long ago then last year I saw it selling for £1500

 

[dunganick]

To Further RyanD's post, I have owned 3 L series lenses and two were faulty. My Sigma EX has been spot on over the 2 yrs ive had it, plus it comes with a 3 yr warranty and the amazing customer service Sigma (themselves) offer compared to the rubbish service Canon offer by palming you off on 3rd parties.

Sigma gets my vote for the money.

 

[RyanD]

Sigma gets my vote for the money.

Unless its a 300/400 2.8 IS L on a 1d body

 

[GeordieClioDriver]

Unless its a 300/400 2.8 IS L on a 1d body

The man speaks the truth, I've used the 300 2.8on my 1D2 body and its so fast its unreal! I only have the F4 version which is fast but.. Still want that 2.8!!

 

[RyanD]

The man speaks the truth, I've used the 300 2.8on my 1D2 body and its so fast its unreal! I only have the F4 version which is fast but.. Still want that 2.8!!

seriously if you dont need IS.

The sigma 300 2.8 is a steal, can pick them up second hand for under 1k, a second hand 300 2.8 IS L is still over 3k second hand

 

[GeordieClioDriver]

Until i get the chance to use one i dont rate them, iv used a few sigma lenses nd havnt been impressed so far

One lens I think thats underated is the canon 400 5.6 .. great lens for wildlife photography! My next purchase and can be had for under 800 second hand.

 

[Ian]

Could've had one for £700 Barry - bit too late though!

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=213577

 

[GeordieClioDriver]

I know! I've been watching... Works bonus is comin in may... may grab one then or a 1.4xtc for now!

 

[dunganick]

For what its worth, i have owned a Canon 300 f2.8 (non IS... im still a student) and the AF was no faster than even my Sigma 100-300 F4. The build was much more convincing than the Sigma.

I have tried 2x now to replace my Sigma with 'faster' lenses, as yet i've not found a better lens, by Sigma or Canon.

The 120-300 is meant to be better than the Sigma 300 but i didnt like the one i had briefly and has been returned to purchase a new toy that should be here tomorrow

 

[RyanD]

The 120-300 is meant to be better than the Sigma 300 but i didnt like the one i had briefly and has been returned to purchase a new toy that should be here tomorrow

The 300 is an older model, the 120-300 is meant to be a smidge sharper, but side by side shooting with one when we did a quick test there was no real difference even when massively pixel pinching.

Until i get the chance to use one i dont rate them, iv used a few sigma lenses nd havnt been impressed so far

One lens I think thats underated is the canon 400 5.6 .. great lens for wildlife photography! My next purchase and can be had for under 800 second hand.

Honestly dont bin off the 300 idea if you need 2.8 on a budget. Buy second hand locally and test it out and you can get a steal.

Even with a 2x TC which isnt great fo AF speed/IQ through the hoorid fence at druids this is still nicely sharp, and was like lighting on the AF

 

[dunganick]

The model i bought last week had rubbish AF accuracy, it was admittedly used, but i wasn't impressed. Albeit i am difficult to please, i've returned more lenses than i've kept.

I had a quick go with a Sigma 300 2.8 and i was impressed, but i would need to use it for a race meeting to decide.

This is an example of my Sigma 100-300 F4 at Druids and why i cant replace it currently. Taken on a 40d with a slight crop i would think.

 

[Cup_Phil]

The 100-400s a bit of a dog, which is why many people have been moaning that its needed an upgrade for years, now canon have finally brought out a replacement for the old 70-200 2.8 IS L they 100-400 many feel needs to be next on the list.

The 24-105 isnt great either if you talk to alot of owners, inconsistent focussing, colours off at times, soft in the corners etc...

Theyre better than obviously cheap stuff but there are better L glass out there which really will blow your mind if you really rate them.

although IMO alot of people are hung up on L glass for things when they dont need to be though, one of the main things about L glass is the weather sealing (some thats only with a filter attached though) yet people hang them off bodies which are not sealed, so they are paying the premium for something which they are not getting the most out of. Sigma if their quality control would only sort out really do produce some wicked glass for a fraction of the price for those not needing some of the extra features.

But then thats another topic for discussion lol

Sort of fully agree LOL

The sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM is a stonking lens - and in some tests is sharper than the canon 24-70L BUT.. and its a big BUT.. as with all sigma stuff it's such a lottery as to wether you get a good one or a crap one
So many front/back focus issues

Taking that into consideration I think the L stuff is the only way to go with Canon really - as I've had a fair few non-L lenses and they've all been too soft for me

70-200mm is an awesome lens, the only other one I've used that comes close is the 50mm f/1.4, which I also rate very highly. I'm not sure whether to get a 24-70mm or stick to primes, probably end up borrowing one for a bit to try it out.

My Sigma 24-70mm doesn't seem to be a patch on the 70-200mm, although I've not used it much tbh.

The 70-200mm does actually bizarrely seem even sharper than the 24-70. It's definatly my next lens that I'm buying

I've got the 50mm f1.4 as well and I love it so much - but I find prime's very restrictive when doing non-planned shoots

 

[RyanD]

Sort of fully agree LOL

The sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM is a stonking lens - and in some tests is sharper than the canon 24-70L BUT.. and its a big BUT.. as with all sigma stuff it's such a lottery as to wether you get a good one or a crap one
So many front/back focus issues

Taking that into consideration I think the L stuff is the only way to go with Canon really - as I've had a fair few non-L lenses and they've all been too soft

Sigmas quality control is a heck of alot better than it was, most of the cheap crappy lenses will allways be naff its why the mass maret love them though for the ££££. Their EX range is getting stronger and stronger all the time.

Not all canons non L range are dogs either, but when people bang on about the crappy 1.8 50mm and 18-55 like they are wonders of the modern universe I do sometimes wonder what crack was in the pipe they were smoking that day

What many people forget is that the L range isnt just optics, its the build and weather sealing, the weather sealing being one of the more important ones. They do have issues though, look at the mki 16-35L was a bit of a dog of a lens tbh, thankfully the mkII doesnt have half of the issues as the old model though.

Most lenses need stopping down slightly to, so the issue is if you have slow glass from a start stopping down immediately gives you issues, stopping down to F4 from a 2.8 glass is easy but from one of the 5.6cheap lenses to F8 you immediately are touching cloth and really limit yourself in terms of some of the 'arty DOF' stuff people are obsessed with.

*turns geek mode off*

 

[Cup_Phil]

LOL yeah the build quality won it for me on the 24-70 canon/sigma argument

I got my second hand 24-70L for about the same price as a new sigma 24-70mm 2.8 HSM - but I felt it would last longer