moley 115 Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 canon or sigma ? is there much difference , cheers Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MuttleMcTuttle 21 Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 Yes. What lens are you thinking of? I wouldn't buy anything other than Canon... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
moley 115 Posted July 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 Yes. What lens are you thinking of? I wouldn't buy anything other than Canon... sigma 50-500mm seccy hand or canon 100-400 new , sigma also do a 2x adaptor was looking to give that a try too Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bob.243 9,854 Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 I have a Sigma on my Nikon, and I can't fault it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Marksman 934 Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 sigma are good quality lenses, I have a couple....the 10-20mm and the 70-300mm The 70-300 does go soft at the edges at it's full length, but as will all lenses you get what you pay for Darryl Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MuttleMcTuttle 21 Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 Yes. What lens are you thinking of? I wouldn't buy anything other than Canon... sigma 50-500mm seccy hand or canon 100-400 new , sigma also do a 2x adaptor was looking to give that a try too The Sigma 50-500 does have a massive range, and i think they also do a 150-500 which I've heard gives slightly better quality results. I've just got the Canon 100-400, and it's a very well built piece of kit, and I actually quite like the push-pull zoom. Haven't had time to use it properly yet though Teleconverters are okay, but you generally lose a stop or two and they can slow the autocus down (if it will still work with an extender, which it may not depending on the lens spec) Agree with Darryl in that you get what you pay for - I had a couple of Sigma lenses but I found they suffered from terrible lens flare and were slow and noisy when focusing. The optics aren't bad, but they can be variable, whereas Canon lenses, certainly in the L range, seem to be much more consistent and you can expect quality images at all lengths and apertures (or you take it back to the shop) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PINNACLE 2,297 Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I was debating buying the Sigma150-500 or Canon but was talked out of them both by someone in Jessops and told to get a Tamron 200-500. Not an answer but a third choice, I have yet to try the Tamron but both the others both seem excellent when tried out in a shop. I use a Tamron 17-270 at present, in fact that is all I ever use and it is excellent, light, fast, and can take some good shots in the right hands so would not hesitate getting another Quote Link to post Share on other sites
J Darcy 5,871 Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I have owned a sigma 50-500. My advice is dont buy it. I have also used the canon 100-400. Its not a bad lense. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
moley 115 Posted July 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I have owned a sigma 50-500. My advice is dont buy it. I have also used the canon 100-400. Its not a bad lense. made my mind up going for the canon , just looking for the best place to buy now , not a cheap bit of kit, but its only money , thanks for your help Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mattydski 560 Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 Some of the Sigma pro stuff (EX) is good, some is bad. The 70-200 F2.8 EX is exceptional, the 35-70 F2.8 EX is very poor. If you can afford it...buy canon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MuttleMcTuttle 21 Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I have owned a sigma 50-500. My advice is dont buy it. I have also used the canon 100-400. Its not a bad lense. made my mind up going for the canon , just looking for the best place to buy now , not a cheap bit of kit, but its only money , thanks for your help I gave mine a bit of a workout today and I'm impressed, and it takes something to impress me! I don't think you'll regret it Martin's camera shop are one of the cheapest at the moment, but I don't know if they have stock. It's a very popular lens, and most shops seem to be permanently out of stock. The good news is that they hold their price really well, so if you really can't get on with it it will always have a good resale value, unlike the sigma... But I'm sure you'll love it Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Romany 1,065 Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 I would go for Canon mate, there is quite a price difference too on a lot of the lenses, Canon lenses sometimes being twice the price of the Sigma, but not twice as good Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dawn B 212 Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 (edited) In use both, I have a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 and a Sigma 120-400mm OS HSM too. I also have a F/2.5 Canon and a 28-135mm IS Canon. Im pleased with all of them, it depends on your budget really. The 120-400mm Sigma came out on top of all lenses in that range. I did use the 100-400mm Canon and I liked it a lot, but didnt like the pull/push zoom. Edited July 11, 2010 by Dawn B Quote Link to post Share on other sites
byron 1,279 Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 (edited) I have owned a sigma 50-500. My advice is dont buy it. I have also used the canon 100-400. Its not a bad lense. made my mind up going for the canon , just looking for the best place to buy now , not a cheap bit of kit, but its only money , thanks for your help google [kerso] great bloke to deal with, AND cheaper than buying from japan[import duties etc] forgot to add dont buy of his ebay site email him and you will save even more pounds.. Edited July 11, 2010 by byron Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.