Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by flavin, Nov 28, 2004.
I got one cuz it was a good price.
It depends on which one you get, some are good and some not so good.
The Sigma 12-24 is much better than the Nikon 12-24.
I buy a lot film from Wolf Camera and I have it developed there and they have Sigma lenses but they rename them Quantaray for some reason... well thats atleast what the sales person said.
This is correct... Wolf Camera (aka Ritz Camera) do rename Sigma lenses and sell them as their own. I have been pleased with my Sigma and Quantaray lenses - or at least for price/perfomance.
Quantaray lenses are consumer lenses and are rebranded I guess?
Most of Sigma's "pro" line (the EX lenses) are pretty good for the price. I consider them gems They're not as GREAT as Canon L glass, but for 1/2 the price (sometimes more) they're bargains for the quality they produce. If you're not shooting professionally or bringing in a lot of cash, they are a really good alternative.
The Sigma 12-24mm EX is GREAT. It has low barrel distortion on the wide end and some people say it has almost equal sharpness to a 17-40L =X
I have the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 and its sharper than any Canon 20mm f/2.8 I've ever seen (1.8 vs 2.8 -_-;
The Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 is pretty good. Its a little less sharp than the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8, but both are really sharp already. The price on these has gone up over the last year though as people are realizing their value.
Sigma's long end stuff is pretty nice too. The 120-300mm f/2.8 has insane range at a constant apature. The 50-500mm or BIGMA is a 10x zoom that is pretty damn sharp between 100-400 and decent at the wide/long ends.
My only gripe with Sigma lenses is that they don't utilize their HSM or faster/quieter focusing motors in all of their lenses. A LOT of their lenses are pretty good quality for the money you spend on it though (despite what canon elitists will say)