Sigma sucks

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 end

Archive 2008 · Sigma sucks

goldvertigo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · Sigma sucks

Hello all,
Had the change to try a Canon 24-105L instead of my own Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX.
According to several reviews and tests the Sigma should be not less sharp then the Canon. Because i didnot find the Sigma very good, it was send back to Sigma and they say it was calibrated again, so it must be good.

http://picasaweb.google.com/goldvertigo/PhotoS/photo#5236901491227848482
Here u see a picture of a car near the store with both lenses...

(If the canon was a 24-105/2.8 IS, i bought it immediately!!!)

Q: are the so many 'bad copys' of Sigma lenses or is it me having bad luck again?

ps. its a 100% crop

Edited by goldvertigo on Aug 21, 2008 at 02:12 PM GMT

Edited on Aug 21, 2008 at 01:12 PM

Aug 21, 2008 at 09:47 AM

goldvertigo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · Sigma sucks

btw. left is the Sigma, right the Canon; Sigma @28mm 4.0 Canon@24mm 4.0
standard sharpening...

Aug 21, 2008 at 09:49 AM

simon_says
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Sigma sucks

Your lens appears to be exceptionally bad. I think a lot of people have good experiences with that lens, and it's unusual for it to be so poor (your sample image is really blurry - especially if it's already stopped down too!). There's clearly something wrong. I think you're just unlucky and might have a bad copy. Are you sure it was properly calibrated?

Edited by simon_says on Aug 21, 2008 at 04:57 AM GMT

Edited on Aug 21, 2008 at 09:57 AM

Aug 21, 2008 at 09:56 AM

onebear
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · Sigma sucks

Would be nice to know the exif of these pics.. Before commenting them further.

Aug 21, 2008 at 09:56 AM

Juan55
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · Sigma sucks

simon_says wrote:
Your lens appears to be exceptionally bad. I think a lot of people have good experiences with that lens, and it's unusual for it to be so poor (your sample image is really blurry - especially if it's already stopped down too!). There's clearly something wrong. I think you're just unlucky and might have a bad copy. Are you sure it was properly calibrated?

Edited by simon_says on Aug 21, 2008 at 04:57 AM GMT

+1

I have the 24-70 f/2,8 EX DG and performs pretty good ...

... actually I have the Canon 24-70 f/2,8 L too and I did a comparison between them, and I can tell you that the Sigma for the price performs very well.(only in the 24-28 mm range open diaphragm (f/2,8 mainly -f/4) the Canon outperforms the Sigma ... but the Canon costs 3 times more !!

But never such a difference as you have ... it´s blurry

Edited on Aug 21, 2008 at 10:11 AM

Aug 21, 2008 at 10:08 AM

watkinssr
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · Sigma sucks

Bigfoot wasn't any where near the car when you took that was he?

Aug 21, 2008 at 10:26 AM

goldvertigo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · Sigma sucks

U mean if i used a tripod? shutterspeeds 1/1000... @28 and 24mm..

Aug 21, 2008 at 10:53 AM

watkinssr
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Sigma sucks

bigfoot will make any image blurry, tripod or not.....Unless he's frozen.

Aug 21, 2008 at 11:08 AM

sivrajbm
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · Sigma sucks

Mighty Broad statement maybe just YOURS sucks. I know people with that lens and it is stellar.

Aug 21, 2008 at 12:43 PM

luant16
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · Sigma sucks

u can try ur luck with tamron 28-75, i heard its pretty sharp, or if u have spare money then just straight go to 24-70L

Aug 21, 2008 at 12:48 PM

sav0320
Offline
Account Locked

p.1 #11 · Sigma sucks

sivrajbm wrote:
Mighty Broad statement maybe just YOURS sucks. I know people with that lens and it is stellar.

Well, replying with statements of "I know someone who does/has something" is just as absurd.

My experiences with Sigma and Tamron...they do suck. Buy Canon.

Aug 21, 2008 at 12:50 PM

tutumon
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · Sigma sucks

dcains wrote:

You're an idiot for posting such a thread.

Come on man...let's not get personal and agree to disagree without name calling.

Aug 21, 2008 at 01:07 PM

michael49
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · Sigma sucks

I'm sure there are bad copies out there, but my Sigma (17-70) was a great lens...

Edited on Aug 21, 2008 at 02:05 PM

Aug 21, 2008 at 02:03 PM

vilimo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · Sigma sucks

By any chance you have eliminated the user error for both photos?

Aug 21, 2008 at 02:56 PM

Ed Peters
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · Sigma sucks

Aug 21, 2008 at 02:56 PM

Dark_
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · Sigma sucks

Just bad luck i would say. I have owned three of their lenses and no issues so far with the two i still have (have the 30 f/1.4 and 150-500 OS, gave a friend my 55-200 as I upgraded to the 2.8 IS 70-200). If the dealer is local just go back and exchange the lens for another one, if the dealer is any good that shouldn't be an issue.

Aug 21, 2008 at 03:02 PM

goldvertigo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · Sigma sucks

I have the Sigma 24-70 and find it to be an outstanding lens: I don't have any complaints about focus or image quality. Me thinks you have a bad lens (or maybe you're just a bad picture taker?), either way: Sigma does not "suck"!!!

I chose the Sigma 28-70 instead of the 24-70 because the 28 should be better...
Good for you that your copy is perfect. I hate it that you cant rely on what you buy!
Ok, for what i read Canon sucks too!!!! also way tooo many bad copy's.
but the 24-105 i tested outside the store is no comparision to the Sigma i own

Edited on Aug 21, 2008 at 03:09 PM

Aug 21, 2008 at 03:07 PM

jcw1982
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · Sigma sucks

If the picture is great----give credit to the photographer.

If the picture is bad---blame the equipment. (at least I alays do

Aug 21, 2008 at 03:14 PM

JohnLL
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · Sigma sucks

No doubt you can get bad copies of any make of lens. I wonder if the issue is the optics or the focusing. AF could be off, even if it has been "recalibrated". See if you can do better with MF.

I have the following Sigma lenses (besides some Canons) 12-24, 15 (fisheye), 70-200, 100-300, 80-400. The 70-200 occasionally locks up my cameras, and will be going for service soon. The 80-400 has non-HSM AF which is rather slow. Other than that these are all very good lenses, especially for the price.

Aug 21, 2008 at 04:34 PM

bpark42
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · Sigma sucks

Wow, a lot of hostility here.

Fine, maybe saying Sigma sucks is going beyond the issue at hand, but his lens is clearly having problems and he's frustrated. So what? Opinions are formed by subjective experience, and his is clearly telling him that Sigma sucks...

Anyhow, my personal experience says Sigma has some great lenses, but their quality control is definitely not the best. I am sure plenty of people have not experienced QC problems, but I certainly have, and reading this forums will find many others that have as well.

To the OP, that lens has a good reputation, and I would definitely say you have a bad copy there no matter what they are saying. That side by side is a pretty basic test in a well lit situation, so there is no real reason for the Sigma shot to be that far off.

Aug 21, 2008 at 04:42 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end