Canon L versus Sigma EX, any true in what George Preddy writes?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by eatmorepies, May 19, 2005.

  1. eatmorepies

    eatmorepies Guest

    He writes that the Sigma are as good as or better than Canon L lenses.
    Anyone have any experience of using both makes?

    John
    eatmorepies, May 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "eatmorepies" <> wrote in message
    news:428ccb31$...
    > He writes that the Sigma are as good as or better than Canon L lenses.
    > Anyone have any experience of using both makes?
    >
    > John


    Yes - I have 2 A3+ glossy film prints from images shot about a year ago on
    my 10D. One was taken with my EF 135 f2L, and the other was shot with my
    Sigma 17-35 EX HSM (original version, and re-chipped by Sigma UK). There is
    no difference in sharpness between this pair of shots - both are excellent
    and can be critically examined close up.
    However, six months earlier I was in despair about the Sigma zoom.
    Performance was truly awful. Then I got my 10D's AF calibrated and the lens
    which appeared to benefit most from this was the Sigma (and my EF 50 f1.4 at
    full aperture, no more coloured fringes). I was pleasantly surprised with
    the improvement on the Sigma. Wish I knew what was going on.

    An earlier Sigma lens, the APO 500 f7.2 is too old to work on my 10D, but is
    excellent on my EOS3.

    --
    M Stewart
    Milton Keynes, UK
    http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
    Malcolm Stewart, May 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "eatmorepies" <> wrote in
    news:428ccb31$:

    > He writes that the Sigma are as good as or better than Canon L
    > lenses.


    Please don't misquote me. I didn't say ALL Sigma lenses were better
    than Canon L glass. I said that Sigma EX pro series lenses were
    slightly better and much less expensive. Of course, the Sigma
    consumer lenses blow away the entry level Canon glass too.

    > Anyone have any experience of using both makes?


    I do. Go with the Sigma EX pro series if you want the very best
    optics available.
    George Preddy, May 19, 2005
    #3
  4. "Malcolm Stewart" <> wrote
    in news:d6ik10$i6b$:

    > "eatmorepies" <> wrote in message
    > news:428ccb31$...
    >> He writes that the Sigma are as good as or better than Canon L
    >> lenses. Anyone have any experience of using both makes?
    >>
    >> John

    >
    > Yes - I have 2 A3+ glossy film prints from images shot about a
    > year ago on my 10D. One was taken with my EF 135 f2L, and the
    > other was shot with my Sigma 17-35 EX HSM (original version, and
    > re-chipped by Sigma UK). There is no difference in sharpness
    > between this pair of shots - both are excellent and can be
    > critically examined close up. However, six months earlier I was in
    > despair about the Sigma zoom. Performance was truly awful. Then I
    > got my 10D's AF calibrated and the lens which appeared to benefit
    > most from this was the Sigma (and my EF 50 f1.4 at full aperture,
    > no more coloured fringes). I was pleasantly surprised with the
    > improvement on the Sigma.


    Indeed. The Sigma EX pro series lenses are certainly on par, and
    actually slightly better than Canon L according to the results of my
    extensive testing. Best of all, the price is right.
    George Preddy, May 19, 2005
    #4
  5. eatmorepies

    SimonLW Guest

    "eatmorepies" <> wrote in message
    news:428ccb31$...
    > He writes that the Sigma are as good as or better than Canon L lenses.
    > Anyone have any experience of using both makes?
    >
    > John
    >
    >

    I'll assume you don't know about Preddy.
    Preddy is a TROLL. Trolls feed on REPLY energy. Why people are sucked in to
    his posts, I'll never know. I'm not sure the GP post earlier IS GP or some
    other disruptor.

    Anyhow, I've owned Sigma lenses before and was pleased with the performance.
    Sigma's 70-300 APO of years past performed similar to Canon's 75-300 lens,
    but the Canon suffered from more color fringing. My Sigma 300mm f/4 APO
    macro was just as good as my Canon 300mm f/4 IS L, but IS is more useful. I
    also had a Sigma 50mm macro that was very good too.

    Some people may recall the SIGnificant MAlfunction website where people
    seemed happy with the optical performance of their Sigma lens, but upset
    that the lens fell apart in their hands. I don't know if this is still an
    issue, but the ones I had held up fine. Another gotcha is compatibility with
    newer Canon bodies. You could send the lens to Sigma for a "rechip" provided
    the lens is not too old. Current Sigma lenses sold are compatible with
    current bodies. I don't know if this will be an issue in the future.

    If possible. shoot both lenses and decide on what you like best.
    -S
    SimonLW, May 19, 2005
    #5
  6. eatmorepies

    Dirty Harry Guest

    Dirty Harry, May 19, 2005
    #6
  7. eatmorepies

    Ryadia@home Guest

    "Malcolm Stewart" <> wrote in
    message news:d6ik10$i6b$...

    > --
    > M Stewart
    > Milton Keynes, UK
    > http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
    >
    >

    George Preddy is an American war hero and one time great aviator who does
    not deserver to be impersonated by a wanna-be, almost-did, reject like this
    idiot. The numb nutted kook who uses his name for Usenet posts is a pathetic
    reject of society who has done Sigma more harm with his fanatical ravings
    than any lens or camera they ever made has done. Who ever gave him back his
    computer ought to go see a counsellor.

    Having said that... Sigma do make some lenses which no one can distinguish
    the pictures they take from those taken with a genuine camera brand lens.
    They are not a pinch on Canon lenses for quality of manufacturer and they
    'hunt' back and forth to find the focus point when a true "L" series lens
    just goes to the point of focus.

    Sigma lenses have noisier motors than a USM lens and the focus motor on
    their 100 ~300 EX lens is substantially slower to focus than a USM powered
    lens. It is totally unacceptable to me to have paid out $3700 for a lens
    claimed and promoted as being a top of the range "Professional" lens and
    have it jam it's zoom ring, 80 Klm into the bush. It is even worse to
    discover the importer has no stock of the lenses to replace it with and have
    to send it to Hong Kong for repair. I'm talking about the 120 ~ 300 f2.8
    with a front element so large, it's almost impossible to find any filters
    for it. Recalled by Sigma to fix the very same problem mine had... No one
    bothered to inform the Aussies.

    If you want a cheap lens which can take sharp pictures, DG EX HSM are the
    only ones likely to suit. If you want a lens that does all that but focuses
    faster, runs quieter and pulls focus in lower light, buy the Canon USM or
    'L' series. None of them are as good as Nikon lenses but then Nikon are
    still playing with the digital fantasy.

    Douglas
    Ryadia@home, May 19, 2005
    #7
  8. "eatmorepies" <> wrote in message
    news:428ccb31$...
    > He writes that the Sigma are as good as or better than Canon L lenses.
    > Anyone have any experience of using both makes?


    The Sigma EX lenses are between the Canon L series, and Canon amateur
    series, in terms of optical performance. The problem with Sigma lenses has
    always been compatibility and mechanical performance. The EX lenses will
    work with existing Canon bodies, at the time the lens is new, but with newer
    bodies the lens often has to be rechipped to work.

    Save your money for the Canon lens. In the long run, you will regret not
    buying the Canon lens. Also, if you ever want to sell your lens, the Canon
    lenses have very good resale value, 80% is common, while the Sigma lenses
    have very poor resale value.

    In case you aren't familiar with "Preddy" his statements on Sigma need to be
    taken with thousands of pounds of salt.
    Steven M. Scharf, May 19, 2005
    #8
  9. eatmorepies

    eatmorepies Guest


    >
    > If you want a cheap lens which can take sharp pictures, DG EX HSM are the
    > only ones likely to suit. If you want a lens that does all that but

    focuses
    > faster, runs quieter and pulls focus in lower light, buy the Canon USM or
    > 'L' series. None of them are as good as Nikon lenses but then Nikon are
    > still playing with the digital fantasy.
    >
    > Douglas


    So you won't save me any money. I bought my first L lens 2 weeks ago and was
    amazed. Now I have to buy 2 or 3 more to complete the set. I imagined I
    might be clutching at straws when GP suggested Sigma as the way forward. L
    it is now and ever shall be.

    John
    eatmorepies, May 19, 2005
    #9
  10. eatmorepies

    Skip M Guest

    "eatmorepies" <> wrote in message
    news:428ccb31$...
    > He writes that the Sigma are as good as or better than Canon L lenses.
    > Anyone have any experience of using both makes?
    >
    > John
    >
    >


    The only comparable lenses I've used from both are the 17-35 f2.8 EX HSM
    Sigma, the 17-35 f2.8 L USM and the 16-35 f2.8 L USM Canons. The Sigma came
    close to the quality of the older 17-35 Canon, certainly close enough to
    obviate the need to spend $900 more for the Canon. BUT! Canon replaced
    that lens with the current 16-35 f2.8, which is a far better lens than
    either the older Canon or the 17-35 Sigma. I still have the Sigma, but the
    16-35 is on the list to buy next month, after prime wedding season has paid
    for it, a 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, May 20, 2005
    #10
  11. eatmorepies

    Mark² Guest

    "eatmorepies" <> wrote in message
    news:428ccb31$...
    > He writes that the Sigma are as good as or better than Canon L lenses.
    > Anyone have any experience of using both makes?
    >
    > John


    George is a seriously disturbed individual who has made a hobby of spreading
    his idiocy on this and other forums for several years now. You would do
    well to ALWAYS ignore any advice or information that comes via George.
    Mark², May 20, 2005
    #11
  12. eatmorepies

    Ben Cramer Guest

    "eatmorepies" <> wrote in message
    news:428ccb31$...
    > He writes that the Sigma are as good as or better than Canon L lenses.
    > Anyone have any experience of using both makes?
    >
    > John
    >
    >


    I have certainly found the Sigma 80-400 OS to be a very capable lens. It is
    far and away a better lens than my Canon 28-300L
    Ben Cramer, May 20, 2005
    #12
  13. "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    news:SM7je.4376$...
    >
    > In case you aren't familiar with "Preddy" his statements on Sigma need to
    > be
    > taken with thousands of pounds of salt.


    And yours are to be taken with thousands of more pounds.
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, May 20, 2005
    #13
  14. In article
    <428dae5c$0$250$.
    au>, Ben Cramer <> wrote:

    > I have certainly found the Sigma 80-400 OS to be a very capable lens. It is
    > far and away a better lens than my Canon 28-300L


    Guess you haven't set your standards very high.
    Randall Ainsworth, May 20, 2005
    #14
  15. eatmorepies

    Zed Pobre Guest

    eatmorepies <> wrote:
    >
    > He writes that the Sigma are as good as or better than Canon L lenses.
    > Anyone have any experience of using both makes?


    I own or have used a fair amount of Canon glass (10-22 EF-S, 17-85
    f/4-5.6 EF-S IS, 70-200 f/2.8 EF IS L, 75-300 f/4-5.6 EF IS, 85 f/1.8
    EF), and own one Sigma 28-200 that was quite happy with throughout its
    life (though I don't use it anymore), and I've been reading a lot of
    Sigma and Canon reviews fairly carefully.

    The ultra-short version is that Sigma does make lenses that can
    outperform equivalent Canon L-series lenses... and have a 50%
    defective lens rate on most of them. Be prepared to test and return.

    Also, not many Sigma lenses have HSM (their equivalent to USM, which
    is now standard on just about every Canon lens), and only one has OS
    (the equivalent of Canon IS). This means that most of their lenses
    will focus slowly and noisily, and they tend to have very stiff zoom
    rings to top it off. Also, they don't make lenses to match everything
    in the Canon lineup (there's no equivalent to my Canon 85mm f/1.8, for
    instance, and I doubt they could match the sharpness if they did,
    since that lens at f/2.8 has the sharpness of God's razor).

    On the other hand, they range between around 40% to 60% of the price
    of equivalent Canon lenses, and if you can get a good one, sharpness
    is as good as or better than Canon. The Sigma 80-400 EX OS is getting
    rave reviews from every single source I can find, with the only
    complaints being the lack of HSM/USM, stiff zoom ring, and inverted
    zoom ring/focus ring positions from what most people are used to.

    That doesn't mean that George Preddy isn't a net kook, however (he
    certainly comes off that way). I advise checking the user reviews at
    www.fredmiranda.com as a good starting point, and checking for others
    via Google before making any buying decisions.

    --
    Zed Pobre <> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <>
    PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
    Zed Pobre, May 20, 2005
    #15
  16. eatmorepies

    Guest

    In message <428cd635$>,
    "SimonLW" <> wrote:

    >Current Sigma lenses sold are compatible with
    >current bodies. I don't know if this will be an issue in the future.


    At some point they're bound to figure out the full EOS spec. It can't
    be infinite in scope.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , May 21, 2005
    #16
  17. eatmorepies

    Guest

    In message <200520050612520778%>,
    Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:

    >In article
    ><428dae5c$0$250$.
    >au>, Ben Cramer <> wrote:


    >> I have certainly found the Sigma 80-400 OS to be a very capable lens. It is
    >> far and away a better lens than my Canon 28-300L


    >Guess you haven't set your standards very high.


    He didn't; his standard was the Canon 28-300L, which is a very
    low-quality lens, optically.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , May 21, 2005
    #17
  18. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <428cd635$>,
    > "SimonLW" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Current Sigma lenses sold are compatible with
    >>current bodies. I don't know if this will be an issue in the future.

    >
    > At some point they're bound to figure out the full EOS spec. It
    > can't
    > be infinite in scope.


    Although that might be true, I'd figure Sigma rather sells a new lens
    than rechip an old one. There is 'some' benefit to incompatibility
    (reputation for reliability and quality is another issue).

    Bart
    Bart van der Wolf, May 21, 2005
    #18
  19. eatmorepies

    Zed Pobre Guest

    Dirty Harry <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > "eatmorepies" <> wrote in message
    > news:428ccb31$...
    >> He writes that the Sigma are as good as or better than Canon L lenses.
    >> Anyone have any experience of using both makes?
    >>
    >> John

    >
    > This lens seems to be on par with the 100-400L IS,
    > http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=223&sort=7&cat=37&page=2 trying to decide which to grab...comments?


    Haven't used either the Canon 100-400L or the Sigma 80-400 personally,
    yet, but the reviews (at Fred Miranda's and elsewhere) seem to break
    down the comparisons like this:

    Canon 100-400 advantages:
    * Half a pound lighter
    * Push-pull zoom is faster than ring
    * White casing, for those that prefer it
    * USM (faster and quieter focusing)
    * Focus ring is in the usual, expected place
    * Quality is somewhat more consistent.

    Sigma 80-400 advantages
    * Ring zoom doesn't suck as much dust as push-pull
    * $400 cheaper
    * Black casing, for those that prefer it
    * Zoom lock
    * Better focal length match to common zoom ranges like 24-70 or 17-85.

    Notable Sigma quirks:
    * Zoom ring is at the end, focus ring at the center, which can take
    some getting used to.
    * Very stiff zoom ring (all of their lenses are like that)
    * Lack of quality control. TEST YOUR LENS, and buy from a place that
    allows returns.

    --
    Zed Pobre <> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <>
    PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
    Zed Pobre, May 21, 2005
    #19
  20. eatmorepies

    MarkH Guest

    Zed Pobre <> wrote in
    news::

    > Sigma 80-400 advantages
    > * Ring zoom doesn't suck as much dust as push-pull


    I'd like to know how the ring zoom sucks in any less dust than a push-pull
    zoom. Regardless of your hand motion the lens itself extends and
    contracts, pumping air in and out of the lens, sucking dust.


    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
    MarkH, May 21, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Harry Da Hat

    Uploading George Preddy's File

    Harry Da Hat, Nov 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    90
    Views:
    1,689
    George Preddy
    Nov 21, 2003
  2. Arvin Chang

    Most Sigma SD-9 Owners are not like George Preddy

    Arvin Chang, Nov 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    332
    Mike Latondresse
    Nov 15, 2003
  3. Nonnaho

    Where's Steve ( A.K.A. George Preddy )?

    Nonnaho, Dec 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    359
    Larry Lynch
    Dec 18, 2003
  4. Dan Sullivan

    Sigma/Foveon/ George Preddy newsgroup?

    Dan Sullivan, Dec 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    610
    David S Lund
    Dec 20, 2003
  5. Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo

    Re: Mozilla versus IE versus Opera versus Safari

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo, May 8, 2008, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    680
    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    May 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page