DSLRUsers.com

Hey guys.

Im gonna get another lens looking at spending around the 1k mark...

Mainly want to use for outdoor portrait work with family but a little outdoor sports as well...

What would you guys suggest?

Is to go onto a canon 40D.

What lenses do you already have?

I only have two lenses at the moment.
17-85 mm F4.5
50mm F1.8

I would probably be looking at one of the 70-200mm lenses then. That will give you extra reach, and extra flexibility.

For sports especially I'd favour at your budget a Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 HSM

I'm with the above, go a 70-200mm and the Sigma is a very good choice if you dont mind going for a 3rd party lens.

I was looking at the 70-200 sigma but read that alot of people had problems with the AF on the lens. would focus a few feet infront of where it is ment to?

Well, although I think it's true that Sigma's have had some quality control issues, I think the recent versions are a lot better. If you buy from a reputable seller then you should be able to replace under warranty in any case.

Just got a price of $1640 :S

Kreapen wrote:I was looking at the 70-200 sigma but read that alot of people had problems with the AF on the lens. would focus a few feet infront of where it is ment to?

Focus errors are often a matter of simple user error. They've simply not bothered to learn how to properly use the lens. While I'm not the greatest fan of Sigma lenses, Chris (sirhc55) turns in some magnificent results with his example of this lens.

Alternatively, look at the (grey) non-IS f/4 Canon, the forum price for which is just a nudge over Au$1k. I think that the non-IS Canon f/2.8 will be outside your budget, and I don't know what other grey retailers are selling this for. Genuine Canon stock might be worth looking at too, if it was was imported at a high PP rate of exchange.

Kreapen wrote:Just got a price of $1640 :S

That sounds too expensive, shop about. Be aware that Sigma will price match gray importers in a retail channel if you ask them, maybe the price has increased a bit since I last looked too

Checkout teds.com.au they were givingaway the Sigma 70 - 200 2.8 for $899 (canon EOS mount only - I'm not a canon user so dont know if thats limited cameras),bargain at that price!

idleowen wrote:Checkout teds.com.au they were givingaway the Sigma 70 - 200 2.8 for $899 (canon EOS mount only - I'm not a canon user so dont know if thats limited cameras),bargain at that price!

That's a really good price. I'd run, not walk, but run, to Teds, and still ask for a further discount.

Buy online @!!@

http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/di ... 4821_.html

makes sure "teds' not selling all the ones returned with back focus issues! seems too good a price!!

confirmed the lens in series 1 and has the focus problem. I might just hold off a few more weeks and get the lens from digital camera warehouse. I think they have it for 1200ish constantly

Kreapen wrote:confirmed the lens in series 1 and has the focus problem.

Teds said it had "the focus problem"? Why haven't they sent it back to be fixed?

(I've got one, and it's fine. Don't use it since I got the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS though, for some reason.)

He said cause it was a known problem with the lens and the lens has been discontinued that they dont send them back but offer them at the discounted price as they will manual focus fine but the AF will 'occasionally' focus infront of or behind the AF object target.

that is hard to understand - effectively then they would be selling goods that were not "fit for purpose"

I'd still take a punt, test it and see. But that's me.

Kreapen wrote:He said cause it was a known problem with the lens and the lens has been discontinued that they dont send them back but offer them at the discounted price as they will manual focus fine but the AF will 'occasionally' focus infront of or behind the AF object target.

What Darren said.

My thoughts are that, with this being a known defect and admitted, they would be legally obligated to notify any prospective purchaser of this problem.

Selling faulty stock - knowingly selling faulty stock - is just asking for trouble.

Kreapen wrote:He said cause it was a known problem with the lens and the lens has been discontinued that they dont send them back but offer them at the discounted price as they will manual focus fine but the AF will 'occasionally' focus infront of or behind the AF object target.

That sounds like absolute rubbish, TBH. They sold that lens for years and it was fine, and if this one is NOT fine, and they know about it, they can hardly advertise it without talking about the supposed 'defect'.

It'd be interesting to talk to someone else there. Someone with a clue, I suspect.

Spoke to the same guy again... he rephrased what he originally said that made a bit more sense

"The lense we have left here is in working condition and at this time focus`s fine. But it is from the same model line that had the AF problem, IF a problem did arrise from it, the item would get sent back to sigma and attempted to be repaired."

Made a bit more sense when i asked him why they were selling a lens that is broken.

ka-ching

I got my Sigma 70-200 HSM II for Nikon for $890 through our local camera store that was affiliated with Teds. PC in Brisbane would do the same price at the time also.

I wasn't going to get one ans wait until I could afford the Nikon 70-200 , but the Sigma for the price was to good to turn up.

MATT

I have no Sigma lenses, only Nikon though I have a couple of old Vivitar Series 1 lenses that are optically fine. However, this is what the site http://www.lensrentals.com/ said about Sigma lenses:

Since day 1 the Sigma brand has always been a bit of a money loser for us: they broke more frequently than the other brands. Our techs coined the phrase “Sigma’d” to describe any lens that didn’t function. When they did break, the repair turnaround time was, to be charitable, leisurely.
...
Sigma lenses failed at a rate of 30% per year, compared to less than 5% for Canon, Tamron, Nikon, Tokina, and Zeiss. We weren’t losing a little bit of money anymore, we were losing a fair amount. More importantly, far more importantly, we had customers who rented lenses for important shoots and the lenses failed to work properly. Sigma was about 5% of our rentals but almost one-third of our customer complaints.

This is a couple of paragraphs still quoted in an old blog entry on another site. There was a page on the Lens Rentals site with more details including lenses they found particularly troublesome. That page is no longer there. My guess is that Sigma threatened to sue. However, they no longer offer Sigma lenses for hire and are still trying to sell a few that they used to hire out. Make of this what you will.

Regards,
Murray

Murray Foote wrote:There was a page on the Lens Rentals site with more details including lenses they found particularly troublesome. That page is no longer there. My guess is that Sigma threatened to sue. However, they no longer offer Sigma lenses for hire and are still trying to sell a few that they used to hire out. Make of this what you will.

Well, just guess at why it's no longer there - as long as we're bashing Sigma, it's all good, I guess.

For all of the talk about Sigma QC - and there's no doubt they've had issues in the past - in more recent times it's talk about it, rather than reality, that keeps it going, and it's more than a little ridiculous.

mickeyjuice wrote:in more recent times it's talk about it, rather than reality,

No, not really.

In the past they've been known to have issues with both build quality and optical quality. Many current Sigma lenses are still regarded as .... I'd like to say "dogs", but I like dogs, and that would be being unkind to dogs. Let's just accept that many current Sigma lenses are not, optically up to par.

Leigh has a version of their 30mm f/1.4, and it's fairly new. Optically, it's very good. Build quality? Paint is peeling from the body, and has been for several months.

I have a 10-20. Optical quality I regard as fair, but the lens is a fun lens, which is why I have it. Build quality seems, so far, to be acceptable.

The history is that Sigma glass has always been spotty in terms of both optical and build quality, with some good examples occasionally (accidentally?) slipping through. The reality reflects the history: nothing much has changed.

gstark wrote:

mickeyjuice wrote:in more recent times it's talk about it, rather than reality,

The history is that Sigma glass has always been spotty in terms of both optical and build quality, with some good examples occasionally (accidentally?) slipping through. The reality reflects the history: nothing much has changed.

Yep, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

mickeyjuice wrote:

gstark wrote:

mickeyjuice wrote:in more recent times it's talk about it, rather than reality,

The history is that Sigma glass has always been spotty in terms of both optical and build quality, with some good examples occasionally (accidentally?) slipping through. The reality reflects the history: nothing much has changed.

Yep, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Are you? That's not what I'm taking from what I've quoted of your posting.

You seem to be saying that people talk about Sigma based upon their history, rather than the current situation, which also implies that the current situation would be different from the historical situation.

I'm saying that the current situation - the reality - is exactly the same as the historic.

Please don't confuse me this early in the year.

gstark wrote:

mickeyjuice wrote:Yep, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Are you? That's not what I'm taking from what I've quoted of your posting.

You seem to be saying that people talk about Sigma based upon their history, rather than the current situation, which also implies that the current situation would be different from the historical situation.

I'm saying that the current situation - the reality - is exactly the same as the historic.

And I'm saying it's very clearly not, despite peolple who don't use or own the lenses saying it is.

mickeyjuice wrote:

gstark wrote:I'm saying that the current situation - the reality - is exactly the same as the historic.

And I'm saying it's very clearly not, despite peolple who don't use or own the lenses saying it is.

So ... you're saying that my post, stating the reality as I see it, through our ownership and regular use of these lenses very clearly clearly proving that their QC is still patchy, is not the reality?

And although I quote two examples of our current ownership, you provide no factual basis at all for your statement, apart from ... er .... oh yes .... that's right ... you provide no factual basis at all for your statement.



But let's please, get back on topic.

gstark wrote:And although I quote two examples of our current ownership, you provide no factual basis at all for your statement, apart from ... er .... oh yes .... that's right ... you provide no factual basis at all for your statement.

Well, you said said one was optically very good (which is the point of a lens, I'd have thought), but, oh no, it's losing some paint, which will clearly ruin photos, and the other one is fine for what it was bought and used for.

Therefore, all the bad stories about Sigma are true.

I see now.

mickeyjuice wrote:

gstark wrote:And although I quote two examples of our current ownership, you provide no factual basis at all for your statement, apart from ... er .... oh yes .... that's right ... you provide no factual basis at all for your statement.

Well, you said said one was optically very good (which is the point of a lens, I'd have thought), but, oh no, it's losing some paint, which will clearly ruin photos, and the other one is fine for what it was bought and used for.

Therefore, all the bad stories about Sigma are true.

The loss of paint is an issue of build quality. You might not see that as serious, but we have no way of knowing whether this lens is shedding its paint internally as well as externally. If it is, then we run the risks of

Seeing unwanted internal reflections from those internal areas that will be exposed by the shedding paint

The probability that the shedded paint might attach itself to the lens elements, thus affecting - very bloody seriously affecting - the optical quality of the lens.

I also mentioned that the optical quality of the 10-20 as being "fair". Not "good". Not "stellar". Not "sharp". Just "fair". I love the lens, because of its fun status.

You are perfectly free to dismiss the issue of shedding paint as not being serious. In my view, that would be very shortsighted on your part.

Which probably explains ...

I see now.

So from reading the last few posts the Sigma lenses are probably not the way to go.

Like Gstark said if the paint is peeling from the outside what is to stop it assuming it hasnt started yet from peeling in the inside of the lens.

I have also read about the glass getting "Spotty defects" on the inside on of the lens.

I read one review some where on the sigma lense where they bought 3 of them and all 3 had glass problems on the inside of the lens..

Im starting to think i might just save and get the canon one.

I think with Sigma you get what you pay for, just like with Nikkor you get what you pay for

If Sigma was = Nikkor for quality in all aspects then price = nikkor (or close to it).

So, it's a matter of affordability and value and unfortunately compromise

kiwifamily wrote:I think with Sigma you get what you pay for, just like with Nikkor you get what you pay for

If Sigma was = Nikkor for quality in all aspects then price = nikkor (or close to it).

So, it's a matter of affordability and value and unfortunately compromise

Of course. And if you can afford the better lens, then why not? There's no doubt, as I said earlier, that my Canon 70-200 is a better lens than my Sigma 70-200. But that didn't stop me taking many thousands of good shots with the Sigma. (Or the other four or five Sigmas I've got/had - guess I was just lucky, eh?)

The hundreds of thousands of people happily using Sigmas out there in the world are clearly deluded, it seems.

Well, if you accept the reports from Lens Rentals and 30% of the lenses fail annually as opposed to 5% for other manufacturers, then a Sigma lens would need to be at least 50% cheaper than its rivals to justify the risk of purchase. However 70% of people who buy Sigma lenses may experience no problems so arguing by anecdote on a small sample is likely to be quite arbitrary. Although in general "you get what you pay for" there can be large variations in the price quality ratio for many lenses. According to one or two credible sites, Tokina appears to have the best reputation for build quality of third party manufacturers.

Regards,
Murray

Murray Foote wrote:According to one or two credible sites, Tokina appears to have the best reputation for build quality of third party manufacturers.

I would have put Tamron at the top of my list, but regardless, I suspect that most people would put both Tokina and Tamron ahead of Sigma in that sort of a comparison.

That said, in many instances, Sigma can represent good value, if you choose wisely.

Sigma 70-200 is LESS than 1/2 Nikon 70-200VR

If you can afford it buy Canon or Nikon upfront

If you have to wait awhile just get the Sigma, imagine all the shots and experience you are missing on in the meanwhile.

When you can afford it trade up. You will not loose too much on your investment with a $900 lens

If you look hard or long enough you will find faults with all lenses and bodies. ie purported vignetting on 70-200 on FX for Nikon.

Is it less than 50% of a Tamron 70-200mm though? (I don't think Tokina make one).

kiwifamily wrote:Sigma 70-200 is LESS than 1/2 Nikon 70-200VR

In cost, not in image quality.

gstark wrote:

Murray Foote wrote:According to one or two credible sites, Tokina appears to have the best reputation for build quality of third party manufacturers.

I would have put Tamron at the top of my list, but regardless, I suspect that most people would put both Tokina and Tamron ahead of Sigma in that sort of a comparison.

That said, in many instances, Sigma can represent good value, if you choose wisely.

I am one of those people that would but both Tamron and Tokina in front of Sigma in terms of build quality. Now if only they would bring out AF-S/USM/HSM equivalents!!

agreed, and that's where the value lies huh.

Re Tamron or Tokina 70-200's ? Both rubbish for sport back to the OP's original requirement. AF way too slow.

Whereas the HSM motor on the Sigma's are imho as about as fast as AF-S on the Nikon anyhow.

Bought it yet ? sheesh

mickeyjuice wrote:

kiwifamily wrote:Sigma 70-200 is LESS than 1/2 Nikon 70-200VR

In cost, not in image quality.

That's a somewhat precise statement for an exceedingly imprecise measurement.

Please explain exactly how, in terms of percentages, one determines that one lens is 50% better than another in terms of IQ. I don't thnk that focus or other charts provide a facility for making this sort of assessment, so I am curious to hear how one makes such an objective statement given a basic absence of any objective parameters.

gstark wrote:Please explain exactly how, in terms of percentages, one determines that one lens is 50% better than another in terms of IQ. I don't thnk that focus or other charts provide a facility for making this sort of assessment, so I am curious to hear how one makes such an objective statement given a basic absence of any objective parameters.

This will no doubt be confusing, but I look at them, which isn't a bad way of viewing images. And if one isn't twice as good as the other, then I decide that one lens isn't twice as good as the other. (Dunno where 50% better came from.)

mickeyjuice wrote:

gstark wrote:Please explain exactly how, in terms of percentages, one determines that one lens is 50% better than another in terms of IQ. I don't thnk that focus or other charts provide a facility for making this sort of assessment, so I am curious to hear how one makes such an objective statement given a basic absence of any objective parameters.

This will no doubt be confusing, but I look at them, which isn't a bad way of viewing images. And if one isn't twice as good as the other, then I decide that one lens isn't twice as good as the other. (Dunno where 50% better came from.)

So, photographic technique has no play in this?