Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Sigma EX Lenses
#1

I have to say it.. Sigma EX lenses rock! At 1/2 to 1/3 the price of their Canon equivalents they are great value for money.

If anyone disagrees I'll have Rufus bite them!
Reply
#2

Yes!

I have the Sigma 17-35 EX DG HSM IF RAC USA BBC ITV & boil in the bag.

It's extremely good.

Mind ewe, I also briefly owned the 17-35 EX, (non DG), and it was a lousy, fuzzy, slow, hairy, murky, bendy, wobblesome PIG! I only kept it for 2 days.

Cave canem
Reply
#3

Sigma lenses are, IN SOME FEW CASES, at least as good as their OEM-branded counterparts.

However, Sigma service is THE PITS! I had the most horrible experience getting a lens cleaned: it took EIGHT WEEKS to get the lens back, and it was STILL DIRTY. I mean visible specks of debris on the internal elements.

I sold the lens (with full disclosure, of course) and will never buy Sigma lenses again!

In sharp contrast (pun intended), Canon service was extraordinarily fast, communicative, and effective.

_______________________________________
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Reply
#4

I guess you're paying extra for the service if you ever need to use it.

I don't know what lenses I 'need', but many times I wish for a longer telephoto lens, sometimes for a wider lens, sometimes for faster focusing and image stabilisation (which I haven't used before, but sounds useful in some situations).
So thats all I want, but there's always something stopping me.... money Smile

A good way to see what lens I need, would be to ask what I'm using it for?
I shoot landscapes, people, some birds, many things, so can anyone suggest a lens which I can use for all of that and not hurt my collection of money (if possible?).
haha
Reply
#5

Money is always the bottom line. However, at some point you will likely upgrade. A lens will last you forever... if you talk nice enough to it. Good glass is worth it. I say scrounge through fountain bottoms, behind cushions on the couch and turn in pop cans to get the nicest lenses you can. You likely outgrow the body after a few years.

Just my .02 (and I am saving it for the next lens... lol)

Nos an modica tantum nostri somnium
"We are limited only by our imagination"
Reply
#6

I had a Sigma 70-210 UCII lens... not EX though... can't say I was particularly taken by it Big Grin

I wonder how Tamron is doing....
Reply
#7

That will teach you to roll in the mud with your camera Slej Tongue

I do frequently work in a dirty, dusty environment and I won't mention any particular brand names but despite copious dust seals and filters they still don't like that environment, more dollars doesn't necessarily mean tougher internally.

I'm quite prepared to pay half the price for similar performance when its not going to die in use after a few months and if it does do that then at least I haven't paid a fortune for it.

Down the road I plan on owning a second set of glass for "tame" use and it will be Canon but in my experience I wouldn't take it out in the field, not at that price.
Reply
#8

shuttertalk Wrote:I wonder how Tamron is doing....

I think they had a bit of a mixed reputation, kinda like stigma, I mean enigma, I mean, oh, you know who.

The new Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Di lens is extraordinarily popular ... it has gotten rave reviews. I have it, and am pleased, but I hope I don't need to get it serviced. Smile

Heard great things about their 90mm macro lens too.

_______________________________________
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Reply
#9

StudioJ Wrote:That will teach you to roll in the mud with your camera Slej Tongue

Actually I was led to believe that it was some internal component like a seal that was degrading and causing the debris. They could clean it, but not replace the bad parts. And this was an EX-series lens, btw.

_______________________________________
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Reply
#10

Sounds a bit like the flaking internal coating on Rufus' lens. Wasn't it covered by warranty?
Reply
#11

StudioJ Wrote:Sounds a bit like the flaking internal coating on Rufus' lens. Wasn't it covered by warranty?

Yeah, that sounds like the same thing - internal coating flaking off.
I bought it used, no warranty. Sorry, but a three year old lens should not be falling apart like that! An all-around bad experience, both with lens quality and their terrible customer service.

Each time I'd call for an update, the first thing they'd ask was: "Did you pay the repair charge?" Yes, you have a record of it. "Oh ... looks like it will be another week." Bunch of garbage. :x

_______________________________________
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread / Author Replies Views Last Post
Last Post by maisie
Oct 6, 2018, 04:55

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)