Anyone have experience using Sigma Lenses. I have a Cannon Rebel XTI and have already got use to the 18-55mm lens that came to with the kit but wanted to try others. I saw a ad for a Sigma Lense that was priced rather low compared to a similar one made by Canon that was a few hundred dollars more. .....Anyone have any experience on Sigma Lenses

 

Which one your looking at, there are several website that have reviews
In general that have a good build quality, alot of Canon owners use them because Canon lens selection is poor

I've used a few Simga lens for 35mm adapters that go on video cameras, the problems should be roughly the same.
wide angles there is noticeable barrel distortion (ex:18mm)
There is vignetting with camera that have larger senors, am too lazy to research what size the rebel uses, but most photographers crop there photos so it should it be a issue

 

cheap sigma lenses are crap, expensive sigma lenses are better, just like any other brand.

It also depends on the model, so I suggest you google for the specific lens you're interested in.

yes, I have 2 sigma lens, I like one and not the other.

 

Like some have said. Sigma has there good and their bad. The sigma 10-22mm is great. Others not so much. ED, pm me and I will help you out.

 

they call it ****ma for a reason. There are only a few even worth buying but most are junk. Soft, poor AF mechanism, poor build quality, etc.. when compared to Canon.

 

i have the canon rebel XT. it depends what kind of photos you want to take. i recently bought the tamaron 17-35mm wide angle DI lens. it is by far the most usefull lens i've got, i was told the picture quality of this lens is closely compared to a canon L series lens with the same focal range, thats why i bought this one instead of the $1,000+ canon L series model, before that i bought the canon 50mm 1.4 lens. that lens is my best lens but not as useful because it's a fixed lens (can't zoom) my next lens will most likely be a canon lens with IS (image stabalization)

always remember, with lens, you get what you pay for.

 

you speak the truth.

I've running low on resources lately so I settle with a 50mm f1.8
I love it though, cheap and effective.

 

thats a nice picture with the 1.8 Gonz. yea, so ED, i can honestly say, the lens you get will determin what kind of pictures you'll be able to take, i say its about 25% of the camera, and 75% of the type of lens you use. good quality lens will hardly drop in value and you can probably sell a good lens close to your purchase price, but cameras are always upgrading and will always drop in price. good luck with your decision, you can most likely go to your local camera specialty store and sample all the types of lens and you can detemine which is te best for your purpose.

 

dont cheap out on a lens go for the best.
BTW for the poster who said there was vignetting on larger sensor cameras MOST dslr's have smaller sensors then film (35mm)

 

Sigma lenses are not that bad, unless you are a "measurbator" - these lenses do a decent job for what its worth.

I will have to agree with you as the 18-55 being a junk lens for portraiture, but for automotive photography, 18mm is already semi-wide.

The question I should be asking, if what kind of subjects are you shooting? 50 f/1.8 is a good low light lens, but you lack the versatility of a zoom lens. If anything, have you considered the 17-40L f/4; this lens can capture deep and true colors.

 

i don't think the average hobbiest will pay close to $700 for a lens. i may be wrong, i would buy one actually =P

 

ed...just plop down the money to buy a good lens.

these lens are actually a good investment. they don;t go in value and you can have yrs of use with them.

i plopped down some money for the 24-105 mm f/4L IS and the 10-22mm super wide angle lens for my Xti and won't look back.

 

wowie! the 24-105 f/4L IS is the one i really want! but i'll probably have to go with the 28-135 f3.5 IS instead, about half the price =( i really can't afford putting out almost $1,200 for a lens *yikes!* but anyways, hows the IS on that bad boy? i really need an IS capable lens for low light low ISO shots.

 

This lens seems rather cheap or is it me
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm...e=UTF8&s=photo

 

why is that so cheap???

 

the price is cheap b/c that is the lowest telephoto lens available, i have the exact tamaron version i got my tamaron version for $125ish if i remembered correctly, its good if you just want something to take far shots i.e graduations, shows, etc..but don't expect top quality from your shots.

 

i hate tamron lenses with a passion.
slowest AF ive ever had the displeasure of experiencing. soft,colors are eh, and they are LOUD

 

Because that lens is complete and utter garbage.

 

ahh..I concur.

 

I was thinking of just waiting it out and getting a better lens rather than getting a useless cheap one......more hobbies to spend money on