Are Sigma lenses any good?

[Sasaferrato]

I'm contemplating buying a Sigma lens for my Pentax K-50 DSLR.

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 Macro DG Lens For Pentax Digital & Film SLR Camera

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-70-3...&pf_rd_p=14f91171-0541-58ad-938b-3aec945f4cb7

Does anyone have any experience of them?

 

[weltweit]

I have a Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX DG - it is not bad at all. But it was about £500 iirc

A 70-300 is quite a zoom range so you can expect some tradeoff in terms of image quality. And a Macro, well that could be interesting. f4-5.6 isn't very fast so expect to use it mainly in good light.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I have a Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX DG - it is not bad at all. But it was about £500 iirc

A 70-300 is quite a zoom range so you can expect some tradeoff in terms of image quality. And a Macro, well that could be interesting. f4-5.6 isn't very fast so expect to use it mainly in good light.

It is primarily for use in Turkey in May when we are on holiday, light shouldn't be a problem. I have a Pentax 50-200 zoom, but there are times when a bit more length would be useful (said virtually every man on the planet )

 

[weltweit]

I am aware that my post wasn't as helpful as it might have been. Sigma do make some excellent lenses, and some that are just so-so. Someone else will have to make a comment on the specifics of that particular lens

 

[Sasaferrato]

I am aware that my post wasn't as helpful as it might have been. Sigma do make some excellent lenses, and some that are just so-so. Someone else will have to make a comment on the specifics of that particular lens

No, it was helpful. I know that at that price it isn't going to be as good as a Pentax lens, but the price of a comparable Pentax lens just about stopped my parsimonious Scottish heart. I just wish some bugger would make a 18 - 300 at a reasonable price, then you would only need one lens.

 

[N_igma]

Not as good as N_igma ones I see everything.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Sigma as a company are fine (their Art lenses are very well respected for instance). Their individual lenses may not be though. That one looks like a reasonable budget lens but reviews say it is quite soft at 250-300mm unless you stop down a lot - this isn’t unusual for budget lenses - and it’s full frame which you don’t need.

To me I’d think that if you’re not planning to take a lot of important long shots you’d be okay with the lens you have, and if you are, it would be better to spend a bit more. I am a little biased as I find I don’t generally use long lenses on holiday anyway.

 

[mauvais]

I have one of those lenses for Nikon, albeit probably an earlier version. I don't use it any more but I got some use out of it. Originally I bought it for an airshow.

It's what you'd expect. Cheap and cheerful, gives you shots you wouldn't otherwise have got, and teaches you telephoto technique, but is optically not great. Slow in both senses - aperture and focus time.

If you're just getting into photography and learning your own requirements, it's a good idea. If you're likely to find it lacking quite rapidly, maybe not. My go-to lens now is a better Nikon 18-200 which doesn't reach quite as far but can just be cropped to arrive at roughly the same quality.

 

[pogofish]

I am aware that my post wasn't as helpful as it might have been. Sigma do make some excellent lenses, and some that are just so-so. Someone else will have to make a comment on the specifics of that particular lens

This - Two of the worst lenses I've ever owned have been Sigmas but others vary from perfectly acceptable to top-flight professional standard. You need to take each lens on its merits.

Currently I have a Sigma fisheye which is excellent and a 18-200 zoom on my backup DSLR which is a very versatile and acceptable lens. Over the years, I've occasionally rented various models of their long tales and zooms for specific jobs and found them very competent.

 

[alsoknownas]

The A series lenses are excellent. The 18-35 is legendary in low-budget filmmaking. There really is nothing like it. f/1.8. Very sharp throughout it's range. It's like owning several primes. It is a bit of a cliche though. Just about every aspiring filmmaker uses one. For good reason.

 

[Artaxerxes]

I'm contemplating buying a Sigma lens for my Pentax K-50 DSLR.

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 Macro DG Lens For Pentax Digital & Film SLR Camera

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-70-3...&pf_rd_p=14f91171-0541-58ad-938b-3aec945f4cb7

Does anyone have any experience of them?

Yes, check some of the ranged shots on my flickr. Its not the best quality but for 300mm at under 200quid its probably one of the best you'll get.

One day if I can justify it I'll get a fancier one.

 

[friedaweed]

I've got a sigma 24mm f1.4 for my D90 and it's my fav lens. It's the only one that goes back in the box and not frown around the camera bag.

 

[felixthecat]

After much humming and haa-ing and reading of reviews I've just bought a (used) Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM. I'm very new to all this photography mallarky but ive found out quickly that a wide angle lens is what I need and this seemed a decent lens without needing a mortgage to buy it.

Everyone told me it was a zoom lens I'd need first - and I listened and bought a Nikkor 55-200 mm / F 4.0-5.6 AF-S DX G ED VR II.

I suppose it'll come in useful...

 

[Sasaferrato]

I have one of those lenses for Nikon, albeit probably an earlier version. I don't use it any more but I got some use out of it. Originally I bought it for an airshow.

It's what you'd expect. Cheap and cheerful, gives you shots you wouldn't otherwise have got, and teaches you telephoto technique, but is optically not great. Slow in both senses - aperture and focus time.

If you're just getting into photography and learning your own requirements, it's a good idea. If you're likely to find it lacking quite rapidly, maybe not. My go-to lens now is a better Nikon 18-200 which doesn't reach quite as far but can just be cropped to arrive at roughly the same quality.

My Pentax lens is 50 - 200, I looked at 18 - 200, but a bit 'Blimey' price wise.

 

[mauvais]

My Pentax lens is 50 - 200, I looked at 18 - 200, but a bit 'Blimey' price wise.

I don't know about Pentax fit, only Nikon. I paid about £250 for mine, used but in perfect condition. The original price is a fair bit more.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I don't know about Pentax fit, only Nikon. I paid about £250 for mine, used but in perfect condition. The original price is a fair bit more.

Unless I can figure out WTF I've done to my camera, I won't be buying any new lenses.