I own a bunch of old lenses, including Nikkor, Takumar and even some Russian Jupiter and Helios and I'm amazed by the build quality most them show. The fact that they survived decades speaks for itself. I agree with you regarding Sigma and would rather buy another old Nikkor than a new Sigma. BUT - with all the electronics built into modern lenses I highly doubt that they will last as long as their pure mechanical predecessors, no matter which brand they are.
I don't know about the construction, but the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 is one of the best lenses ever made. Insane sharpness, fantastic color and contrast from what I can tell. It's pricey, but I'm a hair's breadth away from picking one up. I should probably pay off the last two lenses I bought first, though. lol
Sigma was some 15 years ago not nearly as good as today. At the moment Sigmas are made of mostly metal and are made in Japan. Nikkors on the other hand are made mostly of plastic and are made in Thailand..
BS, ive been messing with sigma and selling their crap for 20 years, theyve improved SOME failure rate on sigmas is 90% higher than Nikons over 10 years.
+Theoria Apophasis Maybe, but at the moment the quality of the Sigmas is getting better while nikkors are constantly getting cheaper (not meaning the price). So if we compare 15 years old Sigmas that were mostly crappy to the Sigmas today they are quite a different thing. So we might have different results after 15 years starting today.
+Theoria Apophasis Yes, but fewer every day. And they are were plastic (80-400, 24-120, from 20mm to 85mm f1,8... The old Nikkors were a different thing. Quality products. I have had a couple of those (17-35, 80-200..) and I don't have anything but good memories of those. But today Nikkors are somewhat disappointing regarding their overall quality (excluding image quality). I don't have that trust with todays Nikkors that I had with the ones made some ten, fifteen years ago.
I love sigma and Tamron without these two companies most photographers would not have any lens, Canon and Nikon just over priced their lenses we are so blessed to have sigma and Tamron
I must be the exception, because my 11-year old 18-50 f/2.8 DC has never failed me once.Sharp, even wide open, very little falloff, and good color. I prefer to manual focus, so can'tgive the lens any grade regarding auto-focus performance. My wife's 10-year old 17-70 f/2.8-f/4 DC has also been very reliable, so I guess we must be the lucky ones out there. It's not always a good idea to paint with a broad brush.
what about the quality of the canon 24-105? the aperture blade is stuck in the f4 stop! do you recommend any fix on this lens? what would be the best UA-cam tutorial in your opinion?
4:30 Personal experience from Tamron. The EF-S lens: 17-50 2.8 DI II VC Wonderful image stabilization, passable image quality, shit build quality. Aperture stuck wide open -> Warranty repair. A year later, aperture stuck wide open again. Gladly they have a 5 year warranty, but I learned my lesson. Now I have a nice Canon 17-40 and an extra, freshly repaired Tamron.
The sigma art 19 mm 30 mm 60 mm f2 .8 primes are cheap and very sharp and better than Sony s for a600o dx if you want cheap and sharp for starting out. Also work nice on m43 mount don't care what Ken says Folks each to there own !!!
why does sigma and tamron offer a 3-5 year warranty. where canon and nikon only offer a one year warranty. Does canon and nikon have no faith in their products?
Sigma....Hamster Lens....Take it home for anything longer than a summer vacation and you will be looking for another look-a-like to replace the one that died on you.
I had a zoom ring jam on a Sigma once. There's another factor to consider Ken. Sometimes cheap and dheerful is best. If you are a little forgetful, clumsy or travel a lot, you are constantly at risk of losing, breaking or having your gear stolen. Your purchase has to fall within acceptable levels of loss. I would rather carry around a Used 250$ Sigma lens that is 85% as good as a new 2000$ Zeiss lens, which I would be terrified to lose. If the Sigma breaks or dies, who cares, I can replace it. Someone steals my Zeiss, I'm scrood.
Ken, despite your obvious phobia for Sigma, i know alot of wedding photographers who are buying and using Sigma 35 1.4 because is sharper and faster than the Nikon. I think for some people matters only the momentary functionnality; if you are charging enough your clients you can buy every 6-7-8-9 years a new lens. I never tried the Sigma, but the Tamron 35 1.8 and the 45 1.8 witch are great IMO. I would buy them.
IF someone thinks an "art" (a meaningless word) ……lens which costs the SAME PRICE as a true ZEISS, ….is a "wise choice", then however they are 100% Absolutely bat-crap insane and have "not thought things through" however.
They say Sigma ART lenses are the best but I always see people selling their used Sigma Art lenses on photo markets like regurgitated hot cakes. I like this guy "Theoria Apophasis", helped me a lot on purchasing many of my Nikon gears.
Just something interesting. If you type in "Sigma Aperture Stuck" in google, you get a lot of hits; almost all of them Cannon users. Then, alter your search, "Sigma 18-35mm Aperture Stuck" and you get.....bupkis. Zip. Nada. Nothing. I did a lot of research before getting the 18-35mm. I am not planning on using this as my go-to event shooter or portrait taker. I specially wanted this to shoot video because the glass is practically identical to cine glass. It out performs all the Nikkor I have in terms of video clarity. For pictures....well...I am struggling with it. It's hit or miss and I haven't found the sweet spot with it. The USB dock is intimidating. You would have to spend 6 or more hours trying to calibrate this lens. 16 different combinations. 4 focal ranges with 4 focus settings. You have to set up a target 3 meters away to try and figure out whether you're back or forward focusing.....at INFINITY. But oh well. Thankfully, I did get my 18-35mm used at 40% off retail. SO, I am not that upset over it.
OK I have to admit i only own 2 Sigma lenses. A 14 years old 10-20mm DX and a manual focus 70-200mm push-pull 2.8 . Both work fine but I will never again buy third party lenses except old vintage radioactive ones 🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗
I buy all my recommendation on Ken...In fact he is in rotation I may be the first to watch all his videos😱 I bought the Tamron Trinity at the same time. In the process of buying Nikon D850. In the future Nikon 105 DC In future Nikon 135 DC Have the Helios 85 and Samyang 135. Manual...Love it! Don't know why Ken don't like the Nikon D5...will have the anti alias filter remove for 500 dollars. But looking for a deal...not. spending 6500 on no dam camera. Need to get new for 3850. Love the Sony 7R3💝 Will send u money after ever wedding I do. Giving up warehouse job to do wedding😂😂💯💯
I did the search on Yahoo for 'Sigma Lens Stuck'. There were 8 or 10 articles written on the first two pages of the search. Yesterday I placed a bid on a Sigma 170-500 mm lens for Nikon. Someone outbid me this morning. I think I will let the lens go now. Thank you for the advice.
Ken, I agree with you. When I was in retail camera business, I used to often tell people about durability issues among lenses and cameras in general, not just Sigma. Back in the days when I was selling, what I was always up against was when I would tell someone that an FM or FE series camera, especially FM2n or FE2 and Nikkor lens was a better choice than a Minolta or even Canon with more automation and lower price. When automation started kicking in in a big way, this got worse- someone would look in a magazine and see that the latest Maxxum or EOS had all the bells and whistles, then you could not begin to sell them something like an F3. They simply would not listen to anything whatsover about durability, and rarely even about optical quality. They just wanted 500 focus zones, one more FPS built in motor, faster rewind motor, and a bunch of other crap. Hell, I have owned 50 year old and even some 100 year old view camera lenses which were well made to begin with and still worked at that age. There is a guy here in my town who reworks old compur shutters on old Schneider, Zeiss, and Rodenstock lenses 50 and more years old. $100. and they work for another 20 years, still giving good results! Oh, and by the way, the cutomers were quick to come back and bitch when their Sigma lens (and some cheap flashes) stopped working. When I would say "I told you to buy Nikon" they would REALLY get pissed. There is another unseen difference most of the buying public does not know about and I can't go into every brand, but typically, a $500. Nikkor lens had LESS markup than a $300. Sigma lens. The Nikkor would cost us $450. giving only a $50. markup, and the Sigma would cost us $200., giving a $100. markup. This was largely because the better (Nikkor) lens cost twice as much to produce! Anyway, I could get on a rant here like you did. Only our pro customers would buy Metz flashes, for example. And don't even get me started on cheap tripods- guy would buy a $1000. camera, $500. lens (which was ass backwards in the film days, should have bought a cheaper body and better lens), and put it on a $39. tripod. I used to beg people to buy either Bogen or Gitzo to put their good camera on, but they would buy the cheapest Velbon. We had more than one camera or lens come in broken when the tripod failed, and had a LOT of people come back and buy a good tripod after their junk one proved to be useless. Long rant here, anyway, I generally feel the same way about Sigma, and I have no commercial interest in anything any longer!
The only Sigma lens I still have is the 85mm f/1.4 (bought in 2012). It has worked well and still does but now after watching this I expect it to fail within the next 4 years. I do appreciate your opinions and just discovered your channel last week. All of my other lenses are Canon brand (since that is the line I bought into starting in 2012). So far all of them still work. I bought 2 Sigma lenses in 2012 due to recommendation from a photographer friend of mine. One was the 85mm prime and the other was the 17-50 f/2.8 for crop sensors since I was shooting with a Canon T2i at the time and it gave much better results than the 18-55 kit lens that came with it. A friend has the 17-50 f/2.8 now since he got a 7D mark II and I had no use for it any more with 2 full-frames. He may be using it "rapid fire" mode since he shoots sports so it will be interesting to see if it holds up. What about Canon lenses vs. Nikkor in terms of reliability? I heard you say in another video that you don't review Canon (the one where you talked about the 5D4) but if you have had any experience or knowledge about Canon lens build quality vs. Nikkor?
i havent used canon in ages……..i dont make a penny either way , im just trying to save people the pain and the misery…..read the horror stories in the comments below
Here's a tidbit that confirms your comments above. I'm in my local camera shop and speaking with their salesperson. He has an extensive background in photography and has shot images for magazines, mostly portraiture, beauty, glamour etc. Throw in some landscape also. He still loves older lenses, manual focus among many others. He started in the film days. HE WILL NOT CARRY OR SELL SIGMA. The quality from a repair standpoint as well as image quality. He was given an art series to try out and frankly, wasn't impressed in the least. Actually, thought the image quality was inferior because of the many reasons you've talked about. And the real reason for their docking station and optimization software would shock you. I'm not looking for flack because of what I just said, merely repeating what I heard.
I own 2 Art lenses & Tamron too, 7 years to go! Sigma & Tamron have improved considerably from what they used to be, prior to the Art I would agree & I wouldn't have touched one let alone brought it. The Art line is very new ,so I have my doubts your statistics still apply. The old Sigma & Tamrons , well I'd have been surprised if it didn't die the day after the warranty expired, but that was then , Art is now.
It would have been nice to see you posting from Photokina. Your insight on the new gear would have been cool. Hey, your prediction of the Fuji medium format was accurate. If the price is 4/5 thousand, me getting one! Hope to see ya at PHOTO+ in NYC. Funny stuff, thanks.
ehhh, nobody wants to see me there……and it would be a huge waste of money…….id go there for 30 mins, then stroll the streets of germany taking pictures rest of the time. oh yeah, when is Photo NYC???i cant afford that either…….much less have a place to stay the night
Regardless of opinion expressed, most people are not professional photographers. Hence if the lens (any make) works for you and you are getting the results you require for your photography, then there is no problem. Enjoy it.
Except for when for the same money you can get a lens that is made to last and gives you a much better return on your investment. Even a non-pro should be concerned about how long it will last.
Thanks for a great video... I was about to buy a sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 dg os hsm (S) for my Nikon D500. I am never going to sigma in my life. Please suggest me a best wildlife lens around the same budget of that so called sigma sports variant lens..
I have been using a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM since 2006 and stills fully operational and stills in good shape... and I work 3 times a week with that one in baseball games. You have some reason but they're not so bad as you say.
I have been shooting for over 10 years, started with Nikon d2xs all the way to d4s and d810 with pro level glass 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 85 1.4 and 50 1.4. Later I moved to Fuji XT-2 and last year to Sony a7r3... While I agree that the old sigma lenses had a lot of issues my experience with the E mount 35 1.4 and 50 1.4 is different. They are very sharp with no AF issue probably cause of how the AF works on mirrorless cameras. After comparing my 85 1.4GM I am actually considering switching to sigma 105 1.4. Btw, number of my Nikon lenses had back/front focus issues that Nikon was unable to repair and that couldn't be resolved with fine tune adjustment... Now I know you don't have much good to say about Sony but after shooting with it for over a year I trust it more than any of my previous Nikon gear where a decent percentage of shots would be off focus which isn't the case with Sony or Fuji. Sure the menu sucks, so does the handling but in the end it is about getting the shot and image quality which consists of proper focus.
I own the 35mm 1.4 Art and the 50mm 1.4 Art. Both are stellar lenses. Supersharp wide open. I really love them. Never had ANY problems with focus. A friend of mine had the 85mm 1.4 Art at Photokina tested on his 5Dmkiii and sent me raw-files. Again: Amazing Results. Sigma was not that good in the old days. Thats ok. But they really changed the last years with the outcome of the Art-Lenses. Not saying that every Art-Lens is perfect. Of course not. But they produce higher quality images than the equivalent nikon or canon glass is capable of. If you don´t like Sigma-Lenses. Ok. Your Choice. But please don´t try to convience people with wrong facts. ;)
My 50 and 35 art already malfunctioned and they never autofocus reliably. Guess I'll be vocal about not getting my friends into using sigma because sigma has been an awful experience for me
i tested 3 lenses (dif focal lengths so probably not a good test, but still) the sigma came out on top. lenses tested: 85 tamron, 24-70 nikon, 50 sigma art. the tamron was about 1/3rd stop darker than the rest. the 24-70 was warmer and seemed to have more contrast. the sigma was a tiny bit brighter than the 24-70 and seemed to have better saturation (but could have been the slight exposure advantage) i tested with gamut-warning in photoshop to see how quickly the colours saturated, the nikon and sigma were pretty much identical, although the sigma had a slightly colder tone. im impressed with the sigma 50's image quality, but having used it a bunch of times at weddings it has inconsistencies tracking AF. if you are looking to buy a new lens id say pay the extra and go with native glass if you are a working professional. if you are exclusively shooting studio work, still objects, etc. and will look after your gear (like a fragile little baby) then go with the sigma arts. the surprising part was finding out my tamron was so dark, and i tested everything at F4 under a constant daylight LED light. no exaggeration about the 1/3rd-stop thing, I literally had to +0.30 on exposure in raw to have it match the 24-70 + 50. shame really, and thats at F4, imagine how bad it is wide-open.
All those used old Nikon lenses on Ebay for sale is because people want to sell them and buy new Sigma Art and Sport lenses. And the only reason not that many Sigma lenses on Ebay is because people keep them.
Hi Ken, are you talking about all Sigma lenses including older manual lenses? I ask because I have an older Sigma Zoom Epsilon 28-70mm ƒ3.5-4.5 manual focus lens (I think it's parfocal) in Minolta SR-Mount (it has the MC lever). It seems to have been very well made. It also renders quite nicely when adapted to my mirrorless camera. I picked it up for next to nothing at a local thrift shop with a Minolta MD 50mm ƒ1.7 on a body. Which leads me to my next question - what are your thoughts on Minolta MC/MD/Rokkor/Rokkor-X lenses in general? Any takes on image-fidelity etc...?
I had a Sigma 150mm for 4/3. Used for about 3 years no issues. Never needed blazingly fast AF on my E-5 and the images where good enough for what I payed as a used lens. Then I had a photo shoot (purly amaturish for a website to see would it work as a concept). After the last shot my aperture got stuck on f22. Left it alone. Nobody wanted to fix it in London and I got m4/3 m.zuiko 60mm. After about 2 years I have googled and found it had the most simple fix ever which was a tap onba side which released the aperture. Used it for another year with no issues. Which camera gear all together and sold it to a guy who worked at Sigma for 10 years. Now it has been 1 year and I said if any issues you can send it back and I will send you the money. Nothing. My colleague bought a new camera about the same time with a Tamrom 70-200. It has been some time and he is still using it. But he bought a nikkor 50mm 1.4 the same year and it lasted 2 month. Keep in mind this person was a very lazy photographer and was using his spare time to study for the next 1 year. He used both lenses the same amount - just for the tasks our teachers gave. He kept everything in mint condition. It just shows that even cheap lenses can outlive more "secure" companies. My Sigma lens went everywhere with me and I had bang around while hiking to rocks, got wet and still lasted that long. I dont say you are wrong just maybe hard to listen with all of that "look who I am and I know better" attitude. Also if you wanted to make good points take one apart, show the difference in part quality, weak points, flawed optics etc. Your video could have been summed up in 3 minutes... Like I almost fallen asleep at the end because you kept repeating yourself. I was tought in school that a person who keeps repeating the same facts usually knows the counter arguments and by making the other person bored wins the argument. This just sounded similar...maybe I am wrong
You never see old Sigma lenses for sale on eBay because old Sigma lenses really were junk. They were unreliable, had poor optics, and were riddled with compatibility problems, often not working at all on newer cameras. However Sigma had some upper management changes a number of years back and the company today is not run the same way as it used to be. I think that 15 years from now you actually will see used Sigma ART and SPORTS series lenses from today sold in the used market, some of them likely in high demand. Ten years ago I never would have thought of buying Sigma glass but today I think Sigma makes some of the best e-mount lenses sold.
Ok so I was going to my the 35mm Art, but after this nah, what's the best 35 1.4 in your opinion, I don't mind if it's manual focus, mount isn't a problem I'm gonna be using it on my 7R. So what's the best 35mm 1.4 I can get Ken?
Ahhh, I know you've probably not used it but what about the Canon 35mm 1.4 ii for that price point, or the older one ? What are your opinions on that ?
Not a big fan of third party lenses, but I've bought three over the past ten years. Still own the two Sigmas, the Tokina was junk and packed it in years ago. Build quality and performance are fine.
Okay, I only have 1, the 105 macro EX, lol Have a few older Nikor's that I have had serviced and man they are sharp. The lens service per tells the same as you are saying and advice that I'll be better with my old Nikor lens the Sigma Or Tamron.
Hi Ken. Fuji lenses such as the 16 mm or the 35 mm are well made as you pointed out many times, but How long should I expect them to last? Can they be considered a long term investment? Should I be worried? Thanks.
ive had 2 of them torn down, their construction is TOP, even the guy on Utube "fix your camera" who takes crap apart all the time says Fuji lenses internally are TOPS
I do have both - the Sigma ART 50mm and the Zeiss Planar T* 50mm. Wide Open the Sigma is sharper - the Zeiss for sure will last longer due to its build quality - and the 'Look' of the Images you will get with Zeiss Lenses is unbeatable. If I shoot with plenty of light and time, the Zeiss is my first choice - in low light situations, when I have to be quick: the Sigma will deliver sharper Images.
Then I don't know how you abuse your lenses. I used a Sigma 120-300mm produced in 2008 till last year without issues (till I sold it.) I've owned and sold a full host of lenses, Sigma, Tamrons and Canons, and never really saw any issues with any of them. I'm just going to assume your just clumsy.
I picked a Sigma lens from 2001, searched for that model only on ebay, found 6 of them on the first page. That's just one model. It's incredible, the conviction that you have in your nonsense.
He's living in the past. Sigma ART and SPORTS lenses came about because of changes in Sigma's management and company philosophy. From a legal perspective Sigma is the same company they were 10 or 15 years ago but they are not at all the same company in terms of what they do and how they are run. I would never have bought Sigma glass 15 years ago, it was junk and had endless problems. Today I think Sigma makes some of the best lenses on the market and that their lenses are pushing Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al to do better. I'm happy to support today's Sigma and proud to own and use their glass.
Very extreme opinion. I have only one Sigma ART, the 35/1.4. Incredible good lens. I have been using it for 5 y and no problem on d600 either on d850. So it still works.
He’s right about this. I have a nikkor 105mm f/2.8D af micro. And this lens looks like it was purchased by the previous owner just to throw it against a wall. But I’ll tell you what, the image quality is superb.
Great Danes last 8-10 years. I guess with Sigma it is luck of the draw. I was considering the Sigma 150mm OS macro. Don't you have one of those or is it the 180mm macro?
Compare the Sigmas with every Zeiss or a super cheap Super Takumar on flickr and you will see why. The Sigmas are undeniably one of the flatest lenses ever, no 3D pop, Color rendition is in my opinion not the best. Not my cup of tea. I had the 35 1.4 ,sold it a week after. And one thing should be clear, SHARP DOES NOT MEAN ART!
I bought a Sigma 50 mm Art two years ago and I am quite happy with it. HOWEVER, the autofocus on first one broke down within a week and it had to be replaced.
You are very right, I was looking for a lens for my d300s, and I encounter a youtube video that recommended the sigma 17-50mm 2.8. Well this moron (me) bought it brand new, then looking at this video, i'm so regretful of doing so. I didn't even think about looking for the nikon 17-55, but after 2 months of buying the sigma lens, I encountered one of your videos, NOw i'm gonna sell my sigma lens and buy the nikkor Thanks for your videos.. I'll make a donation
I got the 50mm ART and love it to death!pretty sure I am gettting the 20mm ART too this xmas! I actually gave the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 to my little brother and his D800 after 3 weeks of using it!next biggest worst investment to the D7200 after my D800 died last year!bought D750 less than a month ago since I cant use crop factor systems after 5 yrs of D800!most of Sigmas telephoto lenses are slow and noisy but nobody can touch their ART series!
Man in 15 yrs camera tech will move drastically and may be you need a series of convertors to use it. Haha. O and your dslr will also need to be fixed 2-3 times
sigma primes are in a league of their own. nothing comes close to the art prime quality unless they are twice as much. tamron has better options for zooms. At the end of the day its just an opinion. you shouldnt rely on other people do your own research
Have to say I don't really care about the brand. If i buy one lens today, I just expect it to last for 5 years. In 3 years, i went from the nikon D 3100 ; D 7100, and now D 500/ Had old lenses from an F90 X, like the 105 mm micro and 24-120 that i don't use anymore. At the start with the D3100, was using a lot the nikkor 70- 300. I use mainly the 35 mm f1.8 these days. For birds photography have the sigma 150- 600, and for ultra wide angle, Sigma 8-16 mm... Yep of course, would prefer Nikkor lens, but in 5 years there will have a new generation of those lenses, 2 generations of cameras, with better AF, focus points. I read a lots of review particularly on amazon, watch review like on ur channel that i appreciate very much. Lots of people don't hesitate to waste their money every year on a new iphone. As long as the lens last for 5 years, I think its good. For a 1000 USD its 200 USD a year in 5 years. This is not expensive overall. (U have to read this with the french accent )
Noooooooooooo !! I love my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO......which I've only had since 2014 and baby the hell out of. Dropped my 80-200....no issues....I'll make sure I don't drop my Sigma. Also, I seldom shoot in continuous higher so I've had no aperture issues...Yet !
Yo mate i never used to like you and some of the crap that you have said, but having said that you are growing on me. In your opinion what are the best quality lenses on the market today. I am looking for a wide angle lens say at least 16mm full frame. Any Ideas ? Just given you the thumbs up . UK snapper.
I've been looking for a ff camera to replace my canon apsc camera. And I am not heavily invested in their lenses. Friends have tried to steer me away from nikon, with the reasoning that their lenses are too expensive. Well, if that expense yields long reliable life, that lens is quite reasonable. Like the expensive work boots that last me 12 years as opposed to the cheap ones that fall apart in 6 months. Thanks for your informative videos.
I see you haven't spent much time with a Sony APS-C camera. Sigma is unquestionably the best value on the mount. I picked up the recently released 16mm f/1.4 and it was decidedly sharper, more contrasty, and possessed better color than the Zeiss to which I compared it. This Sigma lens is $450 new so who cares how long it lasts? It's less than half the price of the venerable Fuji 16mm and I doubt the Fuji is more than twice as good. Both are made in Japan, all metal and weather resistant. The Fuji has it with the MFD but I'd love to see the two lenses compared. Furthermore, the Sigma 30 f/1.4 is merely $340 and (at least until the 16 was released) rated as the sharpest lens on the mount. The Sigma "Art" 60 f/2.8 is a very sharp lens and only $230 new. If the durability is so bad - a belief you seem to have formed on the basis of how many old Sigma lenses appear on the used market - I really don’t care since they offer a lot of IQ for the money.
I had a Sigma 24-70 and a lot of the photos were dark even at low apertures. It had a nice body build but was a bit noisy. Bought a Nikon 24-70 and images were far more consistent and better.
true story, have a sigma 500mm f4.5 EX DG and from time to time aperture blades get stuck, also at 4.5 aperture you notice a lot of focusing inconsistencies, apart from that you can get damn marvelous results from 5.6.
After I ordered my a7III, I needed to look for some full frame glass and I considered buying some of the "new" E mount Art lenses but in the end, I decided against them mostly because they were basically just Canon mount lenses with an adaptor built onto the end, making them even bigger than they already would have been and the price was very close to the Zeiss lenses I was considering. I decided to pick up the 25mm f/2 Batis, the 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar and the Sony FE 85mm 1.8. These lenses are MUCH more compact and lightweight, the build quality is definitely better, the optical quality and autofocus capabilities are amazing and I feel more confident in the longevity of these lenses. Not to mention, the three lenses I bought all came out to be about $2,400. Had I decided to buy three similar focal length Art lenses, it would have been $3,000. If I had just gotten the 24mm and 50mm Art lenses along with the Sony 85mm, I would have paid the exact same amount I paid for the two Zeiss lenses and the Sony 85mm. That would have been insane. I don't hate Sigma and I don't think they're bad lenses but when I can spend the same amount of money OR LESS and have super high quality Zeiss/Sony native glass that is half the size, half the weight and double the build quality, obviously that's the route I'm going to take.
modern Sigma lenses are different... BUT still there is one huge drawback - focus inconsistency (not calibratable - because onese you will get back focus other shot front focus)
Okay, I got it. I won't buy a sigma, neither I would buy a Tamron. What about Canon's lenses then? How do you compare them to Nikon's? If you have already made a video on that, please give me a link to it.
I have to admit I've had a 35mm art and one blade of aperture just broken. I bought it used for 200€, but the lens was really like new but with this problem. Now when I buy sigma I know before that I'm gonna use it and resell it as fast as possible.
Things are changing. Buying any lens with the idea that it's an investment with changing mounts and tech is foolish as is assuming that 1st party quality control today is the same as it was 20 years ago. I've already had a Nikon 70-300VR die. And trying to get it repaired by a 3rd party, even back when Nikon was supplying parts was a stupid costly mistake. The cheaper Nikon lenses have to be treated as disposable. I own 2 Sigma lenses, both bought second hand very cheaply. Both are good...with caveats. 1. A Sigma 8-16 which is wonderful but won't focus on a D7200 (or a D7100 with the very latest firmware. I actually downgraded the firmware on a D7100 to get it working again). What annoys me about that lens is that the Sigma agent in Australia can't tell me before I send it off at my expense to rechip if they'll be able to do it. Picked that up for AUD300 years ago. Lowball offer on Ebay which I was suprised was accepted. 2. A Sigma 150-600C which I picked up second hand with the dock and 1.4 tele (tele sucks sadly) for AUD600 and required about 10 hour round trip road trip (and another AUD100 in petrol) to pick up. I wanted extra reach and going from 300mm to 600mm made more sense than paying twice as much to go up to a Nikon 200-500 for just 200mm more reach. If the aperture blades get stuck I'll be annoyed but in the meantime I have access to extreme wide and extreme long without having paid a mint. And if you want to talk about 3rd party lenses that suck I've had MUCH more trouble with Tamron. But that's for another day.
THIS GUY TELLS THE TRUTH, I own lots of big white canon lenses lol, some of them are now close to 10 years old and they still preform like the seat I bought them, I bought one sigma lens and sold it lol, it rattled, the thing was made from the cheapest plastic known to man, junk
Chuck Norris once shot with a sigma lens and every shot was in focus.. the lens was too scared to miss 😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂
I own a bunch of old lenses, including Nikkor, Takumar and even some Russian Jupiter and Helios and I'm amazed by the build quality most them show. The fact that they survived decades speaks for itself. I agree with you regarding Sigma and would rather buy another old Nikkor than a new Sigma. BUT - with all the electronics built into modern lenses I highly doubt that they will last as long as their pure mechanical predecessors, no matter which brand they are.
I don't know about the construction, but the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 is one of the best lenses ever made. Insane sharpness, fantastic color and contrast from what I can tell. It's pricey, but I'm a hair's breadth away from picking one up. I should probably pay off the last two lenses I bought first, though. lol
Sigma was some 15 years ago not nearly as good as today. At the moment Sigmas are made of mostly metal and are made in Japan. Nikkors on the other hand are made mostly of plastic and are made in Thailand..
BS, ive been messing with sigma and selling their crap for 20 years, theyve improved SOME
failure rate on sigmas is 90% higher than Nikons over 10 years.
+Theoria Apophasis Maybe, but at the moment the quality of the Sigmas is getting better while nikkors are constantly getting cheaper (not meaning the price). So if we compare 15 years old Sigmas that were mostly crappy to the Sigmas today they are quite a different thing. So we might have different results after 15 years starting today.
nikon STILL makes a pile of metal lenses in Japan
bubble is popped
+Theoria Apophasis Yes, but fewer every day. And they are were plastic (80-400, 24-120, from 20mm to 85mm f1,8... The old Nikkors were a different thing. Quality products. I have had a couple of those (17-35, 80-200..) and I don't have anything but good memories of those. But today Nikkors are somewhat disappointing regarding their overall quality (excluding image quality). I don't have that trust with todays Nikkors that I had with the ones made some ten, fifteen years ago.
I love sigma and Tamron without these two companies most photographers would not have any lens, Canon and Nikon just over priced their lenses we are so blessed to have sigma and Tamron
I must be the exception, because my 11-year old 18-50 f/2.8 DC has never failed me once.Sharp, even wide open, very little falloff, and good color. I prefer to manual focus, so can'tgive the lens any grade regarding auto-focus performance. My wife's 10-year old 17-70 f/2.8-f/4 DC has also been very reliable, so I guess we must be the lucky ones out there. It's not always a good idea to paint with a broad brush.
limited sample spectrum experience
My Sigma APO 70-200 EX DG HSM that I bought in 2005 and used extensively still works perfectly.
what about the quality of the canon 24-105? the aperture blade is stuck in the f4 stop! do you recommend any fix on this lens? what would be the best UA-cam tutorial in your opinion?
4:30 Personal experience from Tamron. The EF-S lens: 17-50 2.8 DI II VC
Wonderful image stabilization, passable image quality, shit build quality. Aperture stuck wide open -> Warranty repair. A year later, aperture stuck wide open again. Gladly they have a 5 year warranty, but I learned my lesson. Now I have a nice Canon 17-40 and an extra, freshly repaired Tamron.
The sigma art 19 mm 30 mm 60 mm f2 .8 primes are cheap and very sharp and better than Sony s for a600o dx if you want cheap and sharp for starting out. Also work nice on m43 mount don't care what Ken says Folks each to there own !!!
why does sigma and tamron offer a 3-5 year warranty. where canon and nikon only offer a one year warranty. Does canon and nikon have no faith in their products?
Actually Tamron is 6 years and sigma is 4 years. And in some countries even longer. BTW, Nikon offers 5 years. Only Canon offers 1 year.
Not sure where you live but here in Canada, Sigma has a complete full 7 year transferable warranty! Gotta love Gentec!!
@@willparsons32 in uk sigma offer 3 years and tamron offer 5 years
Sigma....Hamster Lens....Take it home for anything longer than a summer vacation and you will be looking for another look-a-like to replace the one that died on you.
HILARIOUS !!!!
I had a zoom ring jam on a Sigma once. There's another factor to consider Ken. Sometimes cheap and dheerful is best. If you are a little forgetful, clumsy or travel a lot, you are constantly at risk of losing, breaking or having your gear stolen. Your purchase has to fall within acceptable levels of loss. I would rather carry around a Used 250$ Sigma lens that is 85% as good as a new 2000$ Zeiss lens, which I would be terrified to lose. If the Sigma breaks or dies, who cares, I can replace it. Someone steals my Zeiss, I'm scrood.
Ken, despite your obvious phobia for Sigma, i know alot of wedding photographers who are buying and using Sigma 35 1.4 because is sharper and faster than the Nikon. I think for some people matters only the momentary functionnality; if you are charging enough your clients you can buy every 6-7-8-9 years a new lens.
I never tried the Sigma, but the Tamron 35 1.8 and the 45 1.8 witch are great IMO. I would buy them.
IF someone thinks an "art" (a meaningless word) ……lens which costs the SAME PRICE as a true ZEISS, ….is a "wise choice", then however they are 100% Absolutely bat-crap insane and have "not thought things through" however.
"PHOBIC" Yea!! that's the best way to describe this sad sad little individual!!
They say Sigma ART lenses are the best but I always see people selling their used Sigma Art lenses on photo markets like regurgitated hot cakes. I like this guy "Theoria Apophasis", helped me a lot on purchasing many of my Nikon gears.
If you are a lens technician. Do a Sigma tear down and compare with a Zeiss!
this would be awesome
send me YOUR pair and ill do it
Theoria Apophasis 💯
I found that my sickma 35 art "sometimes" is suck, it can't auto focus as well and “display” ERR on my cameras.
Hei, witch is better for Nikon D810: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED or Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4 ZF.2 Nikon (i don't care about aouto focus) ?!?
Why are you deleting comments? I don't get it...
He doesn't like criticism apparently.
such as?
I can't see my comment about Nikon 24-70 2.8 with the mount being broken. Or is it something wrong with UA-cam?
Sorry, my bad! something went wrong on my PC. Sorry!!
id never delete your comments man
The ad I watched at the start of this video was a Sigma ad. Weird coincidence
Just something interesting. If you type in "Sigma Aperture Stuck" in google, you get a lot of hits; almost all of them Cannon users. Then, alter your search, "Sigma 18-35mm Aperture Stuck" and you get.....bupkis. Zip. Nada. Nothing. I did a lot of research before getting the 18-35mm. I am not planning on using this as my go-to event shooter or portrait taker. I specially wanted this to shoot video because the glass is practically identical to cine glass. It out performs all the Nikkor I have in terms of video clarity. For pictures....well...I am struggling with it. It's hit or miss and I haven't found the sweet spot with it. The USB dock is intimidating. You would have to spend 6 or more hours trying to calibrate this lens. 16 different combinations. 4 focal ranges with 4 focus settings. You have to set up a target 3 meters away to try and figure out whether you're back or forward focusing.....at INFINITY.
But oh well. Thankfully, I did get my 18-35mm used at 40% off retail. SO, I am not that upset over it.
OK I have to admit i only own 2 Sigma lenses. A 14 years old 10-20mm DX and a manual focus 70-200mm push-pull 2.8 . Both work fine but I will never again buy third party lenses except old vintage radioactive ones 🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗
By the way, what's your opinion of Canon's Nifty Fifty - not in absolute quality, but in terms of value for money?
I buy all my recommendation on Ken...In fact he is in rotation I may be the first to watch all his videos😱
I bought the Tamron Trinity at the same time.
In the process of buying Nikon D850.
In the future Nikon 105 DC
In future Nikon 135 DC
Have the Helios 85 and
Samyang 135.
Manual...Love it!
Don't know why Ken don't like the Nikon D5...will have the anti alias filter remove for 500 dollars.
But looking for a deal...not.
spending 6500 on no dam camera. Need to get new for 3850.
Love the Sony 7R3💝
Will send u money after ever wedding I do.
Giving up warehouse job to do wedding😂😂💯💯
eric wilson he recommends Tamron?
I did the search on Yahoo for 'Sigma Lens Stuck'. There were 8 or 10 articles written on the first two pages of the search. Yesterday I placed a bid on a Sigma 170-500 mm lens for Nikon. Someone outbid me this morning. I think I will let the lens go now. Thank you for the advice.
i bought 2 Sigma ART lenses about 3 years ago, both of them are now manual focus only, and one of them is permanently stuck at f 7
sounds right, nods head :(
😂😂😂😂😂
My 15 month old Nikkor 200mm micro had stuck aperture blades. Nikon repaired it for free, but it took a month to get it back.
Ken, I agree with you. When I was in retail camera business, I used to often tell people about durability issues among lenses and cameras in general, not just Sigma. Back in the days when I was selling, what I was always up against was when I would tell someone that an FM or FE series camera, especially FM2n or FE2 and Nikkor lens was a better choice than a Minolta or even Canon with more automation and lower price. When automation started kicking in in a big way, this got worse- someone would look in a magazine and see that the latest Maxxum or EOS had all the bells and whistles, then you could not begin to sell them something like an F3. They simply would not listen to anything whatsover about durability, and rarely even about optical quality. They just wanted 500 focus zones, one more FPS built in motor, faster rewind motor, and a bunch of other crap. Hell, I have owned 50 year old and even some 100 year old view camera lenses which were well made to begin with and still worked at that age. There is a guy here in my town who reworks old compur shutters on old Schneider, Zeiss, and Rodenstock lenses 50 and more years old. $100. and they work for another 20 years, still giving good results! Oh, and by the way, the cutomers were quick to come back and bitch when their Sigma lens (and some cheap flashes) stopped working. When I would say "I told you to buy Nikon" they would REALLY get pissed. There is another unseen difference most of the buying public does not know about and I can't go into every brand, but typically, a $500. Nikkor lens had LESS markup than a $300. Sigma lens. The Nikkor would cost us $450. giving only a $50. markup, and the Sigma would cost us $200., giving a $100. markup. This was largely because the better (Nikkor) lens cost twice as much to produce! Anyway, I could get on a rant here like you did. Only our pro customers would buy Metz flashes, for example. And don't even get me started on cheap tripods- guy would buy a $1000. camera, $500. lens (which was ass backwards in the film days, should have bought a cheaper body and better lens), and put it on a $39. tripod. I used to beg people to buy either Bogen or Gitzo to put their good camera on, but they would buy the cheapest Velbon. We had more than one camera or lens come in broken when the tripod failed, and had a LOT of people come back and buy a good tripod after their junk one proved to be useless. Long rant here, anyway, I generally feel the same way about Sigma, and I have no commercial interest in anything any longer!
Casey Vee 😵😵😭😂😂😂😂
The only Sigma lens I still have is the 85mm f/1.4 (bought in 2012). It has worked well and still does but now after watching this I expect it to fail within the next 4 years. I do appreciate your opinions and just discovered your channel last week. All of my other lenses are Canon brand (since that is the line I bought into starting in 2012). So far all of them still work. I bought 2 Sigma lenses in 2012 due to recommendation from a photographer friend of mine. One was the 85mm prime and the other was the 17-50 f/2.8 for crop sensors since I was shooting with a Canon T2i at the time and it gave much better results than the 18-55 kit lens that came with it. A friend has the 17-50 f/2.8 now since he got a 7D mark II and I had no use for it any more with 2 full-frames. He may be using it "rapid fire" mode since he shoots sports so it will be interesting to see if it holds up. What about Canon lenses vs. Nikkor in terms of reliability? I heard you say in another video that you don't review Canon (the one where you talked about the 5D4) but if you have had any experience or knowledge about Canon lens build quality vs. Nikkor?
i havent used canon in ages……..i dont make a penny either way , im just trying to save people the pain and the misery…..read the horror stories in the comments below
Here's a tidbit that confirms your comments above. I'm in my local camera shop and speaking with their salesperson. He has an extensive background in photography and has shot images for magazines, mostly portraiture, beauty, glamour etc. Throw in some landscape also. He still loves older lenses, manual focus among many others. He started in the film days. HE WILL NOT CARRY OR SELL SIGMA. The quality from a repair standpoint as well as image quality. He was given an art series to try out and frankly, wasn't impressed in the least. Actually, thought the image quality was inferior because of the many reasons you've talked about. And the real reason for their docking station and optimization software would shock you. I'm not looking for flack because of what I just said, merely repeating what I heard.
I own 2 Art lenses & Tamron too, 7 years to go! Sigma & Tamron have improved considerably from what they used to be, prior to the Art I would agree & I wouldn't have touched one let alone brought it. The Art line is very new ,so I have my doubts your statistics still apply. The old Sigma & Tamrons , well I'd have been surprised if it didn't die the day after the warranty expired, but that was then , Art is now.
It would have been nice to see you posting from Photokina. Your insight on the new gear would have been cool. Hey, your prediction of the Fuji medium format was accurate. If the price is 4/5 thousand, me getting one! Hope to see ya at PHOTO+ in NYC. Funny stuff, thanks.
ehhh, nobody wants to see me there……and it would be a huge waste of money…….id go there for 30 mins, then stroll the streets of germany taking pictures rest of the time.
oh yeah, when is Photo NYC???i cant afford that either…….much less have a place to stay the night
Regardless of opinion expressed, most people are not professional photographers.
Hence if the lens (any make) works for you and you are getting the results you require for your photography, then there is no problem. Enjoy it.
Except for when for the same money you can get a lens that is made to last and gives you a much better return on your investment. Even a non-pro should be concerned about how long it will last.
"you're not professional therefore reliability doesn't matter", you are out of your mind.
4:42 i have yet to see a sigma i have worked on that didnt have aperture issues
awesome review ...honest...I'm subscribing.
Please give us an opinion on the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 art lens and the Sigma 85mm 1.4 art.
Thanks for a great video... I was about to buy a sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 dg os hsm (S) for my Nikon D500. I am never going to sigma in my life. Please suggest me a best wildlife lens around the same budget of that so called sigma sports variant lens..
I have been using a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM since 2006 and stills fully operational and stills in good shape... and I work 3 times a week with that one in baseball games. You have some reason but they're not so bad as you say.
So, what do you think of those old m42's like helios, zeiss, vivitar, porst etc.? Do you think it makes sense buying them off of ebay?
most of them are located in Russia :/ id never buy from there
I have been shooting for over 10 years, started with Nikon d2xs all the way to d4s and d810 with pro level glass 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 85 1.4 and 50 1.4. Later I moved to Fuji XT-2 and last year to Sony a7r3... While I agree that the old sigma lenses had a lot of issues my experience with the E mount 35 1.4 and 50 1.4 is different. They are very sharp with no AF issue probably cause of how the AF works on mirrorless cameras. After comparing my 85 1.4GM I am actually considering switching to sigma 105 1.4. Btw, number of my Nikon lenses had back/front focus issues that Nikon was unable to repair and that couldn't be resolved with fine tune adjustment... Now I know you don't have much good to say about Sony but after shooting with it for over a year I trust it more than any of my previous Nikon gear where a decent percentage of shots would be off focus which isn't the case with Sony or Fuji. Sure the menu sucks, so does the handling but in the end it is about getting the shot and image quality which consists of proper focus.
this video made me wanna go out and buy a sigma lol
hahahahahaha
I did... actually I bought 2 of them!! MAN, was I EXTREMELY impressed!
I own the 35mm 1.4 Art and the 50mm 1.4 Art. Both are stellar lenses. Supersharp wide open. I really love them. Never had ANY problems with focus. A friend of mine had the 85mm 1.4 Art at Photokina tested on his 5Dmkiii and sent me raw-files. Again: Amazing Results.
Sigma was not that good in the old days. Thats ok. But they really changed the last years with the outcome of the Art-Lenses.
Not saying that every Art-Lens is perfect. Of course not. But they produce higher quality images than the equivalent nikon or canon glass is capable of.
If you don´t like Sigma-Lenses. Ok. Your Choice. But please don´t try to convience people with wrong facts. ;)
call me in a few years when they dont work anymore
Phone number please?
My 50 and 35 art already malfunctioned and they never autofocus reliably. Guess I'll be vocal about not getting my friends into using sigma because sigma has been an awful experience for me
i tested 3 lenses (dif focal lengths so probably not a good test, but still) the sigma came out on top. lenses tested: 85 tamron, 24-70 nikon, 50 sigma art. the tamron was about 1/3rd stop darker than the rest. the 24-70 was warmer and seemed to have more contrast. the sigma was a tiny bit brighter than the 24-70 and seemed to have better saturation (but could have been the slight exposure advantage) i tested with gamut-warning in photoshop to see how quickly the colours saturated, the nikon and sigma were pretty much identical, although the sigma had a slightly colder tone. im impressed with the sigma 50's image quality, but having used it a bunch of times at weddings it has inconsistencies tracking AF. if you are looking to buy a new lens id say pay the extra and go with native glass if you are a working professional. if you are exclusively shooting studio work, still objects, etc. and will look after your gear (like a fragile little baby) then go with the sigma arts. the surprising part was finding out my tamron was so dark, and i tested everything at F4 under a constant daylight LED light. no exaggeration about the 1/3rd-stop thing, I literally had to +0.30 on exposure in raw to have it match the 24-70 + 50. shame really, and thats at F4, imagine how bad it is wide-open.
All those used old Nikon lenses on Ebay for sale is because people want to sell them and buy new Sigma Art and Sport lenses. And the only reason not that many Sigma lenses on Ebay is because people keep them.
Hi Ken, are you talking about all Sigma lenses including older manual lenses? I ask because I have an older Sigma Zoom Epsilon 28-70mm ƒ3.5-4.5 manual focus lens (I think it's parfocal) in Minolta SR-Mount (it has the MC lever). It seems to have been very well made. It also renders quite nicely when adapted to my mirrorless camera. I picked it up for next to nothing at a local thrift shop with a Minolta MD 50mm ƒ1.7 on a body. Which leads me to my next question - what are your thoughts on Minolta MC/MD/Rokkor/Rokkor-X lenses in general? Any takes on image-fidelity etc...?
I had a Sigma 150mm for 4/3. Used for about 3 years no issues. Never needed blazingly fast AF on my E-5 and the images where good enough for what I payed as a used lens. Then I had a photo shoot (purly amaturish for a website to see would it work as a concept). After the last shot my aperture got stuck on f22. Left it alone. Nobody wanted to fix it in London and I got m4/3 m.zuiko 60mm. After about 2 years I have googled and found it had the most simple fix ever which was a tap onba side which released the aperture. Used it for another year with no issues. Which camera gear all together and sold it to a guy who worked at Sigma for 10 years. Now it has been 1 year and I said if any issues you can send it back and I will send you the money. Nothing. My colleague bought a new camera about the same time with a Tamrom 70-200. It has been some time and he is still using it. But he bought a nikkor 50mm 1.4 the same year and it lasted 2 month. Keep in mind this person was a very lazy photographer and was using his spare time to study for the next 1 year. He used both lenses the same amount - just for the tasks our teachers gave. He kept everything in mint condition. It just shows that even cheap lenses can outlive more "secure" companies. My Sigma lens went everywhere with me and I had bang around while hiking to rocks, got wet and still lasted that long. I dont say you are wrong just maybe hard to listen with all of that "look who I am and I know better" attitude. Also if you wanted to make good points take one apart, show the difference in part quality, weak points, flawed optics etc. Your video could have been summed up in 3 minutes... Like I almost fallen asleep at the end because you kept repeating yourself. I was tought in school that a person who keeps repeating the same facts usually knows the counter arguments and by making the other person bored wins the argument. This just sounded similar...maybe I am wrong
thanks! what would be your recommendation for an ultra wide angle lens?
i just did that in a new video i put up 2 hours ago
You never see old Sigma lenses for sale on eBay because old Sigma lenses really were junk. They were unreliable, had poor optics, and were riddled with compatibility problems, often not working at all on newer cameras. However Sigma had some upper management changes a number of years back and the company today is not run the same way as it used to be. I think that 15 years from now you actually will see used Sigma ART and SPORTS series lenses from today sold in the used market, some of them likely in high demand. Ten years ago I never would have thought of buying Sigma glass but today I think Sigma makes some of the best e-mount lenses sold.
How much is the survival rate of the rest of the lenses, can you give us a chart ?
Ok so I was going to my the 35mm Art, but after this nah, what's the best 35 1.4 in your opinion, I don't mind if it's manual focus, mount isn't a problem I'm gonna be using it on my 7R. So what's the best 35mm 1.4 I can get Ken?
Zeiss 35mm 1.4, but its a MF lens, i have it…..however it costs a fortune
Ahhh, I know you've probably not used it but what about the Canon 35mm 1.4 ii for that price point, or the older one ? What are your opinions on that ?
I feel attacked but I keep laughing 😂😂
Not a big fan of third party lenses, but I've bought three over the past ten years. Still own the two Sigmas, the Tokina was junk and packed it in years ago. Build quality and performance are fine.
would this be for the global vision products or are you specifically using info for their old line of lenses Ken?
all their lenses , period
Ha, I just put my Sigma lens on the camera. Was thinking selling it as I never use it. It had died in the camera bag. Was flickering like crazy.
Okay, I only have 1, the 105 macro EX, lol Have a few older Nikor's that I have had serviced and man they are sharp. The lens service per tells the same as you are saying and advice that I'll be better with my old Nikor lens the Sigma Or Tamron.
I was wondering how the manual focus sigmas last? anyone experience with them?
Great success! Never a problem!! not with mine anyways!
Hi Ken. Fuji lenses such as the 16 mm or the 35 mm are well made as you pointed out many times, but How long should I expect them to last? Can they be considered a long term investment? Should I be worried? Thanks.
ive had 2 of them torn down, their construction is TOP, even the guy on Utube "fix your camera" who takes crap apart all the time says Fuji lenses internally are TOPS
had a 70 200 2.8 sigma ..It was slow, soft, shit and the aperture blades broke after 5 years of use.
sounds about right
I do have both - the Sigma ART 50mm and the Zeiss Planar T* 50mm.
Wide Open the Sigma is sharper - the Zeiss for sure will last longer due to its build quality - and the 'Look' of the Images you will get with Zeiss Lenses is unbeatable.
If I shoot with plenty of light and time, the Zeiss is my first choice - in low light situations, when I have to be quick: the Sigma will deliver sharper Images.
does this also go for the vintage sigma lenses? Bought a bag full for $10 cleaned them up and sold them on eBay.
hey if you were to buy one lens fo rportraits for the Fuji Film x-t2, which would you own? thanks in advance.
one, 56mm 1.2
Theoria Apophasis thanks. Love the channel!
Have you actually used some of the new Sigma lenses?
oh yes
Then I don't know how you abuse your lenses. I used a Sigma 120-300mm produced in 2008 till last year without issues (till I sold it.) I've owned and sold a full host of lenses, Sigma, Tamrons and Canons, and never really saw any issues with any of them.
I'm just going to assume your just clumsy.
Well, I might consider a Nikkor lens ... when they make them with Canon mounts! lol
I picked a Sigma lens from 2001, searched for that model only on ebay, found 6 of them on the first page. That's just one model. It's incredible, the conviction that you have in your nonsense.
How would Tamron fit into this 3rd party glass comparison if you had to choose Sigma vs Tamron.
So have you changed your position on the Sigma 150mm, or is that one the exception?
Art lenses haven't been around for 15 years. So there is no data yet according to your logic.
haahah best saying ever
Just some 'wanna-be' ego statistical Mr. know it all!! Such a sad sad pudgy lil man!
He's living in the past. Sigma ART and SPORTS lenses came about because of changes in Sigma's management and company philosophy. From a legal perspective Sigma is the same company they were 10 or 15 years ago but they are not at all the same company in terms of what they do and how they are run. I would never have bought Sigma glass 15 years ago, it was junk and had endless problems. Today I think Sigma makes some of the best lenses on the market and that their lenses are pushing Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al to do better. I'm happy to support today's Sigma and proud to own and use their glass.
Very extreme opinion. I have only one Sigma ART, the 35/1.4. Incredible good lens. I have been using it for 5 y and no problem on d600 either on d850. So it still works.
He’s right about this. I have a nikkor 105mm f/2.8D af micro. And this lens looks like it was purchased by the previous owner just to throw it against a wall. But I’ll tell you what, the image quality is superb.
And what do you think of the Foveon sensor? (Merrill version)
Great Danes last 8-10 years. I guess with Sigma it is luck of the draw. I was considering the Sigma 150mm OS macro. Don't you have one of those or is it the 180mm macro?
how about a sigma macro flash...still crap?
ive never used that thing
I bougt Tokina Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X M100 AF Pro D Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D, bla. Briliant!
Compare the Sigmas with every Zeiss or a super cheap Super Takumar on flickr and you will see why. The Sigmas are undeniably one of the flatest lenses ever, no 3D pop, Color rendition is in my opinion not the best. Not my cup of tea. I had the 35 1.4 ,sold it a week after. And one thing should be clear, SHARP DOES NOT MEAN ART!
Hey, how about Tamron ? (I'm thinking of getting the 24-70mm 2.8, and the 70 -200 2.8 from Tamron)
it's your money, i think he's talked to somebody about those before.
I bought a Sigma 50 mm Art two years ago and I am quite happy with it. HOWEVER, the autofocus on first one broke down within a week and it had to be replaced.
it will be dead as a squished TOAD within 5 years……..mark the date :)
@@KenTheoriaApophasis 1 year left
You are very right, I was looking for a lens for my d300s, and I encounter a youtube video that recommended the sigma 17-50mm 2.8. Well this moron (me) bought it brand new, then looking at this video, i'm so regretful of doing so. I didn't even think about looking for the nikon 17-55, but after 2 months of buying the sigma lens, I encountered one of your videos, NOw i'm gonna sell my sigma lens and buy the nikkor
Thanks for your videos.. I'll make a donation
I just got that Sigma lens too. Works fine for me and no regrets. I'm sure it won't last as long as the Nikkor but I'm happy with it.
Biggest mistake you will ever make!
so you're gonna sell your lens because of this video and not because it broke down? haha so dumb ( i guess it's sold now)
I got the 50mm ART and love it to death!pretty sure I am gettting the 20mm ART too this xmas! I actually gave the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 to my little brother and his D800 after 3 weeks of using it!next biggest worst investment to the D7200 after my D800 died last year!bought D750 less than a month ago since I cant use crop factor systems after 5 yrs of D800!most of Sigmas telephoto lenses are slow and noisy but nobody can touch their ART series!
Man in 15 yrs camera tech will move drastically and may be you need a series of convertors to use it. Haha. O and your dslr will also need to be fixed 2-3 times
sigma primes are in a league of their own. nothing comes close to the art prime quality unless they are twice as much. tamron has better options for zooms. At the end of the day its just an opinion. you shouldnt rely on other people do your own research
wrong. call me in 7 years when it isnt working anymore.
Opinion???? So you been repairing and selling lenses for 20 years? yeah, right.
what about the art stuff?
Have to say I don't really care about the brand. If i buy one lens today, I just expect it to last for 5 years. In 3 years, i went from the nikon D 3100 ; D 7100, and now D 500/ Had old lenses from an F90 X, like the 105 mm micro and 24-120 that i don't use anymore. At the start with the D3100, was using a lot the nikkor 70- 300. I use mainly the 35 mm f1.8 these days. For birds photography have the sigma 150- 600, and for ultra wide angle, Sigma 8-16 mm... Yep of course, would prefer Nikkor lens, but in 5 years there will have a new generation of those lenses, 2 generations of cameras, with better AF, focus points. I read a lots of review particularly on amazon, watch review like on ur channel that i appreciate very much. Lots of people don't hesitate to waste their money every year on a new iphone. As long as the lens last for 5 years, I think its good. For a 1000 USD its 200 USD a year in 5 years. This is not expensive overall. (U have to read this with the french accent )
Noooooooooooo !! I love my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO......which I've only had since 2014 and baby the hell out of. Dropped my 80-200....no issues....I'll make sure I don't drop my Sigma. Also, I seldom shoot in continuous higher so I've had no aperture issues...Yet !
K. D. I had that 50-150 OS and it was a workhorse on the crop sensor body. Sharp af
Yo mate i never used to like you and some of the crap that you have said, but having said that you are growing on me. In your opinion what are the best quality lenses on the market today. I am looking for a wide angle lens say at least 16mm full frame.
Any Ideas ? Just given you the thumbs up . UK snapper.
I've been looking for a ff camera to replace my canon apsc camera. And I am not heavily invested in their lenses. Friends have tried to steer me away from nikon, with the reasoning that their lenses are too expensive. Well, if that expense yields long reliable life, that lens is quite reasonable. Like the expensive work boots that last me 12 years as opposed to the cheap ones that fall apart in 6 months. Thanks for your informative videos.
ya i believe it, i have cheap dc cause it was all i could afford but i mostly use my 30+ year old pentax m's
ok😂.. Btw I got the tamron 70-200 vc usd depending on your advice
thank you. I'm not gonna buy any sigma lenses. btw there are no any warranities for sigma lenses right here in Iraq
I got Tamron lens too
Great lens and a great place to take photos, lots of interesting subjects in Iraq, do you like doing street photography?
Ark yeah.. The old streets and markets are really amazing subjects to photograph. I like to take photos of old people as well
I'd love to visit Baghdad but I fear for my safety! Would love to see the pics.
I see you haven't spent much time with a Sony APS-C camera. Sigma is unquestionably the best value on the mount. I picked up the recently released 16mm f/1.4 and it was decidedly sharper, more contrasty, and possessed better color than the Zeiss to which I compared it. This Sigma lens is $450 new so who cares how long it lasts? It's less than half the price of the venerable Fuji 16mm and I doubt the Fuji is more than twice as good. Both are made in Japan, all metal and weather resistant. The Fuji has it with the MFD but I'd love to see the two lenses compared.
Furthermore, the Sigma 30 f/1.4 is merely $340 and (at least until the 16 was released) rated as the sharpest lens on the mount. The Sigma "Art" 60 f/2.8 is a very sharp lens and only $230 new. If the durability is so bad - a belief you seem to have formed on the basis of how many old Sigma lenses appear on the used market - I really don’t care since they offer a lot of IQ for the money.
sigma is junk.
I had a Sigma 24-70 and a lot of the photos were dark even at low apertures. It had a nice body build but was a bit noisy. Bought a Nikon 24-70 and images were far more consistent and better.
Which Sigma exactly ?
true story, have a sigma 500mm f4.5 EX DG and from time to time aperture blades get stuck, also at 4.5 aperture you notice a lot of focusing inconsistencies, apart from that you can get damn marvelous results from 5.6.
What’s your take on Tamron?
After I ordered my a7III, I needed to look for some full frame glass and I considered buying some of the "new" E mount Art lenses but in the end, I decided against them mostly because they were basically just Canon mount lenses with an adaptor built onto the end, making them even bigger than they already would have been and the price was very close to the Zeiss lenses I was considering. I decided to pick up the 25mm f/2 Batis, the 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar and the Sony FE 85mm 1.8. These lenses are MUCH more compact and lightweight, the build quality is definitely better, the optical quality and autofocus capabilities are amazing and I feel more confident in the longevity of these lenses.
Not to mention, the three lenses I bought all came out to be about $2,400. Had I decided to buy three similar focal length Art lenses, it would have been $3,000. If I had just gotten the 24mm and 50mm Art lenses along with the Sony 85mm, I would have paid the exact same amount I paid for the two Zeiss lenses and the Sony 85mm. That would have been insane.
I don't hate Sigma and I don't think they're bad lenses but when I can spend the same amount of money OR LESS and have super high quality Zeiss/Sony native glass that is half the size, half the weight and double the build quality, obviously that's the route I'm going to take.
Well said, Ken
my stupid sigma fart lens back focuses.
modern Sigma lenses are different... BUT still there is one huge drawback - focus inconsistency (not calibratable - because onese you will get back focus other shot front focus)
no theyre not. Different? nope.
And what do you think of Tamron SP lenses?
Okay, I got it. I won't buy a sigma, neither I would buy a Tamron. What about Canon's lenses then? How do you compare them to Nikon's?
If you have already made a video on that, please give me a link to it.
I have to admit I've had a 35mm art and one blade of aperture just broken. I bought it used for 200€, but the lens was really like new but with this problem. Now when I buy sigma I know before that I'm gonna use it and resell it as fast as possible.
Bought a Sigma 30mm 1.4 for 100 bucks and got it calibrated at Sigma for a few additional bucks and there is mit favourite lens...
Things are changing. Buying any lens with the idea that it's an investment with changing mounts and tech is foolish as is assuming that 1st party quality control today is the same as it was 20 years ago.
I've already had a Nikon 70-300VR die. And trying to get it repaired by a 3rd party, even back when Nikon was supplying parts was a stupid costly mistake. The cheaper Nikon lenses have to be treated as disposable.
I own 2 Sigma lenses, both bought second hand very cheaply. Both are good...with caveats.
1. A Sigma 8-16 which is wonderful but won't focus on a D7200 (or a D7100 with the very latest firmware. I actually downgraded the firmware on a D7100 to get it working again). What annoys me about that lens is that the Sigma agent in Australia can't tell me before I send it off at my expense to rechip if they'll be able to do it. Picked that up for AUD300 years ago. Lowball offer on Ebay which I was suprised was accepted.
2. A Sigma 150-600C which I picked up second hand with the dock and 1.4 tele (tele sucks sadly) for AUD600 and required about 10 hour round trip road trip (and another AUD100 in petrol) to pick up. I wanted extra reach and going from 300mm to 600mm made more sense than paying twice as much to go up to a Nikon 200-500 for just 200mm more reach.
If the aperture blades get stuck I'll be annoyed but in the meantime I have access to extreme wide and extreme long without having paid a mint.
And if you want to talk about 3rd party lenses that suck I've had MUCH more trouble with Tamron. But that's for another day.
THIS GUY TELLS THE TRUTH, I own lots of big white canon lenses lol, some of them are now close to 10 years old and they still preform like the seat I bought them, I bought one sigma lens and sold it lol, it rattled, the thing was made from the cheapest plastic known to man, junk
I don't know how they are still in busness.
The rabbit of lenses = Sigma - The elephant is Nikkor ;-)
and the money pig reward goes tooooo.... Canon! Their lenses are WAYYYY over rated and over priced too!