This Vs. Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM: Is the above model in any way superior to this one, with the smaller f/stop?
851241
I tried both side-by-side. F/3.5 model focused noticeably faster in low light. It also has a better build. On the other hand it is larger, heavier and uses more expensive 82mm filters (F/4-5.6 uses 77mm filters). Plus at the time I purchased it, the 4-5.6 model cost $407$ at my local store and the 3.5 model cost $649, which is $250 difference. At that price difference you might as well get excellently reviewed Tokina 11-16 constant F/2.8. Some food for thought
606484
I'm so glad there's something posted here - this is one of the lenses I'm considering getting my husband for Christmas. He has the Sigma 50-200mm lens right now and in my experience with it, it hasn't been too bad. Should he be happy with the 18-200?
1183540
I've never used the canon 85mm but the there is almost no difference in sharpness with th Sigma lens. The price difference is only justified by the lower F stop.
1966949
I almost decided in favor of Sigma, but then I realized that Sigma is made for a crop camera only. While I'm not looking to buy an FF one any time soon, when I do, it will be costly, so I wouldn't have the money to follow it up with expensive lenses, not to mention that a good prime is a good prime, which I expect to last me a long while... So that is becoming a big drawback for me...
725617
I use my Sigma religiously! It has actually become my favorite lens! As far as a comparison, I do not own a Canon version and have not tried one. Many reviews here http://reviews.cnet.com/lenses/sigma-apo-70-200mm/4505-13038_7-35643871.html
385957
I really enjoyed my Sigma 30mm, but the 24L is something different. $1100 is worth different things to different people. I found it to be a better focal length on a crop sensor (7D) for general indoor low light shooting.
1253598
Can't answer directly, but I have used this lens with a 6D, and have gotten pin sharp images with typically spectacular Canon color rendition. The AF is almost instantaneous. The image quality, IS, and a more substantial look and feel would make me choose this lens over the older version every time.
276637
My Sigma has a smooth satan finish (definitely not rough) and while the internal frame is metal the external skin is a strong graphite based synthetic. The build quality is superb and the weight of the lens is heavy. Does not feel or look flimsy just the opposite. More importantly the optics are great, actually quite exceptional.
258269
If I can quote Ken Rockwell: "Compared to the 12-24mm which it replaces, the 10-24mm is more cheaply built. The 12-24mm was built to semi-pro standards, but this new 10-24mm feels more dinky and I suspect will break if you bang the front of it into anything hard enough." And "the 10-24mm gets longer as zoomed, while the 12-24mm stays the same size as seen here" The 12-24 can be at f4 throughout it's range; the 10-24 is a variable aperture of f3.5 - f4.5
1343873
I am using the same model lens compatible with Canon 6D. This has HSM (Hyper Sonic Motor) which ensures quiet and high speed autofocus. This is my favorite lens.
1183536
I have not had a chance to compare both but this sigma is the first non canon lens I have put in my bag. Have 6 different ones and the sigma is a great value. I have not regretted it.
387101
This is a matter of personal choice, and finances....the Canon lens is about twice the price of the Sigma. You gain a stop of light. I use this lens for portraits, and get spectacular results. The bokeh is beautiful. However, at 1.4, it is entirely possible to lose focus on the subject's back eye. I did use it for an event, too....and opened it all the way up....beautiful shots.
1199011
My opinion goes against some other comments. I use a Sigma 150-500 and Sigma 70-300 (the newer version) on my D7100, shooting motorsports, where the speeds reached are quite a bit higher than kids playing football, and the focusing speed is very good, especially on the 120-300. I've never lost a shot due to slow focus, even when panning as the cars go by at 150mph+. I've used the 20-700 Sigma, and it's even a bit faster.
1490177
I also have a Sigma 50-500mm (Bigma) that is highly rated, I find this lens to compare favorably and being much smaller much easier to get steady & sharp hand-hel results at 300mm. Took photos at a band concert a week ago (indoors) and was impressed that I could read the type on name tags music stand from a distance. Basically a very sharp lens for the money. I highly recommend.
2103068
Its really a budget decision. Both produce sharp images and good in low light, but with the sigma your packing more focal range without having to swap lenses.
725619
This lens compares with and outperform the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L USM, I purchased this lens after my Canon broke down, I purchased the Sigma lens and have been use it more than the Canon Lens, fantastic lens and costs half of Canon's price.
2163869
It has been a year since I had this lens and do not remember if it changes f-stops and the Sigma site does not offer any assistance to your question. I would email Sigma and pose your question directly to them. They are very good at answering questions in one to two business days.