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.
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 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
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 TH-cam tutorial in your opinion?
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.
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.
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 !!!
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.
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.
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.
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, 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!
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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 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 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.
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.
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 ?
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?
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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 🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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😂😂💯💯
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.
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
A pro would probably never buy Sigma, but for amateur enthusiasts they are fine, as amateurs tend to treat their lenses with care and will prob not be using them as extensively as a pro.
Think again. Many Pros use Sigma lenses. Actually never seen 35mm but I have seen a lot of 24-105mm, 18-35mm, 20-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, 120-300mm Sport.
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.
As I have previously mentioned I have had 3 Sigma lenses over the years, with one around 15 years old. Technically, all three do work, though the 2 I bought around 8-9 years ago do have issues with their coatings, which mean I couldn't sell them on and now days I won't buy Sigma lenses and have bought Nikkor, Tamron, Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses for my Nikon and Fuji for my Fuji, so I don't have an axe to grind and am definitely not a Sigma fan boy. However, Sigma does seem to have improved their lens quality and both optically and with build since the introduction of the Art line. They also are a lot more consistent in optical quality. Now I have spoken to shop staff, who have no interest in selling me Sigma lenses cause they know I won't buy them and have told me about issues with certain lenses and they are reporting that they are not getting a huge amount of issues with the newer Sigma lenses. Now I know that the Sigma art line is not that old, so we can't tell what the lenses will be like in 15 years time. I would also suggest that newer Nikkor lenses are not of the same build quality as some of the older Nikkor lenses. With optical quality I know you are not a big fan of Sigma's, Zeiss Otus/Milvus because you believe they lack micro contrast compared to the many older lenses including Zeiss/Voigtlander etc but a lens like the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Planar T does suffer from significant chromatic aberration when compared to more modern lenses, it also can't touch the Otus or Milvus when it comes to sharpness (I won't get into a disagreement about micro contrast). This of course does not make the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Planar T a bad lens, it is in fact a great lens, despite its flaws. Now, 2 of my Sigma lenses were optically pretty awful but the third 70-200mm f/2.8 was pretty good (not as good as the equivalent Nikkor or that time) and it doesn't have the focus breathing issues of the current Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR2. Now getting to my point, different people value different things in lenses and by far the majority of Sigma Art users I know like the optical quality of the lenses and the people who view their photos, wouldn't know the differences in optical quality between a Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss, Canon, Fuji, Sony, Voigtlander or any other lens. Now as I said at the beginning, I am not recommending people buy Sigma lenses what I would say is that any photographer should get as much information as possible from a variety of sources, be it youtube photography equipment commentators, like yourself and the 20 other guys. From people who write articles such as Thom Hogan and check website reviews (not all of them are paid for) and check customer reviews on forums and sites like B&H, Amazon etc. Also I would say for photographers to post their experiences on these websites both good and bad. Also people need to go and play with the lens before they buy, take some photos look at them first on their computer then after that make their decision.
well people buy whatever they want…. 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.
Art is a designation in the same way 'L' is and whilst Zeiss lenses are great lenses generally, they are not for everyone, due to manual focus and for certain kinds of photography manual focus isn't as practical as autofocus. Most Sigma lenses are cheaper than their Nikkor equivalent and that is one of the reason people buy them, even if it is a false economy, when selling on. I have no idea if the Art line lenses, will still be going in 10 years, you might be right and they all fall apart but Sigma may have improved their build quality and reliability. As I say, I am not planning on buying any Sigma lenses but I put these comments as a polite counter.
Why are you responding? Theoria is a crank who knows nothing, isn't a working pro, has never been a working pro, rarely if ever shows any photos, thinks half of the Zeiss lenses are crap, loves POS Voightlander for some reason and is a contrarian weirdo (see rest of his vids)...he's a more annoying Ken Rockwell.
thatguyalex Ok, well lets start at the beginning. Why do I respond. I am an insomniac, it is 5:46am and I have been up for 2 hours. Also when I disagree with a statement or think there is an inaccuracy I like to put it down in the comments, as a counter comment to the video, which anyone especially new people can read. You don't need to be a working pro to have an opinion and put it up on youtube. Whether people watch it is up to them. Whilst I do disagree with quite a lot of what he says, Theoria does cover a lot of areas of photography and has a lot of opinions, often not covered by other photographers. Now I would say to anyone who watches a video to view it with caution. never go by just one source and if you do find out something you do not know, research it more to find out as much as possible. A good example was his recent post on Fluorite elements, which I then researched and found that his video was not totally accurate in regards to Nasa. Theoria does a lot of videos on micro contrast, which led me to do more research into that (I would recommend the article by Thom Hogan). The reason I first started to watch his videos was because of the Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 Nokton which I did already own but I like to see what other people think of the lens and his was pretty much the only video on TH-cam about the lens (It is a great lens by the way). As for Ziess lenses, I have made my feelings known and not all Ziess lenses are that good (I am not a big fan of the classic 50mm). When it comes to his controversies (including photos), I am well aware of them and do not condone some the way he often talks about other internet photographers. I do not think that Theoria knows nothing, there is a lot of stuff I kind of agree on. He likes Fuji (I have owned an X-E1 for several years). He uses Nikon (I have used Nikon for many years). He has problems with Sigma (so do I (though experience), though I do not think the image quality is bad like he does). As for the science videos, I avoid them. So there you have it. I only watch Theoria video's that interest me, which is occational. In the same way I watch most photographers videos (the exception probably being The Camera Store, Benjamin Von Wong Joe Mcnally and Phillip Bloom, who I am a big fan of) I hope that answers you question satisfactorily. :D
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
I wonder which one you have, as much as I liked Ken, his suggestions seem to be contradictory these days, I have had the sigma 105 macro os for over two years now and it is amazingly sharp and everything else is pretty great too; except that the os is noisy. I have used it while travelling to different remote areas to shoots weddings, dropped it a couple of times too. It has been absolutely amazing, now I really don't know if this would last me a decade or not but I will be more than happy if it is this good for the next 3-4 years.
Ok accept what you are saying. I have always gone with Canon L glass for this exact reason. Resale value and life expectancy. That is why they are so expensive. However that said, is it fair to say that modern day Sigma Lenses (say the last couple of years) have gotten better with quality control, or is it the same old story? Be very keen to hear your feedback. I just bought the 35mm and love it, but I also accepted that it likely wont live as long as the equivalent (twice the price) L version from Canon. I accept that for the $900 AUD that I paid for it. Just trying to get your feedback on recent Sigma quality because from what I understand, they have significantly overhauled their QC process.
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.
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.
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.
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
My Sigma APO 70-200 EX DG HSM that I bought in 2005 and used extensively still works perfectly.
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
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 TH-cam tutorial in your opinion?
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
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.
4:30 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 !!!
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, 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!!
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) ?!?
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.
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.
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 💯
By the way, what's your opinion of Canon's Nifty Fifty - not in absolute quality, but in terms of value for money?
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.
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.
How much is the survival rate of the rest of the lenses, can you give us a chart ?
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 😵😵😭😂😂😂😂
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.
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.
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
Please give us an opinion on the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 art lens and the Sigma 85mm 1.4 art.
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 found that my sickma 35 art "sometimes" is suck, it can't auto focus as well and “display” ERR on my cameras.
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
So have you changed your position on the Sigma 150mm, or is that one the exception?
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.
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.
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 !!!!
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
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
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 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
How would Tamron fit into this 3rd party glass comparison if you had to choose Sigma vs Tamron.
awesome review ...honest...I'm subscribing.
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
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
I feel attacked but I keep laughing 😂😂
And what do you think of the Foveon sensor? (Merrill version)
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.
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 ?
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
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?
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 TH-cam?
Sorry, my bad! something went wrong on my PC. Sorry!!
id never delete your comments man
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..
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.
how about a sigma macro flash...still crap?
ive never used that thing
does this also go for the vintage sigma lenses? Bought a bag full for $10 cleaned them up and sold them on eBay.
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
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.
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!
And what do you think of Tamron SP lenses?
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 ?
What’s your take on Tamron?
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.
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.
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.
4:42 i have yet to see a sigma i have worked on that didnt have aperture issues
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 :(
😂😂😂😂😂
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.
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.
The ad I watched at the start of this video was a Sigma ad. Weird coincidence
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.
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.
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'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 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.
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 🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗
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.
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.
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
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.
I bougt Tokina Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X M100 AF Pro D Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D, bla. Briliant!
What about the Olympus 17mm f1.2 Pro?
How about Sigma lenses?
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.
I was wondering how the manual focus sigmas last? anyone experience with them?
Great success! Never a problem!! not with mine anyways!
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?
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.
i agree with your opinion.but i have 2 sigma lenses and those are fine to me.keep using those until i have more money to buy something better.
call me in 4 years when theyre dead and drooling
what about the art stuff?
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
Is Sigma made in Japan?
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 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
A pro would probably never buy Sigma, but for amateur enthusiasts they are fine, as amateurs tend to treat their lenses with care and will prob not be using them as extensively as a pro.
Think again. Many Pros use Sigma lenses. Actually never seen 35mm but I have seen a lot of 24-105mm, 18-35mm, 20-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, 120-300mm Sport.
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.
As I have previously mentioned I have had 3 Sigma lenses over the years, with one around 15 years old. Technically, all three do work, though the 2 I bought around 8-9 years ago do have issues with their coatings, which mean I couldn't sell them on and now days I won't buy Sigma lenses and have bought Nikkor, Tamron, Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses for my Nikon and Fuji for my Fuji, so I don't have an axe to grind and am definitely not a Sigma fan boy.
However, Sigma does seem to have improved their lens quality and both optically and with build since the introduction of the Art line. They also are a lot more consistent in optical quality. Now I have spoken to shop staff, who have no interest in selling me Sigma lenses cause they know I won't buy them and have told me about issues with certain lenses and they are reporting that they are not getting a huge amount of issues with the newer Sigma lenses.
Now I know that the Sigma art line is not that old, so we can't tell what the lenses will be like in 15 years time. I would also suggest that newer Nikkor lenses are not of the same build quality as some of the older Nikkor lenses.
With optical quality I know you are not a big fan of Sigma's, Zeiss Otus/Milvus because you believe they lack micro contrast compared to the many older lenses including Zeiss/Voigtlander etc but a lens like the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Planar T does suffer from significant chromatic aberration when compared to more modern lenses, it also can't touch the Otus or Milvus when it comes to sharpness (I won't get into a disagreement about micro contrast). This of course does not make the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Planar T a bad lens, it is in fact a great lens, despite its flaws. Now, 2 of my Sigma lenses were optically pretty awful but the third 70-200mm f/2.8 was pretty good (not as good as the equivalent Nikkor or that time) and it doesn't have the focus breathing issues of the current Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR2.
Now getting to my point, different people value different things in lenses and by far the majority of Sigma Art users I know like the optical quality of the lenses and the people who view their photos, wouldn't know the differences in optical quality between a Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss, Canon, Fuji, Sony, Voigtlander or any other lens.
Now as I said at the beginning, I am not recommending people buy Sigma lenses what I would say is that any photographer should get as much information as possible from a variety of sources, be it youtube photography equipment commentators, like yourself and the 20 other guys. From people who write articles such as Thom Hogan and check website reviews (not all of them are paid for) and check customer reviews on forums and sites like B&H, Amazon etc. Also I would say for photographers to post their experiences on these websites both good and bad.
Also people need to go and play with the lens before they buy, take some photos look at them first on their computer then after that make their decision.
well people buy whatever they want….
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.
Art is a designation in the same way 'L' is and whilst Zeiss lenses are great lenses generally, they are not for everyone, due to manual focus and for certain kinds of photography manual focus isn't as practical as autofocus.
Most Sigma lenses are cheaper than their Nikkor equivalent and that is one of the reason people buy them, even if it is a false economy, when selling on.
I have no idea if the Art line lenses, will still be going in 10 years, you might be right and they all fall apart but Sigma may have improved their build quality and reliability.
As I say, I am not planning on buying any Sigma lenses but I put these comments as a polite counter.
Why are you responding? Theoria is a crank who knows nothing, isn't a working pro, has never been a working pro, rarely if ever shows any photos, thinks half of the Zeiss lenses are crap, loves POS Voightlander for some reason and is a contrarian weirdo (see rest of his vids)...he's a more annoying Ken Rockwell.
thatguyalex Ok, well lets start at the beginning. Why do I respond. I am an insomniac, it is 5:46am and I have been up for 2 hours. Also when I disagree with a statement or think there is an inaccuracy I like to put it down in the comments, as a counter comment to the video, which anyone especially new people can read.
You don't need to be a working pro to have an opinion and put it up on youtube. Whether people watch it is up to them. Whilst I do disagree with quite a lot of what he says, Theoria does cover a lot of areas of photography and has a lot of opinions, often not covered by other photographers.
Now I would say to anyone who watches a video to view it with caution. never go by just one source and if you do find out something you do not know, research it more to find out as much as possible. A good example was his recent post on Fluorite elements, which I then researched and found that his video was not totally accurate in regards to Nasa. Theoria does a lot of videos on micro contrast, which led me to do more research into that (I would recommend the article by Thom Hogan).
The reason I first started to watch his videos was because of the Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 Nokton which I did already own but I like to see what other people think of the lens and his was pretty much the only video on TH-cam about the lens (It is a great lens by the way).
As for Ziess lenses, I have made my feelings known and not all Ziess lenses are that good (I am not a big fan of the classic 50mm).
When it comes to his controversies (including photos), I am well aware of them and do not condone some the way he often talks about other internet photographers.
I do not think that Theoria knows nothing, there is a lot of stuff I kind of agree on. He likes Fuji (I have owned an X-E1 for several years). He uses Nikon (I have used Nikon for many years). He has problems with Sigma (so do I (though experience), though I do not think the image quality is bad like he does). As for the science videos, I avoid them.
So there you have it. I only watch Theoria video's that interest me, which is occational. In the same way I watch most photographers videos (the exception probably being The Camera Store, Benjamin Von Wong Joe Mcnally and Phillip Bloom, who I am a big fan of)
I hope that answers you question satisfactorily. :D
thatguyalex said the idiot who never met me. dont presume you know me boy.
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
Ok Ken, so can I ask you about Samyang/Rokinon lenses?
Especially the 24mm f 1.4
Thanks
True. mine keeps dying, and I have to take it back to the mech every couple of months!!!
sigma peeps attack me on this video
I wonder which one you have, as much as I liked Ken, his suggestions seem to be contradictory these days, I have had the sigma 105 macro os for over two years now and it is amazingly sharp and everything else is pretty great too; except that the os is noisy. I have used it while travelling to different remote areas to shoots weddings, dropped it a couple of times too. It has been absolutely amazing, now I really don't know if this would last me a decade or not but I will be more than happy if it is this good for the next 3-4 years.
Let's put bashing aside for a second. Has anyone besides Sigma made an f/1.8 zoom? Nope? Not even Nikon? I'm outta here.
Anyone made LESS RELIABLE lenses than Sigma? NOPE! Im outta here
NIKON DAS
Kamen Minkov that lens ain’t all that, it’s the back focus king
Why are you so angry? Life is too short. Be happy and chill out dude!
im not angry, just stressed out
Ok accept what you are saying. I have always gone with Canon L glass for this exact reason. Resale value and life expectancy. That is why they are so expensive. However that said, is it fair to say that modern day Sigma Lenses (say the last couple of years) have gotten better with quality control, or is it the same old story? Be very keen to hear your feedback. I just bought the 35mm and love it, but I also accepted that it likely wont live as long as the equivalent (twice the price) L version from Canon. I accept that for the $900 AUD that I paid for it. Just trying to get your feedback on recent Sigma quality because from what I understand, they have significantly overhauled their QC process.
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.
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.
Well, I might consider a Nikkor lens ... when they make them with Canon mounts! lol