Sigma Reviews

My copy of this lens gives good image quality, though it does have slight barrel distortion (things near the edge of the field of view bulge out very slightly). This is typical for this wide of a lens, and isn't noticeable unless viewing something with lots of straight lines near and parallel to the edge of the frame.
I like the lens, but do make sure you really want a lens with a field of view THIS WIDE. It's nice for landscapes, but they will all have everything but the kitchen sink in each shot. You can't use this lens to isolate a particular feature of interest like you can with a standard or a telephoto lens.
One feature nobody seems to pay much attention to on this lens is that it can focus very close! You can do a sort of wide-angle macro work with this lens, if the light is good.
I recommend it as a relatively affordable alternative to the Canon or Tamron equivalents, if you are sure a 14mm lens is something you really want. I like mine, but occasionally have second thoughts about needing a lens this wide. Finally, I should mention that I use a digital SLR which only uses the central 2/3 of the lens. I've seen reports from others saying that edge distortion on this lens is unacceptable with a full-frame film camera.

To echo what is said about the new release SIGMA lenses - WOW.

Canon look out. I was shopping for a new toy for XMAS and settled on the CANON 14mm F2.8L lens. It was very nice but for the price hard to justify. I asked for an eval of the Canon and this, the Sigma alternative at 1/3rd the price. Head to head testing of the lenses on my Canon EOS 50 (ELAN) using ISO 200 film resulted in the Sigma producing a crisper image with better definition and colour saturation. Both lenses have a little "flattening" of the image at the edges as they try to compensate for curvature but the Sigma in my opinion is closer to true. Neither lens had any trouble Auto-Focusing during the day (Canon felt a little faster). The Sigma was a little unsure of itself on when I went for a night/bulb exposure of the starscape. Switched to Manual, set for infinity and away we went. My only other issue with the Sigma is the lens hood is not quite big enough where the Canon is spot on. Still you have to be looking really hard for faults to find them.

Tooling around with the lens has been lots of fun. I had never considered using the lens for indoors shots but it is magic. Architecture photography is going to be a new thing for me I think.

My copy of this lens gives good image quality, though it does have slight barrel distortion (things near the edge of the field of view bulge out very slightly). This is typical for this wide of a lens, and isn't noticeable unless viewing something with lots of straight lines near and parallel to the edge of the frame.
I like the lens, but do make sure you really want a lens with a field of view THIS WIDE. It's nice for landscapes, but they will all have everything but the kitchen sink in each shot. You can't use this lens to isolate a particular feature of interest like you can with a standard or a telephoto lens.
One feature nobody seems to pay much attention to on this lens is that it can focus very close! You can do a sort of wide-angle macro work with this lens, if the light is good.
I recommend it as a relatively affordable alternative to the Canon or Tamron equivalents, if you are sure a 14mm lens is something you really want. I like mine, but occasionally have second thoughts about needing a lens this wide. Finally, I should mention that I use a digital SLR which only uses the central 2/3 of the lens. I've seen reports from others saying that edge distortion on this lens is unacceptable with a full-frame film camera.

To echo what is said about the new release SIGMA lenses - WOW.

Canon look out. I was shopping for a new toy for XMAS and settled on the CANON 14mm F2.8L lens. It was very nice but for the price hard to justify. I asked for an eval of the Canon and this, the Sigma alternative at 1/3rd the price. Head to head testing of the lenses on my Canon EOS 50 (ELAN) using ISO 200 film resulted in the Sigma producing a crisper image with better definition and colour saturation. Both lenses have a little "flattening" of the image at the edges as they try to compensate for curvature but the Sigma in my opinion is closer to true. Neither lens had any trouble Auto-Focusing during the day (Canon felt a little faster). The Sigma was a little unsure of itself on when I went for a night/bulb exposure of the starscape. Switched to Manual, set for infinity and away we went. My only other issue with the Sigma is the lens hood is not quite big enough where the Canon is spot on. Still you have to be looking really hard for faults to find them.

Tooling around with the lens has been lots of fun. I had never considered using the lens for indoors shots but it is magic. Architecture photography is going to be a new thing for me I think.

My copy of this lens gives good image quality, though it does have slight barrel distortion (things near the edge of the field of view bulge out very slightly). This is typical for this wide of a lens, and isn't noticeable unless viewing something with lots of straight lines near and parallel to the edge of the frame.
I like the lens, but do make sure you really want a lens with a field of view THIS WIDE. It's nice for landscapes, but they will all have everything but the kitchen sink in each shot. You can't use this lens to isolate a particular feature of interest like you can with a standard or a telephoto lens.
One feature nobody seems to pay much attention to on this lens is that it can focus very close! You can do a sort of wide-angle macro work with this lens, if the light is good.
I recommend it as a relatively affordable alternative to the Canon or Tamron equivalents, if you are sure a 14mm lens is something you really want. I like mine, but occasionally have second thoughts about needing a lens this wide. Finally, I should mention that I use a digital SLR which only uses the central 2/3 of the lens. I've seen reports from others saying that edge distortion on this lens is unacceptable with a full-frame film camera.

To echo what is said about the new release SIGMA lenses - WOW.

Canon look out. I was shopping for a new toy for XMAS and settled on the CANON 14mm F2.8L lens. It was very nice but for the price hard to justify. I asked for an eval of the Canon and this, the Sigma alternative at 1/3rd the price. Head to head testing of the lenses on my Canon EOS 50 (ELAN) using ISO 200 film resulted in the Sigma producing a crisper image with better definition and colour saturation. Both lenses have a little "flattening" of the image at the edges as they try to compensate for curvature but the Sigma in my opinion is closer to true. Neither lens had any trouble Auto-Focusing during the day (Canon felt a little faster). The Sigma was a little unsure of itself on when I went for a night/bulb exposure of the starscape. Switched to Manual, set for infinity and away we went. My only other issue with the Sigma is the lens hood is not quite big enough where the Canon is spot on. Still you have to be looking really hard for faults to find them.

Tooling around with the lens has been lots of fun. I had never considered using the lens for indoors shots but it is magic. Architecture photography is going to be a new thing for me I think.

I got this lense primarily to cover football and baseball. For action photography, it's a solid performer and an excellent value with a couple of drawbacks.

Quality of construction (5.0 out of 5.0) Very high. Sigma EX lenses are made much more sturdily than typical consumer-grade lenses. It has a sturdy metal housing with an attractive matte black finish that resists scratching.

Sharpness (3.5) It's pretty sharp at 400mm, with just a hint of softness. Comparable to other zooms at that length. For action shots it's fine, but it was a bit disappointing when I used it to photograph waterfowl at maximum zoom. (Most serious photographers use a regular telephoto lense rather than a zoom lense for bird photography.)

Color (4.5) Colors are rich and natural. No sign of flare.

Distortion (3.5) Despite the fact that this is an APO lense, there is some distortion, slight but noticable, at the edge of the frame when you blow up the pictures to 8x10. At smaller print sizes, it is not noticable.

Autofocus (2.5) The lense's biggest drawback is its relatively slow autofocus speed. When photographing sports, I get around this problem by prefocusing on a spot in advance and using focus lock. As a result I miss unexpected developments more often than when I use my faster-focusing Minolta 85-300. On the other hand, this lense gets you a lot closer than the 85-300 and the image quality is better.

Speed (aperture) (3.0) Well, this isn't a pro lense, so you aren't going to find wide-open f-2.8 apertures, but then again, such lenses start at several thousand dollars. If you're shooting film, modern high-speed film has advanced to the point where you can get by without a really fast lense--in bright sunlight, at least. I typically shoot sports with Fujicolor Superia 400 and Fuji NPZ 800 color negative film and Fuji Provia 400 slide film. On a bright day you can shoot any of these films at f-8 with this lense and be able to use shutter speeds of 1/500 to 1/1000. On an overcast day I'll use NPZ 800 and still be able to shoot at 1/350 - 1/500 at f-8, and you can always stop down to f-6.3 if you need to get a shorter exposure. All three films are fine-grained enough to blow up to 8X10 with no problem.

On the other hand, if you're shooting digital, you are going to have to decide if the tradeoff in noise at ISO 400 is acceptable.

Ease of use (2.5) This is a big, heavy lense. It comes with a tripod collar and I recommend using it whenever possible.

Value (4.5) Comparable lenses from the Canon, Nikon and Minolta cost nearly double this lense, so the price is right.

Overall: 4.0 (price dependent) 3.0 (price independent)

I bought this lens in order to do some bird photography and I am very pleased with the results. I had read reviews of other zoom telephoto lenses that said you needed to aware of possible vignetteing with the lens. I have had no problem with this lens. The operation of the lens is smooth and easy to focus manually. The weight of the lens is something for me to get use to, but this is the first long range lens I have owned.

I purchased the lens through Amazon which made the process simple. If any of you have tried to deal with camera warehouses you know that speed is not always a high priority. 1 - 2 weeks is not a long wait (I got my lens in about 10 days). Plus the assurance of Amazon also helps.

I bought this lens to work with a Canon Rebel Ti. I did a great deal of research before purchasing this lens specifically for outdoor football games. I am extremely happy with the photos from this lens at both 135 and 400mm. I occasionally use a monopod, but it the photos are very clear when I shoot handheld as well. I have not yet blown up my photos more than 5x7. If you are looking for a great telephoto zoom lens at an affordable price, especially for sports use such as football games, I am sure you will be happy with this lens.

I borrowed this lens from a professional photographer that is a friend of mine. I tried it at a football game and it was great the focal range covered all the necessary lengths I needed without having to switch lenses. I highly recommend this to anyone who takes photos at sporting events