BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="postcardcv" data-source="post: 1209701" data-attributes="member: 3294">I agree that the Sigma can perform very well even in low light conditions, I've attched three shots taken wide open in poor light, I'm happy with them all. I can't agree with the comments about the Canon though, there really is a significant difference between the two lenses. I say that having owned the Sigma for almost three years before upgrading to the Canon last year. The differences between the lenses are not instantly apparent, it took me a while to learn how to use the Canon. When I first got the Canon I was expecting a lot however on the first couple of outings with it I wasn't seeing anything that would justify the cost of the upgrade. When reviewing my images on the PC I honestly thought I'd made a mistake in buying it as I couldn't see any difference between images from it and my Sigma. After a couple of weeks I started to see the potential of the lens, most images were still at the Sigma standard but some really stood out. After a month I finally saw the reason for buying the Canon. When processing the images from the Sigma the first process was to delete the OOF shots, normally ~40%, with the Canon I get less than ~5% OOF (ignoring shots lost to my errors). If I got oa run of similar shots I used to view at 100% and keep the sharpest shot, however the Canon seems to nail every shot so I end up with many more keepers (I'm glad memory is cheap). I agree that the Sigma is an underrated lens, however in my experience the Canon does have a clear edge in IQ. The Sigma can nail shots but with the IS, f4 and it's consistent IQ you're far more likely to get the shot with the Canon.</blockquote>

Verification