Looking for Opinions- Sigma EF Glass?

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

I have come to the conclusion that I need to add a 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 to my lens options for events and other situations that seem to be coming up where primes aren’t the answer. After some experimentation I definitely would benefit from f/2.8 over f/4. Buying Canon RF glass would set me back nearly $5k. Would I lose any capabilities converting Sigma EF Art and Sport lenses to RF? I would wait for Sigma or Tamron to release some native RF glass, but who knows when that will happen. Would picking up these Sigma lenses be a “mistake”? (Converted on R6 Mk2)

 

[MikeZ]

Last spring I shot a safari using a borrowed Sigma 150-600 Contemporary lens with the Canon EF-RF converter on my R5 and it worked flawlessly. My images were clean and sharp even when viewed at over 100% or cropped and blown-up. I don't know how an equivalent Canon lens would have performed, but I am happy enough with the Sigma that I am considering adding one to my camera bag.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

I’ve used older Sigma glass on my Pentax camera and it’s has been wonderful. The price for both these lenses in like new condition is the cost of just the RF 70-200.

 

[mziese]

I also use some EF lenses on the RP and R6, so no complains. Just now I bought the 60-600 from Sigma for EF. The price is not comparable to the RF objectives.

 

[TenaCJed]

I have no comment on using Sigma with R system with converter, but I am a big fan of Sigma lenses. My first was a 100-300 F4, which was fantastic, even a seasoned Canon photographer I met was shocked at the clarity of the lens. Obviously not every Sigma lens will be great, but I believe the higher end lenses come close to or rival Canon.

Edit: I think the biggest thing to look out for will be auto focus compatibility with converter.

 

[Kerro]

My repertoire of Sigma lenses to go with my R5 include a 10-20/4-5.6, a 28-70/2.8, a 150-500/5-6.3 and my best is a 120-300/2.8. All lenses are EF and work flawlessly with RF converter. I bought the 120-300 (A$3000 )at the same time as a Canon 400/F4L (10,000) and I could barely tell the difference. I also have a Canon 2x III teleconverter that also has no issue with my Sigma's. The cost of all those lenses was half what it cost for the 400/F4. I would highly recommend Sigma for their clarity and compatibility to the R5 and the RF adapter. Don't get me wrong, I do have Canon lenses, (MPE-65, 70-200/F4L I, 100/2.8 macro) and they are awesome,( but $$$$$ ). My Sigma's do what I need and some of the images I have posted here are with those lenses. I recommend them as alternatives to Canon.

 

[David Stallard]

If it helps - wife has the R5 and her main tele lens is the Tamron 150-600 g2, cheaper than sigma and when she tried the two side by side the Tamron was lighter and the files were sharper and clearer. Would not hesitate to recommend it!

 

[Kerro]

I have no comment on using Sigma with R system with converter, but I am a big fan of Sigma lenses. My first was a 100-300 F4, which was fantastic, even a seasoned Canon photographer I met was shocked at the clarity of the lens. Obviously not every Sigma lens will be great, but I believe the higher end lenses come close to or rival Canon.

Edit: I think the biggest thing to look out for will be auto focus compatibility with converter.

John, I have no issues with my Sigma's on the EF-RF converter. Auto focus acts as expected.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

Has everyone had the same experiences with the Tamron SP G2 lenses? Found a 70-200 for a good price.

 

[woolno]

I am happy with the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary lens with the Canon EF-RF converter