Sigma used to be one of the brands you bought because you didn't have the money for the camera manufacturer's lens. Now, they have unique models in a number of cases. I still have mostly Canon glass but I have a couple Sigma models because Canon doesn't have the equivalent.

I belive Sigma realized that they need to up their game and a lot because the Chinese cheapo manufacturers (and partially Samyang) are eating the really low end niche. Of course Samyang has upped their game with the AF-equipped Sony FE -lenses as well, but they are still low end compared to nowadays quite good Sigma mirrorless offerings.

Same happen with Tamron. They new lenses for Sony cameras are great. They newest "super" zoom 28-200 is basically best zoom of this type from any brand.

Haven't used a sigma lense for years. Are they now comparable quality to NIkon/Canon lenses?

I have a Sigma 150-600mm Sport, which is a hell of a lens, both in quality/features and uh...weight :D

It's totally hand-holdable, but reviews online make me wonder if everyone else has pipe cleaners for arms; it took a couple of weeks to get used to it but I don't have any trouble now. The image quality is fantastic and extremely competitive. The image-stabilisation works superbly, and the autofocus is very good - much better than their older lenses.

I mostly photograph birds and I'm extremely happy with the quality. All the recent bird photos I've uploaded are taken with it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/robotmay/50528664881/in/datepo...

Thanks, your photos are great.

I'd like to get myself a long lense for those kinds of shots but I really can't afford Nikon prices!

That was exactly my thought process too :D There's pretty much nothing else in the price range of the Sport that does 600mm at less than f/8, and the Contemporary model has 90% of the performance of the Sport but at an even more digestible price. For birds the lens length can never be long enough, and I think the Sigma range is in a great price point where it's expensive enough to be good but you're not paying more for marginal gains. Plus some of their latest lenses can be hooked up to a USB dock to allow you to customise them a bit, such as making micro-focus adjustments, which is really cool.

Sigma makes some of the best and highest quality lenses (compared to competitors), at least that's my experience with a Sony E mount aps-c camera...

They're way better than they used to be. I have a few Sigma "Art" lenses that are incredible, at half the price (at least at the time) of the Nikon equivalents.

Honestly, my active days are over a bit. Back the day, so, I was part of an active group photographers, mostl ynature and outdoor. Like back when we still used film.

Can't agree more on the weather-proof part. I was ather funny to be out taking pictures all day, only to find the camera was sitting in 5 cm of water in its protective bag. Nikon did work better druing that, than. Just an anecdote so, some Nikon's didn't like it that good neither.

Some Sigma lenses were really good back than, some on par with Nikkor. Canon lenses were, if I remember well, mostly on par with Nikkor. Been used to Nikon so, I always to break the lighter Canon camera bodies.

>I think it's pretty important to maintain the same manufacturing quality between the two areas. I'm sure that's possible when moving production to Thailand, but I expect it will take time for them to iron out their processes.

Nikon have already been making weather-sealed cameras in Thailand for ages (e.g. the D7500). I think your concerns here are overblown. Any quality problems with their Thai manufacturing operation would already be apparent, given that most of their cameras are made there.

> I think camera bodies make a much larger difference these days than lenses, actually.

They always have. Yet strangely you can buy an L lens and it may outlast a whole series of bodies. (if we continue to have DSLRs that is).

Oh yeah, that's true! Also worked well between analog and digital SLRs in Nikon's case. After accounting for different film/sensor sizes. My old Sigma is showing its age so, last time I tried.

You can even use the 80-200 2.8 L on even a Sony A7RIV, so certainly! That's what, 30 years?