Originally posted by Uluru Sigma's lenses tend to be most boring lenses because Sigma makes lenses that will first sell to the millions of people who use Canon and Nikon cameras. Lenses that are not bad, but they are a form of "fish and chips with gravy" that most people like and can be found in all restaurants. A safe bet design, safe bet focal length, enough weight to justify price, modest coating, but nothing extraordinary or daring. They must appeal to the most common denominator of what people consider good and acceptable.
While that may be a little too harsh (Sigma lenses have improved quite a bit in recent years), I tend to agree. The top Sigma lenses are "spec" lens: superb on optical tests, but hardly superb at anything else. Sigma still struggles with the color rendition of their lenses. There lenses do not produce as aesthetically satisfying results as Zeiss glass, high or mid-tier Pentax glass, Olympus HG and SHG glass, Canon L glass, or Nikon nano-coated glass.
Originally posted by Edgar_in_Indy I don't agree at all. You should become acquainted with some of the Sigma lenses in my collection: Lenses like the 85mm 1.4, the 100-300mm f4, and the 8-16mm. These lenses are not also-rans. They are very special, and are great values too.
I really wanted to like (and purchase) the Sigma 8-16. I looked at hundreds of images online, many of them full resolution and shot by talented photographers. None of those photos, even the best of them, matched, in terms of rendering and color rendition, what I routinely captured with the DA 12-24, the DA 10-17, and the DA 15.
I show images at local galleries, along side images shot with Canon L glass. Spec-wise, my Pentax glass can't compete with Canon L glass shot on FF cameras. But what Pentax glass lacks in sheer specs, it makes up for in terms of the rendering of tactile objects and the distinctive and aesthetically pleasing color rendition, so that my images can hold their own against the images shot by photographer's of comparable talent with their Canon L glass.