Pictures

I agree. I would say their quality matches Canon's, and their lenses are always at least $100 cheaper for about the same thing. they also recently started making stabilized lenses. All I shoot with now is a Sigma 17-70 F2.8 stabilized (about $500). I'm yet to need flash with it. I used to have the Canon equivalent which cost me about $1500 new. To compare I also owned the Canon equivalent to the 70-200 anpgp was talking about. It cost a little over $2k new and the Sigma costs under $1k!

 

Yeah, the cost def makes them worth it. I paid $800 for mine. I also have a Sony camera so no need to buy stabilized lenses, the camera has it. Which is nice because it makes the lenses cheaper.

 

Just be careful with used lenses. If you can, take a few test shots with one before you buy it just to make sure it works properly. Over time, those AF motors wear down and dust can accumulate inside if they weren't maintained, makes for bad pictures.