| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/27/2006 02:39:09 PM · #1 |
I shoot almost all outdoors nature and wildlife stuff. Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro lens or the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM? Yes the IS is nice but I'm not sure how much I actually NEED it. So which lens is sharper at full telephoto? I'll probably be using the 300mm side more so than the 70mm but I want the versatility of having a zoom if I need it. The price difference is another thing. If the Canon is better optically is it THAT better to cost more than twice as much than the Sigma? Sorry for all the questions just need to make sure I get the best lens for me. I don't have much money to make a mistake when buying a lens.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2006 03:09:01 PM · #2 |
I have the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro and its really slow to focus. I wouldnt even bother to try to take photos of anything thats moving at all with it.
I would buy the Canon EF 75-300/4-5,6 III USM or the Canon EF 90-300/4,5-5,6 USM instead of the sigma.
Message edited by author 2006-05-27 15:09:54. |
|
|
|
05/27/2006 03:25:38 PM · #3 |
I hear the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 is great.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2006 03:31:37 PM · #4 |
| I'm considering the Sigma 50-500 over the Nikon 80-400 VR and the Sigma 80-400 OS, and will probably take the plunge within the next couple of weeks. |
|
|
|
05/27/2006 07:27:55 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by danderson107:
I hear the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 is great. |
Yeah, but it's out of my price range. The Canon 70-300mm is at my price limit. Which makes me think about the 70-200 F4L since it's about the same price. Not sure if I'd miss the extra 100mm and the IS though. |
|
|
|
05/27/2006 07:36:49 PM · #6 |
| i just got the 70-300 is usm and so far am happy though i havent taken a lot of pictures with it i think the is helps a lot in lower light because it will keep things steady at slower shutter speeds and it is a whole lot cheeper than the cannon 70-200 l is usm at about $1400 |
|
|
|
05/27/2006 07:55:21 PM · #7 |
  here are 2 shots i just took in the yard 1 at 70 1 at 300 just resized and saved for web at 76 to keep them small |
|
|
|
05/27/2006 08:13:46 PM · #8 |
| Thanks Rider for that focal length comparo. Really shows the difference. Is this lens good for macro shots though. I do alot of macro work but I'm not sure if this lens has a macro mode or not. |
|
|
|
05/27/2006 08:18:47 PM · #9 |
Take a look at the Tamron 200-500 although not fast I find it does a pretty good job for the price and gives very good reach. With that said I would never trade it for my Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR w/ Nikon 1.7x TC. But then again the cost difference is double.
Message edited by author 2006-05-27 20:19:51.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2006 08:28:38 PM · #10 |
| I use a Canon 70-300 mm USM (no IS) for alot of stop-action shots (sports, horse racing, etc.)and usually shoot at full zoom. So far I've been very happy with it! :) |
|
|
|
05/27/2006 08:43:53 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Take a look at the Tamron 200-500 although not fast I find it does a pretty good job for the price and gives very good reach. With that said I would never trade it for my Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR w/ Nikon 1.7x TC. But then again the cost difference is double. |
I just returned my Nikon 1.7x TC because I was extremely dissapointed with the results of that combination (with the 70-200VR). I could almost never get a sharp shot.
Message edited by author 2006-05-27 20:44:17. |
|
|
|
05/27/2006 08:49:45 PM · #12 |
There have been comparisons in the 2 biggest UK photography mags over the last few months and both have the Sigma as the pic of the bunch.
The IS will save you 2 stops but, if your outside shooting this is isnt a huge factor as you will get good shutterspeed at ISO 200-400 anyway.
I did have the Sigma and got some nice stuff with it, I sold it eventualy when I updraded to the Canon 70-200L.
Dont think because it has Canon on the lense its the best one, and dont give in to snobbery, in the price range you looking at the Sigma is great. |
|
|
|
05/27/2006 08:53:20 PM · #13 |
| I've been reading recently that the Sigma is soft at the 300mm end of the zoom. It's really good from 70-200 though. Any thoughts on this? |
|
|
|
05/27/2006 08:55:44 PM · #14 |
To add to my last post about returning the 1.7x TC that I was using with my 70-200VR:
I still want much greater telephoto reach and I am now seriously considering the Sigma 50-500. Other possibilities include the Sigma 80-400 with OS or the Nikon 80-400VR, but I'm leaning toward the Sigma 50-500 and will probably purchase it in the near future. |
|
|
|
05/27/2006 09:48:57 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by A4wheelin:
I've been reading recently that the Sigma is soft at the 300mm end of the zoom. It's really good from 70-200 though. Any thoughts on this? |
It's the canon that's soft past 200mm
Here are a couple of 300mm shots on a Sigma 70-300 APO
 
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 01:17:53 AM · #16 |
| Wow, that's sharp enough for me! I read on Photozone that the Sigma wasn't good past 200mm. Are they not a good resource? I just found them today. Here is the link. Sigma Review |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 01:27:01 AM · #17 |
I wouldn't say the Canon is soft at 300, and IS is definitely worth it. Here are some shots at 300mm...
  
These photos were also taken between 400 and 1600 ISO.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 02:14:43 AM · #18 |
| That also looks great! I can't tell a difference between the two. I think I'm going to take my camera to a store and try both lenses and take the same photo with the same settings and then compare. This would probably be the best way to tell any differences. And then I'd need to decide whether or not I need the IS. |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 02:16:36 AM · #19 |
Yep, that's what I'd do.
Originally posted by A4wheelin:
That also looks great! I can't tell a difference between the two. I think I'm going to take my camera to a store and try both lenses and take the same photo with the same settings and then compare. This would probably be the best way to tell any differences. And then I'd need to decide whether or not I need the IS. |
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 10:16:25 AM · #20 |
Nobody has commented on or seems to want to consider the Sigma 50-500 even though I have suggested it twice before.
Originally posted by A4wheelin:
Yes the IS is nice but I'm not sure how much I actually NEED it. So which lens is sharper at full telephoto? I'll probably be using the 300mm side more so than the 70mm but I want the versatility of having a zoom if I need it. |
The 50-500 doens't have IS (or OS in Sigma's case) but it gets great reviews for sharpness. With 300 not being at it's extreme end of it's range it sounds like it would certainly fit the bill here.
If you decide to consider it, check out Ebay...15 hours left to bid on this Canon mount 50-500.
Sigma 50-500 for Canon on Ebay |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 11:40:54 AM · #21 |
Never tried the sigma. That said, I have both the canon 75-300 and 70-300IS. The 75-300 is worth the price you pay. The 70-300IS is worth the price you pay. There's what? A $400 difference? For me at least, the quality of the 75-300 at 300mm was so poor it was not even being worth putting in my camera bag. I shot with it 'cause I had no choice. Does the IS make a difference? More than you would expect. I can now shoot at 100 ISO shots that used to require 400 ISO. Less noise, less camera shake. Also, the glass is better in the 70-300. The two lenses are like night and day. But if you really want a 75-300, I'll sell you mine cheap. :)
Check the reviews at fredmiranda.com |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 11:48:07 AM · #22 |
| I shot some stuff on Friday with a Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 II. It costs around $300. Someone here had previously told me the lens was crap, but all the shots I took with it came out wonderfully sharp. I'm definitely thinking that I'm going to want that lens in the not too distant future. |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 12:00:47 PM · #23 |
Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
 Close up @300mm
 Close up @300mm
 Medium range @300mm
 Long range @300mm
 Long range @300mm
 Long range - through windshield - running @300mm
All using IS-1
|
|
|
|
05/28/2006 12:04:13 PM · #24 |
Nobody has commented on the 50-500 because it's way out of the OP's price range.
Photozone is a really good test site with some really good reviews, but they aren't a huge outfit and often shoot with borrowed lenses... I don't think that makes a huge difference, but they have been victims in the past of uncertainty on lenses that may have been lemons... (see the Tamron 28-75 review)... That having been said, it's also important to remember that as consumers, we are also subject to getting lenses that could be good or bad...
I would say there are 4 choices from my point of view: The Sigma, the Canon 75-300, the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM the Canon 70-200 f/4L.
#1 Bang for the buck - Sigma... I think it's a pretty good lens for the money. That 1:2 macro is pretty useful for slightly larger subjects... I would love to have something like that... Right now, I'm doing all my mid-sized macro shooting with my S2... If you can keep it still or shoot in enough light, it's going to take pictures pretty much the same as the Canon 70-300 IS. The lens is essentially as good as you will get if you never plan on upgrading, or is a disposable lens to be used as a stepping stone... The 75-300 by Canon is another choice, but I personally lean towards the Sigma here. Your call... In the second scenario, this is a no-brainer. The first scenario might have you leaning towards choice #2
#2 Value - Canon 70-300 IS USM... Why? Because IS is VERY useful. It will cost a fair bit more, but if you don't plan on ever going beyond this, this will probably give you the versatility you want only with a slight compromise beyond 200mm for sharpness and always needing 4 times more light than the f/2.8 guys...
#3 Sharpness on a budget - 70-200 f/4L... This will give you much less reach, and isn't really all that fast, but it should give you results even sharper than the other lenses... Using a 1.4xTC is a common trick with this one, and it keeps the price down, but you still end up looking at f/5.6 at 300mm... With a bit of a sharpness compromise too I might add... Still, if you do any serious portion of your shooting that isn't needing the long reach, this is definitely a serious contender.
Beyond that, the field gets more complicated....
I am quite happy with my 80-200 f/2.8L and it's possible to get it second hand, but most people just go with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8... It does a nice job...
f/2.8 lenses work well with the 30D and autofocus... if you use autofocus with those types of lenses.... I do. |
|
|
|
05/28/2006 12:07:07 PM · #25 |
You can produce wonderful images with pretty much any lens as long as you know the limitations of the lens.
For example: with the 75-300 IS USM, focussing on infinity while zoomed at 300 doesn't produce very good results, however, as illustrated by the following image, can produce tack sharp images when focused closure to the minimum focussing distance and stopped down a bit.
@300 - 5 feet away, f10 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/01/2026 07:15:44 AM EST.
