Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Canon EOS dSLR (
-   -   Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro Super II on Canon 20D (

agiaccio Apr 7, 2005 11:02 AM

Has anyone tried the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro Super II lens on their Canon 20D? How satisfied are you with this lens? If you could upgrade, what would you choose?

HiltonP Apr 8, 2005 3:10 AM

Works fine for me . . . for $200 I don't think it can be beat. If one works within its limitations it produces good photos, a browse through PBase's lens database will confirm that. If I had more budget I'd probably opt for the Canon 70-200 f4, but I can't justify that expense right now.

VictorEM83 Apr 8, 2005 4:06 AM

you have to remember that a 3rd party lens is a 3rd party lens and some are great and some are not. IMHO I would go with a lens with a lower range I bet at the extremes you lose a lot more quality I would go with the 100-300 Canon over the the 75-300.

If you read both you will see the difference between the 25 extra mm range:

HiltonP Apr 8, 2005 4:58 AM

I guess one has to consider if you want the macro option, or not?

P.S. . . The Sigma comes with a lens hood, and zip-top case, the Canon not. But at the end of the day it's all about the images produced.

NHL Apr 8, 2005 5:50 AM

Here's an example of the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro:

-> Make sure to check the MTFs of any Canon 75/100-300 in this range before comparing to a Sigma - The fact of the matter is Sigma totally dominates this range with not one, but three excellent entries... ;)

Jasper666 Apr 8, 2005 2:13 PM

I got this lens a couple of weeks ago. I was looking for something that would give me the range that my Pro90 IS had (10x). I must say that I think that looking at MTF graphs and taking the opinion of some people here is not the right choice for some of us. If you want to be a photophile and pay loads of cash for the "ultimate quality" lens, go ahead. I bought this lens and couldn't' be happier. The images are great. Sure there is a bit of CA in bright back-lit conditions, but most of uswon't care for the price vs picture quality.

On the flip side, you are putting an inferior lens on a superior camera which defeats the choice of camera in the first place.

Ultimately, it's up to you and what you desire in quality. This lens with the 20D gives me far superior images to my old Pro90, so i'm happy!


NHL Apr 8, 2005 3:27 PM

Jasper666 wrote:

On the flip side, you are putting an inferior lens on a superior camera which defeats the choice of camera in the first place.
Where do you see an inferior lens (objectively)??? :mad:

Canon: vs Sigma:

-> The $200 Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro Super II is sharper wide open than a Canon closed down to f/8!!!
Plus it has Macro, lens hood, and a case (it's only your money)! :idea:

wburychka Apr 8, 2005 5:33 PM

This is not a bad lens. I have one. It can produce very sharp images, especially if you avoid the two ends of the zoom and use it stopped down from wide open at least one stop. I like the semimacro feature.

Now the real question is what do you want the lens for? What kind of photography? For wildlife, it is not long enough. For portraits, the short end of the zoom is at the long end of portrait focal lengths. For sports, it is too slow. As an all purpose lens, it is way to long.

Good for butterflies. Macro feature is available only above 200mm.

Focus is not very fast, and the external lens barrel turns, so it is a bit inconvenient to use with a polarizer. In low light, the focus tends to hunt.

It is a pretty useful zoom range although limited in hand held use by no image stabilization.

No tripod collar, so the camera tries to fall forward on a tripod, especially if you have a battery grip. You need a big, strong ball head to hold it.

When shooting nature, I use the Canon 100-400 IS or Sigma 50-500. For general purpose photography..."walking around" if you will, I use the Canon 17-85mm IS. For sports (motorcycle racing), the 100-400 with the IS in mode 2 to allow panning. For portraits, the Canon 28-135 IS is my favorite. For dramatic wide angle shots, the Sigma 12-24mm is it. Do you see a pattern developing here? The Sigma 70-300 is a pretty good lens, but it is rarely the right lens.

VictorEM83 Apr 8, 2005 8:20 PM

I think someone hit on the biggest point: what are you using the lens for?

I am getting accustomed to getting stuck shooting sports (soccer, softball, baseball, and tennis) in overcast or very cloudly dark conditions where light is pricesless. Hence why I ended up buying a 70-200 F2.8L and always raving about it.

NHL Apr 10, 2005 1:17 PM

Every lens has a purpose of course - I don't know about you guys, but I've found the 100-300 to be quite usable and it's been on my camera the most this spring: ;)

1. @ 300mm - very nice 'bokeh', the background kind of melted away (try an outdoor portrait):

2. I've found it quite useful for wildlife:

3. Even for early morning landscape:

4. ... and handheld with no IS:

-> My walk around lens... :blah:

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2