Canon vs. Sigma

[PeterP]

Break down the Canon lens into cost parts.
IS is good, but it is expensive and about half the cost in the 70-300 500$ lens.

USM comes in 2 versions, the fast ring USM which is quite expensive and found mainly in the L lenses and some non-L. And a slow can/stepper USM, which adds a bit to the lens cost and is found in most of these budget priced lenses.

IMHO: Optically you are compating two inexpensive 200$ lenses.
One has the nice addition of IS if you want it.

I tend to agree with nizda, if you can hold out a bit longer, look to something like the Canon 70-200 f4 L or the Sigma 100-300 F4 ex dg hsm. Neither lens has IS, but both have the very fast ring USM/HSM focusing drives, and both are lightyears ahead in optical quality to the inexpensive 70-300's.

Myself, I'll take high optical quality and a tripod over a mediochre lens with IS every time :idea:

[peripatetic]

PeterP

I usually agree with you, and I own neither lens.

But the MTF performance of the Sigma 70-300 and the new Canon 70-300 are simply in different leagues.

Vignetting and CA are also much worse on the Sigma.

The Canon is a much much better lens, even not considering the IS and USM and is a real bargain IMO.

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/...56is/index.htm

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/..._456/index.htm

[Hayward]

JohnG wrote:

First let's look at why the Sigma 70-300 is only a mediocre performance - 2 major reasons:

1. Soft between 200mm-300mm (and that's without a TC)

2. Slow focusing (i.e. doesn't have HSM)

Well again, it what has been mentioned in this thread already apple and orange syndrome.

Of course the several times cost lens is likely better. But most people don't just have hundreds and thousands of dolars to through around. A pro photog thatis going to recover cost another matter.

However in its class and bang for the buck actuall I would say 70-300mm is quite good images wise... I get quite sharp results out of it at 300mm.... now the 28-300mm IS quite soft at the far end... but the 70-300mm does quite well and judging by all the people using them around here on many platforms (vs very few 28-300mm) I'd say I am not alone in that opinion.

Now as to AF that is as much the camera as lens.... the exact same Sigma 70-300mm performed poorly on my old Rebel, especially in low light. On the P K10D it virtually never gets lost, and is reasonably fast plus accurate, and again even with the extra stop loss of a TC somethins, that the Rebel would not have tolerated at all in the same lighting conditions.

Again in an apples to apples and class comparison the Sigma (and Tamron) 70-300mm do quite well., and used by many, with satisfaction.

[Hayward]

PeterP wrote:

Myself, I'll take high optical quality and a tripod over a mediochre lens with IS every time :idea:

That nice IF you have the space AND time for one.... many situations do not lend themselves to tripod use... I even know of places that even prohibit them.

And then there are risk factors... there are a lot of things I would subject a $200 lens to I woulod not a $1000 lens. (so consequently wouldn't even have the shot)

But, I'd agree sure I'd take the best gear one earth everytime... all other things being equal. You buying?

[JohnG]

Hayward wrote:

However in its class and bang for the buck actuall I would say 70-300mm is quite good images wise...

Hayward - no argument there. I think what most of us are trying to say is: the class that contains the Sigma 70-300 is a DIFFERENT CLASS than the Canon 70-300. So, in the class of sub $200 lenses I agree - the sigma is an outstanding value. But it's just not in the same class as the better lenses that cost more.

I also agree, not everyone has infinite money to spend. But the OP asked how the sigma 70-300 compared to the Canon (in part - also asked about other lenses). The answer is: The Canon is a better lens hands down. However if you can't afford the $560 lens then the question is moot.

But I also agree with Peter - quality is much more important than image stabalization. No question about it. Look at it this way - you can get a mediocre lens with IS (or use with a body that provides IS) and 99% of your shots will be mediocre or you can get a quality lens in this weight class (not talking big heavy lenses here) and most of your images will improve. yes you'll miss a few. But as someone who owns both IS and non-IS lenses I find IS to be vastly overrated. Sounds great and works as advertised but for LENSES OF THIS WEIGHT I've probably needed IS maybe 20 times out of 40,000 or so shots I've taken. Everyone is different. ButI'd rather have quality optics and focus motors that are going to benefit all my shots.

Nothing wrong with you having a different opinion - we all have different backgrounds.

[PeterP]

I guess I am old school, I've been shooting since ~1968 and the tripod is just a part of working. IS is fairly new technology and photography itself is getting quite old.
It definitely is a nice to have IS, but I can survive with out it quite easily

Yes, some places do not permit tripods during business hours, but most will permit a monopod or grant permits (can be a bit expensive) for off hours access.

As for risking equipment, that is what insurance is for. When your kit starts to add up to some serious cash it is best to get a good policy to cover it. :idea:

Hayward wrote:

themselves to tripod use... I even know of places that even prohibit them.

And then there are risk factors... there are a lot of things I would subject a $200 lens to I woulod not a $1000 lens. (so consequently wouldn't even have the shot)

[Hayward]

JohnG wrote:

Hayward - no argument there. I think what most of us are trying to say is: the class that contains the Sigma 70-300 is a DIFFERENT CLASS than the Canon 70-300. So, in the class of sub $200 lenses I agree - the sigma is an outstanding value. But it's just not in the same class as the better lenses that cost more.

I also agree, not everyone has infinite money to spend. But the OP asked how the sigma 70-300 compared to the Canon (in part - also asked about other lenses). The answer is: The Canon is a better lens hands down. However if you can't afford the $560 lens then the question is moot.

And again what at the begining of this thread said (NOT by me but APPLES AND ORANGES.....

NO viablle direct connection.... BUT for what the SIG/Tam 70-300mm's ARE darn nice....

And again not sure there is a TAM equiv..... but the Sigma 28-300mmm is really awful at the long end.... the 70-300's do MUCH better.

And for their price point (vs someone that can tax deduct or other wise offset cost) actually the SIG/TAM 70-300mm do a great job (and yes again for both but VS higher cost.. (100-300mm) though maybe still not quite the Canon level... is a huge surprise? (or that much less cost)

[printer27]

Peter,

There are other Sigma lenses that are labeled "EX"
and are very good quality. Made of metal, for 35mm cams
and quite useable for pro use.

I enjoy my Bigma 50-500 EX lens and sold all my other
zooms. Use Raw, and you'll be even happier with an EX lens.

Of course with the Canon L's, you'll pay more and sometimes
get a good copy that is spectacular.

Regards.