Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 21, 2007, 6:05 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6
Default

I have a Cannon 20D and 5D and shoot outdoor sports, and as my username indicates I'm an autofocus photographer. I researched zoom lenses and am considering the Cannon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Lens. However, I've been told that the NEW Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 auto focus macro IF Pro lens would be better. I intend to use whichever one I get on my 5D, but sometimes I will use the 20D if conditions require its ease-of-use. Any help in making this decision would be much appreciated. Thanks
pointandshootguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 21, 2007, 7:00 AM   #2
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Not sure about better...

Sigma £230 + 490g.

Canon £1500 + 1670g.

It seems like they are aimed at different market segments to me.

Personally I wouldn't splurge that much money on such a wide zoom range. I would go for the Sigma if you need a superzoom lens and split my L lenses into smaller zoom ranges for better optical performance.

You could get a 24-105 f4 L + 70-200 f4 L + Sigma 28-300 all for the price of the Canon 28-300.

But if you really want just one lens on your 5D I suppose you could do worse.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2007, 9:47 AM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
You could get a 24-105 f4 L + 70-200 f4 L + Sigma 28-300 all for the price of the Canon 28-300.
I agree - However I would spend a little extra and swap the 70-200 f/4L for the excellent Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX instead.

-> or drop the 28-300 all together, since now you can cover 24 through 300mm with two lenses...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2007, 11:31 AM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Is your intended use actually for sports? If so, ditch the superzoom idea if you care about quality. As long as you are shooting only outdoor and only IN GOOD LIGHT then I agree with NHL. The Sigma 100-300 paired with the 24-105 is a great combo. Assuming all daylight shooting. If you're shooting under lights then this setup won't cut the mustard - you need a 2.8 lens.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2007, 7:08 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6
Default

Wow. This is a great forum. Thanks a bunch NHL, Peripatetic and JohnG. Let me give you a little more background.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"First, always outdoor shooting - my 13yr old son's soccer team and strictly a hobby. I've been doing this for 2 years and have gravitated to using only a Cannon EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 IS lens. I have been very pleased with it. I generally shoot across the field at very zoomed end of range. I take the pictures, put them on discs and give them to the parents of the players. Some of the parents have even taken shots and had lifesize posters made and, at least as far as they and I are concerned, it's unbelievably clear. I also make DVD slide shows and give them to the other kids. Anyway, that's all I use the camera for. I am assuming that going to an L lens will even improve the quality of the pictures I am taking. Other than that, I'm pleased with the lens I have been using. I am sure that I don't want to be changing lenses while shooting the game because it's constant action with soccer- that's why I'm looking for the one lens solution.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"The SIGMA lens I referenced is not the one you all think. Apparently there is a very new "Pro" version out. Costs > US$2k.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"I really don't need to go down to 28mm, but looking at the L series that goes to 300mm the one I am thinking about is the only one. I don't need to go beyond 300mm for what I'm doing either.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Any additional thoughts? Thanks again:-)
pointandshootguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2007, 7:09 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6
Default

Thanks! Please see my reply to JohnG
pointandshootguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2007, 7:27 AM   #7
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Can't really comment on a new pro level sigma 28-300 lens. It hasn't been announced here in the states and there's no mention of such a lens on sigma's website. As a sporting llens, it would be a waste of money IMO because it's 6.3 aperture.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"The good news is - if you're happy with the results you're getting with canon's 75-300 you'll be blown away by the results you can get with some other lenses on the market already. Canon's 70-300 IS USM lens is definitely a big step better in IQ and costs about $560. The Sigma 100-300 f4 ($1000) absolutely trounces both. If you want to shoot daylight soccer - at the age level you're shooting and older then the 100-300 is the right lens. I use it's bigger brother, the sigma 120-300 2.8 for soccer.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"I'd also recommend reconsidering the 'cross field' shots. You'll see a marked increase in quality even with your current lens if you stay within the following rule: shoot only subjects that fill 2/3 of the frame when in portrait orientation.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"If you enjoy the hobby of sports shooting I would strongly encourage you to step up to the 100-300 if you could afford it. If you've been happy with the 75-300 then using a real sporting lens will knock your socks off!

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"But a 28-300 lens of any kind for sports? No. I wouldn't recommend it.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"To give you an idea of what the 120-300 does (and by the way the 100-300 will be even sharper - just 4.0 instead of 2.8):





style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2007, 5:33 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Striderxl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 300
Default

I have the Sigma 100-300 F4 and I love it.I would recommend it to anyone.You will like the constant F4 over the variable fstops.Also you can use the Sigma 1.4 converter which isnt bad at all at F5.6 on real sunny days.
Striderxl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2007, 1:48 AM   #9
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

There so I think you have a consensus...

If you can bear carrying two lenses you should go for the 24-105L and the Sigma 100-300 for roughly the same money.

Image quality would go way up compared to the Canon 28-300L.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2007, 7:29 AM   #10
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
There so I think you have a consensus...
With this group, when was the last time that happened :G
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:13 PM.