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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 22, 2004, 4:08 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1
Default canon 70-200 F4 L USM VS sigma 100-300 F4 EX HSM

Hi folks,

I'm another fairly new owner of a Canon EOS 300D looking to expand beyond the 18-55mm lens. I'm looking for a high quality but versatile zoom lens that will enable me to take nice sharp landscape and wildlife shots; also needs to be fairly light and compact as I hike a lot.

My research suggests a choice between the Canon 70-200 F4 L USM and the Sigma 100-300 F4 EX HSM. Most people seem to like the Canon but I'm tempted to spend a bit extra to gain the extra reach with the Sigma, also praised by many.

Can anyone provide some pearls of wisdom to aid my choice?
Does anyone have experience with both these lens?

Cheers,
Doug
Dangermouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 23, 2004, 10:27 AM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 69
Default

I'm not saying Sigma does not make some decent lenses. However, a Canon L USM is as good as it gets. The Canon lens, overall, performes better than the Sigma or other third party lenses. I have read some good stuff about the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di lens and Tokina's AT-X line, so, perhaps there are some really nice third party lenses out there. Myself, I'm sticking to Canon brand lenses.
csnudelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 11:56 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1
Default

Hey,

I own and use the canon 70-200L F4 for just what you're looking to do with it. It is truly the best lens i've owned, it has stunning image quality and it's extrmly durably built. I find it compact and find hiking with it very easy. Concider if you want more reach going for the canon 1.4x tele converter. This combo will cost you about the same as the sigam and have far better image quality.
Canada Snap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2004, 6:48 AM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

FYI: It's not light (a 300mm f/4 after all), but an excellent lens rivaling any 'L'...
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...rt=7&thecat=29
http://www.lightreflection.com/lenstests/lenstests.htm

Some results here:
http://www.pbase.com/rollcast/test_canon_rebel
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2004, 11:03 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 165
Default

I currently have a Canon 70-200 L f/2.8 IS (1.4x & 2.0x TC's too) but would like something with a little more reach. Would it be a waste of my time to look at the Sigma 100-300 f/4? I know I'd lose the AF with the 2x TC, but it would give me another 200mm of reach. The other issue is how that combo would handle night football games. May not even be a viable option. Thoughts?
aaltenburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2004, 2:08 PM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

Well there's one more option (won't lose AF):

http://www.shutterbug.net/test_repor...gma/index.html
http://www.hoothollow.com/Tip-December%202003.html

:-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2004, 8:39 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 165
Default

NHL, that would mean the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS would have to go. Decisions, decisions. Would that be a mistake. I strictly use these for sports shots.
aaltenburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2004, 5:20 AM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

IMO they are two different animals: the 70-200 f/2.8 is a must have, ie lighter (1/2 the weight) and also more flexible... with the 1.6x the 70mm short end is already too long for most purpose.

If you think of the Sigma strictly as a 300mm f/2.8 (and ignore its overlapping zoom range) however; this lens is also a must have for some applications... beside it costs less than a comparable fast prime!

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Ztelel
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2004, 6:57 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5
Default

Did you think about the Canon EF 4.5 - 5.6 100-400 USM L IS ???
Chip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2004, 6:11 AM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

Chip wrote:
Quote:
Did you think about the Canon EF 4.5 - 5.6 100-400 USM L IS ???
IMO it's a compromise that every photographer would have to make between IS vs faster/heavier optics, there's no wrong choice:

Canon EF 4.5 - 5.6 100-400 USM L IS
o 400mm @ f/5.6 at the limit or

Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX HSM
o 300mm @ f/2.8
o 420mm @ f/4.5 (with 1.4x)
o 600mm @ f/5.6 (with 2x TC)

... another benefit of an f/2.8 is the controlled "out of focus" bokeh of the larger apertures: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...06&forum_id=65
NHL 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 1:11 PM.