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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 22, 2005, 12:28 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Default

Hi there!


I'm currently considering buying a nice (tele) zoom lens. I've narrowed my choices down to the Sigma 100-300 F4 (€698), Canon 70-200 F4 (€539), Sigma 70-200 F2.8 (€747).
I have to say, I have never tried any of these lenses.

The Sigma 100-300 seems very nice (because of the 300mm tele) but is it useable handholded? The Canon is the cheapest option and is regarded very high by a large group of users (but is it long enough?). The Sigma 70-200 F2.8 is nice because of the 2.8, but I'm likely to use the lens outside.

I got to tell, I mainly will use the lens when I'm travelling (I really like to do that a lot). I've got a Lowepro Mini Trekker (and I've just got the XT + kitlens), so there's a lot of empty space to be filled

I would like to know, what's a wise choice? The Canon or the Sigma (is it useable when you're travelling and handholded)?
A couple of samples of the 2 Sigma's would be very nice!

If you got any other 'quality' lens that is worth looking at, please tell me!

Thanks for your replies!

--------------------------------
http://www.sukotec.tk
Timberland is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 22, 2005, 12:33 PM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

the sigma is very handholdable, i would not worry about that..

by far the biggest plus on the side of the canon is portability.. its much smaller than the other two sigmas...

if you plan on doing mostly outdoor stuff, i woudl get the 100-300 as the 300 on the long end is nice for wildlife, flora, etc..

if you are going to be doing low light indoor type work the 70-200 2.8 is best, or if you really won't be needing the reach..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2005, 12:38 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Default

I haven't holded the Sigma 100-300 (or any of the other lenses yet), but 1440g seems very heavy. Especially at the long end.

On the otherhand it's very nice to have 300mm, but I'm still a little worried about the weight.

Is the image quality of the Canon 70-200 F4 and the Sigma 100-300 F4 comparable?
Timberland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2005, 1:03 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 92
Default

all 3 are excellent optically. don't waste time thinking "which lens is sharper". they will each render sharp, saturated images. all have excellent MTF charts. that said, you need to decide more on weight, focal length use, whether you will add a TC, etc. but you can't go wrong with ANY of these 3 lenses. if you get the sigmas, opt for the new DG versions. i had the canon f4 but sold it quickly only because i didn't like the "pencil" size of it (vis-a-vis my Bigma, 70-200EX, and 70-200IS). but i could see someone else liking it for its small-ness.
fstopjojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2005, 1:07 PM   #5
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

fstop-

any tests in the future of DG vs non-DG
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2005, 1:09 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Default

fstopjojo wrote:
Quote:
all 3 are excellent optically. don't waste time thinking "which lens is sharper". they will each render sharp, saturated images. all have excellent MTF charts. that said, you need to decide more on weight, focal length use, whether you will add a TC, etc. but you can't go wrong with ANY of these 3 lenses. if you get the sigmas, opt for the new DG versions. i had the canon f4 but sold it quickly only because i didn't like the "pencil" size of it (vis-a-vis my Bigma, 70-200EX, and 70-200IS). but i could see someone else liking it for its small-ness.
Thanks Fstopjojo.

The DG version of the Sigma aren't available yet in The Netherlands (or Germany). Does DG (has something to do with coatings to reduce flare??) make such a difference, that it's worthwhile to wait for it?

Is the 100-300 useable when your travelling or is it to heavy? What about handheld shots? Or do you have to use a tripod or monopod to master the 1440glens?
Timberland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2005, 1:39 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 92
Default

Hards, I don't think I'll be doing any DG v non-DG test any time soon. I recently sold my beloved 70-200 non-DG f2.8 and got the Canon 70-200 IS (for the IS only). Optically they are close: from wide open all the way to diffraction setting in.

Timberland, the 100-300 is a fairly big lens (bigger than the 70-200 f2.8) and when people ask, "Can I handhold it" or "Is it a lens I can travel with?", this is very subjective and no one can really answer it but that person. With my 20D and Op-Tech Pro Loop Strap (get one! it makes everything feel 75% lighter, no joking), I can walk around all day with my 70-200IS lens (like at the zoo). But yes, the 70-200 f4 is nice and small and much easier to go around with generally. In terms of handholding, I used my Bigma DG handheld in good lighting with no problems. Others need at least a monopod; it really depends on your own style and stability. Again, these 3 lenses you are looking at are VERY good optically. You simply cannot go wrong.

As for getting the DG version, I don't think it's a huge difference. My non-DG Bigma was amazing and for me, the difference bw my DG Bigma and non-DG version was slight, if any. Others might decry such a statement ("DG is MUCH better"), but until I see it, I won't believe it. If you can get a good deal on a non-DG, by all means, go for it. The non-DG 70-200 and 100-300 are stellar pieces of glass.
fstopjojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2005, 1:48 PM   #8
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

right now the non-DG 70-200 2.8 is going for about 50 bucks less... still no release of the DG 100-300.. i have the non-DG 80-400 OS and it is simply a fantastic lens..i really don't see that it could be made much better from a coating..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2005, 6:34 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

I would agree with the other guys. Anyone of these lenses will be great for you. I currently have the Sigma 100-300 f/4 and I love it. I had the Canon 70-200 f/4 and it was great opticaly and it was light weight but it did not have the reach I wanted and I did not like the white color. So the price I paid for it was not worth it to me not to mention the 1.4xTC was twice the price as the Sigma. So the Sigma was my second choice and I am glad I got it. It is wonderfully sharp even with the 1.4xTC connected. That gives me 420mm, lense only without the camera crop factor, on the long end. Thats more than enough for what I shoot. Now for the weight factor. This lense does weight about twice as much as the Canon but by no means is it to heavy to hold all day. I have shot softball games with this lense all day running around and it never slowed me down. So the choice is yours. Good luck and happy shooting. Here are a few resized fotos from my 20-d and the Sigma 100-300. All hand held.
Attached Images
 
arowana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2005, 9:21 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 213
Default

Pic 2. The sky highlights are blown out. Thats my fault and not the lens.
Attached Images
 
arowana 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 6:51 AM.