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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 22, 2006, 10:35 PM   #1
Member
 
Winginhunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 34
Default

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or Sigma APO 100-300mm f4 EX IF HSM.
I am looking to purchase one of these two lens and need help. I have read the reviews, both owners of each lens mostly gives positive results. The Canon has has IS, more zoom and is cheaper, but most reviews complain of the build and the rotating front element. The Sigma has less zoom range, but is a faster lens with the F4 & reported faster focus and zoom. Sigma costs more and weighs a little more than the Canon.
Which has the better photo quality?
My camera is the Canon 350, my other main lens at the present time is the Sigma 24-70 F2.8.

Any suggestions is really appreciated.

Will Edwards
Winginhunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 23, 2006, 12:26 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Default

The sigma is one of their best, a truly professional grade lens, well built and superb optically.
The canon is a cheapo but with an excellent IS system added.
Which is best for you depends a lot on how and what you shoot.
In absolute image quality the Sigma will win hands down and in build quality too, but this doesn't mean that you will always get the best shot with it.
Handheld the IS will win out a lot of the time, plus the canon is lighter and cheaper. The 'cheap' lenses released recently have really gotten very good and I suspect this lens is 'good enough' for most of us.
If you shoot sports or wildlife or make a living selling your pics then get the sigma.
If you take pics for fun and want a lens you can carry around and nearly always get good shots get the canon.
If it were me, the camera snob in me would have to have the sigma, but the realist would know that I'd leave the beast behind a lot and my poor technique would benefit more from the canon image stabilisation than a bit of extra sharpness.
Then I'd go get the canon 70-200f4 instead.
jacks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2006, 9:36 AM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

I'll go with the Sigma APO 100-300mm f4 EX over IS anytime, even compare to some f/4 prime... (just check their MTF's)

It's made of real metal and faster here too (hence the extra weight) - Sooner or later you'll realize you need more reach, and that's when you'll find the limitation of the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS: can't use a 1.4x teleconverter without loosing AF.

With the Sigma you still get a decent 400mm f/5.6 with a TC with full HSM AF capability:
(My 120-300 f/2.8 with 2x TC which is an optically worst set-up than the f/4 with a 1.4x)


NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 6, 2006, 9:58 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8
Default

At 300mm the Sigma will be f4. The Canon will be f5.6. There may be times where the 1 stop benifit of the Sigma will not be enough, such as dawn or dusk outdoor photos.
The Canon's IS will give you 1-2 stops of advantage over the Sigma in these cases.
I own the Canon and find that it is true that it is not a "pro" quality lens. But it is by no means a cheaply built lens either. As far as the rotating front element.... It is only a slight bother if you use a polarizer.
I've gotten truely excellent pictures with the Canon lens, and I'm glad I still have the $300-400 extra bucks in my pocket.
lotapixel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2006, 9:28 AM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

lotapixel wrote:
Quote:
... There may be times where the 1 stop benifit of the Sigma will not be enough, such as dawn or dusk outdoor photos. The Canon's IS will give you 1-2 stops of advantage over the Sigma in these cases.
This sounds like a poor excuse to 'justify' for IS... (as well as other compromises) :-)
What's wrong with resting the camera down on something firmer? -> One can gain as many stops as needed and still be a stop faster with an f/4...



Quote:
and I'm glad I still have the $300-400 extra bucks in my pocket.
Of course everyone mileage will vary, but if one needs a 400mm for a little bit of extra reach, guess where the money go?
Have anyone priced a 400? -> The Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX is still an excellent alternative @ 400mm with a 1.4x TC...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2006, 1:41 PM   #6
Member
 
Winginhunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 34
Default

Thank you all for the help.

After much thought, I went with the Canon 70-300 because of the IS. I came from a Canon Pro90 IS and found I really need the IS unless I use a tripodor can't get a fast shutter speed. I will stillwant the tripod with me when I carry my 24-70mm F2.8, but for being able to take quick pictures at 150-300mm I need IS. Most of my travels to take photo's involve being on my motorcycle, so if I see unexpected wild life, it means having to stop, get the camera out of the trunk (Goldwing) and hoping the subject has not vanished. There would be no time for a tripod and the lighting may not be very bright in the wooded brush. Here is just one example I managed to get with my 24-70 with those conditions. This photo was severely cropped to 800x800. With the 300mm IS I could have got a full frame photograph good for a decent print job. I know the Sigma would have done a excellent job too, if I can hold it steady enough.
Once more, thank you all.


Winginhunk 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 6:00 PM.