Sigma Vs. Canon
Sandy
Registered Users Posts: 762 Major grins
I still have not purchased a telephoto lens, but am ready to push the button on one.
The Sigma 70-300 is much less in price than the new
Canon 70-300. Would the Sigma be greatly inferior? I assume it would
because you usually get what you pay for.
The 70-200 4L is another consideration, around the same price as the 70-300 Canon.
I shoot many different subjects, birds, concerts, architecture, etc.
The Sigma 70-300 is much less in price than the new
Canon 70-300. Would the Sigma be greatly inferior? I assume it would
because you usually get what you pay for.
The 70-200 4L is another consideration, around the same price as the 70-300 Canon.
I shoot many different subjects, birds, concerts, architecture, etc.
0
Comments
Now the Canon 70-300 IS vs 70-200/4 L is a much harder decision. I went for the L.. and I only occasionally regret the decision.
Make sure you compare apples to apples:
Canon 70-300 $159 @ B&H
Canon 70-300 USM: $189 @ B&H
Sigma 7-300 APO DG: $199 @B&H (not sure about USM)
Canon 70-300 USM IS: $565 @ B&H
Canon 70-200 4.0 USM L: $589 @ B&H
Canon 70-200 2.8 USM L: $1139 @ B&H
Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM: $789 @ B&H
So you can get the Canon USM 70-300 cheaper than Sigma, but Sigma is cheaper on the high end. There is not a similar IS version of the Sigma lens to compare with that I can find.
The choice will be between the:
Canon L series 70-200 4L
and the new Canon 70-300 IS
I am leaning toward the 70 -300 IS because of the zoom length and the IS feature.
When I was shopping the 70-300 IS obviously looked like the more flexible choice. IS more than makes up for the slower aperture at the tele end.. at least for non-action shots.
Then again from the samples I've seen, the 70-200/4 L is noticibly better in terms of image quality.. especially wide open..
Not really helping here, am I?
I know this thread is Sigma vs. Canon, but this Canon vs. Sigma thread has some good info and comments: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=24116
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
go for the 70-200 f/4L its image quality is next to perfect and its lightweight so you don't have to worry about your arm getting sore. also, unless you have VERY shaky hands i don't see IS as a needed feature until you get into the 400+ range.
smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com
the f4L is a great lens, but perhaps not as versatile as the 70-300IS, which is also still more portable. I had the IS lens and liked it quite a bit. Obviously, its not that fast and not fixed aperture, so I sold it when I got more serious about some sports shooting to upgrade. But, many times after, when traveling, I wish I had kept it. The Sigma 100-300 ain't so portable
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Very nice lens and the IS is wonderful lets me shoot at slower speed and still get a sharp image.
Would not trade this lens for anything.
Still use tripod when it really counts but nice to have IS as a backup.
Save up for the faster lens you won't be sorry:D ... just MHO
Fred
http://www.facebook.com/Riverbendphotos
Kinda reminds me of Ferris Bueller: "If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up.. It is so choice!"