Sigma 28-300mm f/3-5-6.3 without IS

firststring74

A friend of mine is photo happy and currently has the Rebel XT with a kit lens. She wants to upgrade to a better lens to shoot pictures of family, friends, and her daughter riding horses. She is considering the above lens. Since I am not even close to being a lens guru I was hoping you guys could fill me in on the pluses and minuses of this lens and what other options she might have that would work better for her. I know she has limited funds so staying around this price point ($300) is probably what she has to work with.

Thanks!

Christina

Maestro

firststring74 wrote:

A friend of mine is photo happy and currently has the Rebel XT with a kit lens. She wants to upgrade to a better lens to shoot pictures of family, friends, and her daughter riding horses. She is considering the above lens. Since I am not even close to being a lens guru I was hoping you guys could fill me in on the pluses and minuses of this lens and what other options she might have that would work better for her. I know she has limited funds so staying around this price point ($300) is probably what she has to work with.

Thanks!

Christina

I hate to say this but for $300.00 I am not sure she is going to get the results she is looking for. It is nothing against Sigma. The company makes some fine lenses. I have its 500mm prime lens non IS and I like it as long as I have a tripod. I have tried handholding it and for the most part, unless the subject is still, I have motion blur. For what she is doing I would highly recommend the Canon F4.5-5.6L IS USM lens. It is about $1,000 out of her price range but in the long run it will deliver more of what she wants. If she can wait, I'd recommend saving for that one as I know of no lens in that price range that would give the results she wants.

Our hobby/profession can be very expensive. :cry

rpcrowe

The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L is a great lens
However, it is also a relatively expensive lens. Far more expensive than many photographers are willing or able to pay for a lens unless they are making money from photography or are very serious amateurs.

Here are two alternate suggestions, both of which should serve well for the intended uses:

Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS

Fine lens for high level non-professional photographers. Capable of very good imagery with the extra bonus (and it is a big bonus) of a sophisticated IS system.

The price of this lens is about $550 from B&H and or Sam's Club and should be about that price from most suppliers.

Canon 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS lens)

This lens is considered to be one of the great bargains in "L" glass. It's IQ is amazing and its AF is phenomenal! The only problem is that the lens doesn't have IS which I love in a long lens.

This lens also runs about $550 from B&H.

Both of the above lenses are more expensive than what your friend has budgeted but, both are well worth the money due to image quality and AF speed.

I had this lens and loved its quality but, bemoaned its lack of IS. I was tempted to get the above 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens just because of the IS. However, before I made my decision, Canon introduced the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens which is one of the nicest lenses I have ever used. I shoot 3-4x more often with the IS lens than with my original. This is simply due to the versatility of the IS.

The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens runs close to $1,000. Quite a bit more than either of the above two lenses.

If I had to choose between the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens and the 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) lens; I would very likely choose the 70-300mm IS model simply because of the ease in hand-holding a long lens that has IS.

If the budget is unyielding, I would strongly suggest that she consider the Sigma 70-300 APO DG macro in lieu of the 28-300mm lens. Generally lenses with a lesser focal range will provide better quality.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=18145257

Briggie

To get her started on a portrait lens on the cheap, she could get a 50mm 1.4 for under $300 with a rebate!! It might not be great for the equestrian stuff, but she could probably do with her kit lens for that, until she feels confident enough to plunk down a large amount of cash for a 70-200 2.8 or the like! I have the nikon version of the nifty fifty, and it's by far the best bang for the buck in my gig bag at $120, but i think the Canon's 1.4 is better quality!! Great length for portraits on a crop body. A little long for landscapes, but, being a people person myself, it's almost always on my camera! the f1.8 gives me great low light results, and shallower DOF than some of the slower, more expensive lenses in my bag. The one draw back is that if you want to zoom in and out, you have to do it with your feet, if you call that a drawback!

Maestro

rpcrowe wrote:

However, it is also a relatively expensive lens. Far more expensive than many photographers are willing or able to pay for a lens unless they are making money from photography or are very serious amateurs.

Here are two alternate suggestions, both of which should serve well for the intended uses:

Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS

Fine lens for high level non-professional photographers. Capable of very good imagery with the extra bonus (and it is a big bonus) of a sophisticated IS system.

The price of this lens is about $550 from B&H and or Sam's Club and should be about that price from most suppliers.

Canon 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS lens)

This lens is considered to be one of the great bargains in "L" glass. It's IQ is amazing and its AF is phenomenal! The only problem is that the lens doesn't have IS which I love in a long lens.

This lens also runs about $550 from B&H.

Both of the above lenses are more expensive than what your friend has budgeted but, both are well worth the money due to image quality and AF speed.

I had this lens and loved its quality but, bemoaned its lack of IS. I was tempted to get the above 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens just because of the IS. However, before I made my decision, Canon introduced the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens which is one of the nicest lenses I have ever used. I shoot 3-4x more often with the IS lens than with my original. This is simply due to the versatility of the IS.

The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens runs close to $1,000. Quite a bit more than either of the above two lenses.

If I had to choose between the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens and the 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) lens; I would very likely choose the 70-300mm IS model simply because of the ease in hand-holding a long lens that has IS.

If the budget is unyielding, I would strongly suggest that she consider the Sigma 70-300 APO DG macro in lieu of the 28-300mm lens. Generally lenses with a lesser focal range will provide better quality.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=18145257

Very good suggestions. I actually have the 70-200mm and very much like it but I do not use it as much since I have the 100mm-400mm that covers almost the same focal lengths. Still though you have some better suggestions for her.

firststring74

Thanks for all your input. I told her that she would probably have to stretch her budget a bit to get a piece of glass that she could use and enjoy. Great suggestions all, thanks for being so helpful!

Christina