Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
  1. #1
    UncSki1218
    Guest
    Canon 70-300mm vs. Sigma 70-300mm
    I had ordered the Canon 70-300mm IS lens. I called today since it had been a while since I had ordered it. Turns out its backordered because Canon is fixing a bunch that had problems. The guy on the phone said he would send me this lens for the price of the Canon one.

    http://www.expresscameras.com/prodet...8921&display=2

    Is this a better lens or am I getting ripped off?

  2. #2

    baggss's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 10, 2004
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    10,311
    Specs:
    27" 3.4 Ghz i7 iMac-13" C2D Macbook-OSX 10.10.2 -64Gb iPad 2-64 Gb iPhone 6+-ATV 2-14Tb of Storage
    I've got a Sigma 50-200MM lens for my Nikon and I have no complaints with it. I bought it used for about half the price of the Nikon Brand lens though....


  3. #3

    Odin_aa's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 07, 2005
    Location
    North Boston, NY
    Posts
    604
    Specs:
    PowerMac G5 2.3 ghz 6.5 GB ram 20" cinema display ..15" Macbook Pro 2.33 Core 2 Duo 2 Gig RAM
    You would be getting ripped off most likely. I have never owned either lens, however the Canon is an IS lens, which will help you handhold and get decent shots...

    I am not a Sigma fan.
    http://www.lightcafe.net

    New servers, much faster than before

  4. #4
    ecapdeville
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by UncSki1218
    I had ordered the Canon 70-300mm IS lens. I called today since it had been a while since I had ordered it. Turns out its backordered because Canon is fixing a bunch that had problems. The guy on the phone said he would send me this lens for the price of the Canon one.

    Is this a better lens or am I getting ripped off?
    Hi!

    I have a Canon EOS 350D with 3 lenses:

    Canon 28-90
    Canon 75-300
    Sigma 55-200 DC

    and I have to tell you that since I heard good reviews of the sigma lense I ordered it in ebay from a store in New York (I live in Mexico City), and its the lense that I use over the Canon Lenses, is sharp, perfect...I only use the other lenses if I need something under 75 and over 200.

    You dont say if your canon is a digital camera, if it is, you may check if the Sigma lense is DC, because its made for the size of the sensor that its smaller than the real film size.

    cheers from mexico city

  5. #5
    UncSki1218
    Guest
    Yeah mines digital and so is the sigma lens. any more opinions?

  6. #6
    UncSki1218
    Guest
    just read yours a little more carefully. i'm sure the sigma would be fine at 200mm. but, the one i would get is up to 300. i'm afraid that without IS like the canon 70-300 has it might be a little tricky...

    anyone else have any ideas on what to do?

  7. #7

    sarahsboy18's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 30, 2005
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    1,069
    Specs:
    Mac Pro, 8-Core 2.8Ghz, 10GB RAM, 2x1TB HDDs, iPod U2 Edition
    With your maximum aperture being f/4.5 at 70mm I'd definitely spring for the IS. Cancel your order and go elsewhere if you must.
    "If you had a friend who was a tightrope walker, and you were walking down a sidewalk, and he fell, that would be completely unacceptable." -Mitch Hedberg

  8. #8
    UncSki1218
    Guest
    Yeah...The Sigma usually sells for around $200. Not sure why Express Cameras would have it for $599 (on sale from $750). They must have made some odd mistake. So as of now I'll be waiting for the Canon 70-300mm IS.

    P.S. Sarahsboy I've come to trust your opinion in photography. Is there any zoom lens that you'd recommend over this lens that won't be a ton more?

  9. #9

    sarahsboy18's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 30, 2005
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    1,069
    Specs:
    Mac Pro, 8-Core 2.8Ghz, 10GB RAM, 2x1TB HDDs, iPod U2 Edition
    Quote Originally Posted by UncSki1218
    Yeah...The Sigma usually sells for around $200. Not sure why Express Cameras would have it for $599 (on sale from $750). They must have made some odd mistake. So as of now I'll be waiting for the Canon 70-300mm IS.

    P.S. Sarahsboy I've come to trust your opinion in photography. Is there any zoom lens that you'd recommend over this lens that won't be a ton more?
    I appreciate you saying that! :black:

    I don't know exactly what you are planning to use it for... that being said I would probably at least take a look at the 70-200mm F/4L. The higher quality glass, faster AF and faster/consistent aperture across the focal range would make it a great option. It is one of those things where you would sacrifice some features such as IS for quality... but L glass also holds it's value much better for when it comes time to trade up.

    That being said if you are really attached to idea of having 300mm than I think you've already found your lens... The DO and L comparable versions of that lens are great... but are also alot more money.
    "If you had a friend who was a tightrope walker, and you were walking down a sidewalk, and he fell, that would be completely unacceptable." -Mitch Hedberg

  10. #10
    UncSki1218
    Guest
    I'm pretty sure I want the extra range of 300mm.

    I'll use whatever I get mostly for wildlife and sports (skiing, tennis, and lacrosse).

  11. #11

    sarahsboy18's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 30, 2005
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    1,069
    Specs:
    Mac Pro, 8-Core 2.8Ghz, 10GB RAM, 2x1TB HDDs, iPod U2 Edition
    Quote Originally Posted by UncSki1218
    I'm pretty sure I want the extra range of 300mm.

    I'll use whatever I get mostly for wildlife and sports (skiing, tennis, and lacrosse).
    Your actual focal length on the smaller chip would be 91-260mm. The nice thing about the F/4 version is that it has a better minimum focus distance putting your magnication at 0.26X which is pretty much the same as the 70-300mm(91-390mm) from what I can tell.

    One other thing about the L glass is that you could probably put an 1.4X extender and get the longer focal distance and still have a higher image quality than the 70-300mm wide open.
    "If you had a friend who was a tightrope walker, and you were walking down a sidewalk, and he fell, that would be completely unacceptable." -Mitch Hedberg

  12. #12

    Odin_aa's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 07, 2005
    Location
    North Boston, NY
    Posts
    604
    Specs:
    PowerMac G5 2.3 ghz 6.5 GB ram 20" cinema display ..15" Macbook Pro 2.33 Core 2 Duo 2 Gig RAM
    Quote Originally Posted by UncSki1218
    P.S. Sarahsboy I've come to trust your opinion in photography.
    Thats a smart move, he knows what he is talking about...hence the three little green boxes under his name.

    I am not familiar with all of Canon's glass however assume that they have some higer end lenses and lower end. If you can get a pro lens, it should focus faster on the camera which is important when trying to track moving objects shooting wildlife and sports. I think Canon offers a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens that would be perfect, and when you add a 1.4 or 1.5x teleconverter to it the lens becomes a 110-300ish in focal length that will maintain f/4 throughout its zoom. This option will be a bit more pricey, however you will love the results.
    http://www.lightcafe.net

    New servers, much faster than before

  13. #13

    sarahsboy18's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 30, 2005
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    1,069
    Specs:
    Mac Pro, 8-Core 2.8Ghz, 10GB RAM, 2x1TB HDDs, iPod U2 Edition
    Quote Originally Posted by Odin_aa
    I think Canon offers a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens that would be perfect, and when you add a 1.4 or 1.5x teleconverter to it the lens becomes a 110-300ish in focal length that will maintain f/4 throughout its zoom. This option will be a bit more pricey, however you will love the results.
    I had the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.... It was my dream lens... absolutely loved it and want it back... It was great with a 1.4X and even with the 2X on it. Unfortunately I had to sell it for some quick cash.

    If you can afford to go to the 2.8L it is definitely worth it... It's just a matter of having the cash on hand as the non-IS version runs around $1300 and the IS version runs around $1700.
    "If you had a friend who was a tightrope walker, and you were walking down a sidewalk, and he fell, that would be completely unacceptable." -Mitch Hedberg

  14. #14

    Say_Cheese's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location
    High Wycombe, Just outside London, England
    Posts
    385
    Specs:
    20" iMac 2.0Ghz, 2Gb RAM Early 2006, 30Gb iPod 5th Gen. 15" MacBookPro, 2.33GHz
    I have the 70-200 f2.8L IS and it is absolutely gorgeous. I love it to bits and would recomend it to anyone.

  15. #15
    UncSki1218
    Guest
    I think I may go the way of the 70-200mm f/4L. (Don't have quite enough to spend on one of it's siblings.) I'm doing 95% of shooting with this lens outdoors. So I don't think IS is a must...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Nikkor 70-300mm Lens Test
    By bobmielke in forum Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-24-2012, 03:30 PM
  2. 70-300mm VR (Nikkor)
    By Jordanjez193 in forum Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-10-2009, 10:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •