Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
fishinchicks

Sigma vs Canon lenses

18 posts in this topic

Being pretty new to the whole dslr thing, I have a couple of questions.

I am looking to add another lens to my Canon digital Rebel. I was looking at a 70-300mm lens, and comparing prices. The Sigma is quite a bit cheaper than the Canon, but is there a difference in quality to match the difference in price? The Canon has IS, and a new "mode 2" which allows you to use IS while panning for sporting events, but is that worth an extra $300+ dollars, or is there more to it than that?

Second question - right now I have a Canon EF 35-80mm. Is the 70-300mm lens a good choice? I like to take pictures of my kids at their sporting events and concerts, but I also like to take landscape photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not used the Sigma, but I have the Canon 70-300 ISM and I think it is a good lens. I don't use it much after getting the 100-400 now for extra reach, but I like how light the 70-300 is and easy to carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have several Sigma lenses and I'm very happy with them. I have one that isn't an "EX" lens which is Sigma's top quality. That one isn't as good as the others. The 70-300mm lens is a good all around lens but it's not very fast as far as aperture goes. I bought a 70-200 f2.8 and I literally haven't picked up my 70-300mm since. It doesn't have quite the length but it's sharper (my 70-300mm is a Tamron) and much faster. It focuses faster and has faster aperture.

The IS feature is worth the money to some and not to others. It depends on what you are planning on shooting. If you let us know that we can maybe give you a better idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Sigma's have a decent IQ but I've had issues with quality control with Sigma which makes me avoid them. That being said you can have those issues with any manufacturer, but mine have been few and far between with Canon.

The IS as Mike said may or may not be a huge benefit to you. The Canon IS does have two modes, 1 and 2. 1 is for all around stabilization, 2 is for panning. You mentioned sports and panning. You will normally be at a very high shutter speed shooting sports so the need for IS is virtually nil. I have the IS on one of my 70-200's and my 300 but never use it for sports shooting. I do use it on one of my 70-200's for portrait work and slower shutter speeds.

So from a sports stand point not much benefit. For other general use you may be able to gain as much as two stops difference when handholding your lens. Low light, evening, indoors would be where it will help. How much? With out knowing how it will be used only you can decide that.

The 70-300 is a good all around lens, not wide enough for landscape but you already have the 35-80 which on your 1.6 crop camera is not really wide enough either but it will do. You now have coverage from 35 to 300 thats not bad.

Another one stop option is to look at the the 28-300. If you have a lot of money the Canon version is very nice. Both Sigma and Tamron make version as well, with my preference leaning to the Tamron. Because of the variable aperture of these lenses you won't find them to be anything other than an outdoor sports lens. Way to slow both in focus and aperture for indoor sports.

If you have more specific questions feel free to ask away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now, indoors I generally take pictures at school concerts, plays, danceline, family birthdays etc. Outdoors is usually florals, running sports, family shots, and some landscapes.

Maybe I need to look at two different lenses? One for the wider angles, and one more for the zoom capability? What would the recommendations be? I am on a budget of sorts, so I could only purchase one now, and put one on my birthday list. grin

Thanks for the help so far. It has given me a lot more to think about!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those types of indoor shots I love the 70-200 2.8 lens. That's the reason I bought mine. My 70-300 just couldn't get it done. You could also use it for your outdoor shooting except that it is a little on the long end for landscapes.

With IS the 70-300mm you're looking at might be ok for those types of indoor shots. Not a lot of fast action that you need to stop with a fast shutter speed. It would be certainly fast enough for you outdoor shots.

I don't know how much help that is but I hope some. I struggled with the exact same decision when I bought the 70-200mm. But I already have a 70-300mm without IS.

Good Luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got done reading a ton of reviews about the newer version of the Canon 70-300 IS. A lot of people are saying the focus is faster on the newer version of this lens.

I just read up on both, and may lean toward the 70-300, since it is about half the price of the 70-200 2.8. Right now, I may be pushing it with my Honey to get the 70-300. We farm, so most of our income comes in after August. We'll see if I can do some sweet talking. whistleblush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being pretty new to the whole dslr thing, I have a couple of questions.

I am looking to add another lens to my Canon digital Rebel. I was looking at a 70-300mm lens, and comparing prices. The Sigma is quite a bit cheaper than the Canon, but is there a difference in quality to match the difference in price? The Canon has IS, and a new "mode 2" which allows you to use IS while panning for sporting events, but is that worth an extra $300+ dollars, or is there more to it than that?

Second question - right now I have a Canon EF 35-80mm. Is the 70-300mm lens a good choice? I like to take pictures of my kids at their sporting events and concerts, but I also like to take landscape photos.

There's a lot that goes into these decisions, as we all know. If you buy the 70-300 and have that and the 35-80, you'll have lenses that will work nicely with your Rebel for outdoor sports/portraits with no flash (or onboard fill flash). But indoors, both those lenses will require flash.

Often, when someone posts asking advice for a lens that allows them to take nice pics of kids in sports, the advice gravitates toward the high-end glass required by professional sports photographers, who hate flash as much as a Republican hates Hillary Clinton.

But for the parent who's looking for nice pictures of his/her kids outdoors (flash rarely needed) and indoors (flash almost always needed unless with top glass), I'd recommend the Canon 70-300 IS paired with a flash like the Canon 430EX. While the image stabilization is VERY nice, the Canon has a better inherent IQ than the Siggie you mentioned, aside from the IS, and image stabilization is a Godsend for professional and more casual photographers.

The 70-200 f4L non IS that MM mentioned will give you slightly better image quality, though a bit less reach and no image stabilization. Same old tradeoff.

That's IMO. Good news is, if after you buy whichever lens you decide on and give it a good initial workout, if you believe you made a mistake, it's not a bad mistake because those lenses resell quite well. gringrin

Unless we know your ultimate budget, we can argue all day long without resolution. What can you afford? Dollars, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one stop option is to look at the the 28-300. If you have a lot of money the Canon version is very nice. Both Sigma and Tamron make version as well, with my preference leaning to the Tamron. Because of the variable aperture of these lenses you won't find them to be anything other than an outdoor sports lens. Way to slow both in focus and aperture for indoor sports.

If you have more specific questions feel free to ask away.

The new Tamron 28-300 VC (Tamrons version of IS) is getting some great reviews, I'd get that over the cheap Sigma 70-300 for sure. Image stabilization isn't needed by everyone, but it's great when you do need it - like dawn, dusk, under the trees, overcast days....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tamron 28-300 3.5-6.3 VC is roughly the same price as the Canon 70-300 4-5.6 IS. I would assume the Tamron has a little faster focus than the Canon at the wide angle, but maybe a little slower at the 300mm?

Holy cow there are so many things to think about! grin

I can let you know what my dollar budget is after I see how frustrated hubby is after catching up on paperwork today. smirk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if the Tamron 28-300 has IQ to match the Canon 70-300 IS, I'd definitely pull the trigger on the Tamron, and then you can get rid of your 35-80, not to mention gaining a little on the wide end.

The 28-300 will focus faster than your 35-80 without a doubt, and probably will focus about as fast as the Canon 70-300.

Looks like the Tamron is about $150 less than the Canon too (about $390 compared to $539), so that's a nice bonus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apples to apples, the Tamron with their version of IS is $10 more than the Canon with IS. If I could sell my 35-80, then that would help bring the total cost down.

I did read reviews of the Tamron, and they sound pretty good. Some have said that the images can be a little soft when trying to focus at 300mm, but otherwise it is sharp.

Guess I'll have to start the sweet talking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought the Tamron 28-300mm VC lens. Tried it out, and felt the images were too soft and not as clear as I had hoped. I exchanged it for the Caonon 70-300 IS lens. Faster focus, sharper images, and strangely, seemd to be a longer focal length over the Tamron.

not sure why I bought the Tamron 28-300 in the first plac. I already have the 17-85 and just wanted a 70-300. Personally, I think you compromise a lot when there is a huge zoom distance ina lens.

I really haveno idea about the Sigma lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and don't forget the lens hood. For some strange reason, Canon makes you buy the lens hood separately. About $40 if I remember right for the 70-300.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that review. I have looked at a few other sites with reviews, and there seems to be more problems with this lens than with the Canon. Kinda makes me a little gun shy on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the new Canon 55-250 IS and 18-55 IS; and also 50mm f/1.8 II for low light situations indoors. You could almost get all three for the same price as the 70-300 IS and have most situations covered. I've seen some samples from the 55-250 and they looked pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0