1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Which lens, sigma or canon

Discussion in 'Photography Forums' started by mattym, Apr 4, 2005.

  1. mattym

    mattym
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,116
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    maidstone
    Ratings:
    +101
    ive asked this question on my own forums and on a couple of others but opinion is split,
    i hae a 300d and want a 70 - 300mm lens, i dont have a good budget, so im looking at £150 max, so, sigma 70-300 APO super macro II or canon 70-300 USM

    Im lead to beleive the canon is soft between 200 - 300

    Opinions welcome! :)
     
  2. bazzason

    bazzason
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    i too am looking for a lens in this range, but for a D70, so would be interested in replies on the sigma lens (its one of the ones i am looking at).

    from what i have read (i have heard similar things about the comparable nikkor lens), the softness at max zoom seems to depend on what lens you are comparing it to. some people say its of a reasonably good quality, some say it could be better. i think the overriding view is that its pretty darn good for the price, whichever way you look at it.

    i have seen some pics taken with a similar budget lens on the dpreview website, and they look pretty good to me (i am new to this game, though ;))
     
  3. mattym

    mattym
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,116
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    maidstone
    Ratings:
    +101
    i think the nikkor lens on the D70 is a good lens, supposed to be better than the kit lens on the 300d..

    I have heard that sigma suffer from quality issues, and the ones that are available for about £140 on the net are grey imports(for the canon anyway)and so may not be of the best quality...
     
  4. Johndm

    Johndm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,809
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Bedford UK
    Ratings:
    +56
    Well I've been using the Canon 75-300 for just under a year, and had some fair to good results with it.

    Yes it can be a bit soft at 300, but nothing that Photoshop can fix, unless its a very poor shot to start with.

    However, I wanted better quality, and after much reading and thought, decided to go for the Canon 100-400 L series. Now this lens costs a tad more than the 75-300 as you probably know, but the results are far superior.

    So, if you think you will be happy with the 'prosumer' grade 75-300, it can achieve good results.

    If you think you will need better quality later, save your dosh for the L series, any maybe get a second hand cheapy to tide you over for now.

    Have a look here..

    http://www.airliners.net/search/pho...rnet.com&sort_order=views&distinct_entry=true

    Everything taken in 2004 in the air was with the 75-300
     
  5. bazzason

    bazzason
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    don't get me wrong, the kit lens 18-70mm is wonderful, but i want something that will go from this range to around 300mm. hence i'm looking at the options. my (perhaps illogical) thinking is the difference between a £150 lens and a £300 lens of the same focal range would get me a days training course with a Nikon instructor. given my relative newbie status to DSLRs, this has to be the smart option, no?
     
  6. Radiohead

    Radiohead
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    4,295
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Amazingstoke
    Ratings:
    +433
    I just plumped for a 70-300mm G lens for my D70 and it was just £80 after Jessops did a price-match. For that money you can't go wrong and it's seems a very decent lens for the money.

    I'm new to this as well and guessed (correctly it seems) it would be sufficient for me for now, and cheap enough to experiment with. Should I want to get a better lens in time then I haven't made a massive investment now. Several others here also have the 70-300 G lens (rather than the £250 ED version) and are also seeing good results.
     
  7. Johndm

    Johndm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,809
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Bedford UK
    Ratings:
    +56
    Now as I'm a Canon guy, I can't really comment on a 'Nikon G Lens', but £80....come on. :suicide: On a near Pro quality body....
    I mean......my Pro UV filter that cost nearly that...

    Good glass costs money, like good HI FI, and this lens must be like hanging Alba speakers on a SONY TA-DA9000 ES amp.
     
  8. bazzason

    bazzason
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    but isn't is also true that every now and again, you can stumble across an exception to the rule? a bargain, if you will? ;)
     
  9. Radiohead

    Radiohead
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    4,295
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Amazingstoke
    Ratings:
    +433
    Remember it's actually a £170 lens that just got well price-matched. A local store had a second-hand one for £90 on the same day.

    As for the quality - it might surprise you. I'm happy with it. Who knows, in a year's time I might demand more from a lens and can upgrade then, but I couldn;t justify spending £500 on a lens right now. I don't envisage using telephoto a huge amount but wanted one in my bag for the times when I do. Macro and portrait floats my boat which is why I'm shortly buying a Tamron 90mm macro lens for £300 and a Nikkor f/1.8D 50mm prime. Those, along with the very nice 18-70 kit lens, and the decent 70-300 gives me coverage for most of the situations I'll be in.

    Horses for courses.....
     
  10. mattym

    mattym
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,116
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    maidstone
    Ratings:
    +101
    thanks for the imput guys

    on the subject of bargain lenses, the canon 50mm F1.8 seems to be a very capable lens for a mkII plastic body!
     
  11. SeaneyC

    SeaneyC
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,004
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    Ratings:
    +54
    Or perhaps like hanging a £70 50mm mk II off a £2000 1D? :smashin:

    I've not seen the Nikon lens in action, but reports of it seem too indicate it is another one of those killer bargain lenses!

    Shame it's not in Canon fit for you! I believe the OLD Sigma 70-300 was fairly decent, but the new one is apparantly not as sharp (although clearly neither are super duper sharp)
     
  12. Johndm

    Johndm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,809
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Bedford UK
    Ratings:
    +56
    Near 'L' quality there....a well respected little lens... :hiya:
     
  13. Johndm

    Johndm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,809
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Bedford UK
    Ratings:
    +56
    The 50mm looks MUCH better with its proper lens hood...hard to find though, and a tad expensive.. :D
     
  14. mattym

    mattym
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,116
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    maidstone
    Ratings:
    +101
    is there any other lens i should consider in the <£200 bracket?
     
  15. condyk

    condyk
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    399
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Jewellery Quarter, Birmingham
    Ratings:
    +7
    It's funny but I was asking the same question a month or so back and decided on the Sigma APO 70-300 Super II. It's a very, very good lens for the money but, as with all the competition I looked at for Canon 300D (and I REALLY looked hard, convassed views via different fora and read every review!!) it is not capable of producing as sharp images when compared directly to the expensive competition. Why should these cheaper lenses do that anyway? It's great value and does a really good job in that niche :) The Macro on it is pretty darn good too. I'm pretty fussy and I think you'll like it.

    So, my view is that it's the best option just now and only the Canon 100-300 USM is worth considering as an alternative, but that very expensive in UK for what it does. I would still go for the Sigma even if pricing was closer! Build quality is very good, as with the other Sigma's I've had, and resale is good. The Canon 75-300 USM doesn't seem to be well liked, though there may be some particularly good ones around too, if you're lucky enough to find one! Again, decent resale.

    However, having been happy with the Sigma it will soon be going as I have just bought a 70-200 F4 L, simply because it was offered MINT/boxed at a price I just couldn't refuse (I tried!!) I really didn't intend upgrading for another six months as the Sigma has met my expectation as a 'learning zoom'.

    When I spot a bargain 50mm Canon then I will get that too. I am led to believe the mark 1 is a tad better than the mark II, but others here may have a direct user view that's different. I am only going on what I have read!

    Long term, before my next big Africa trip, I will get a big zoom too. Whichever is the best price/performance/handle-able at the time. Along with a nice macro lens I think that will do me, as my main interest is nature shots.

    PS make sure you get the Sigma APO and not the cheaper version. The APO Super II version also has much better resale that the original Super. You'll lose little cash, if anything, if you get a nice second hand one and sell it again later.
     
  16. mattym

    mattym
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,116
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    maidstone
    Ratings:
    +101
    thanks!
     
  17. Oakey

    Oakey
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Messages:
    529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +6
    How do you tell the difference between the original Sigma and the Super II? I ask as I picked up a Sigma 70-300 2nd hand for about £70 a few months ago. I was worried that it was the original but I've checked on www.warehouseexpress.com and there is:

    70-300mm F4-5.6 DL Macro Super

    [​IMG]

    and

    70-300mm F4-5.6 APO Macro II Super

    [​IMG]

    Mine looks like the second one but neither mine or the one in the picture say Super II (and I believe the original wasn't APO)?
     
  18. mattym

    mattym
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,116
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    maidstone
    Ratings:
    +101
    the apo is a superior lens apparently! dont really know much more than that
     
  19. condyk

    condyk
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    399
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Jewellery Quarter, Birmingham
    Ratings:
    +7
    There is no obvious indication on the barrel, but I guess you could quote the serial no. to Sigma and they will tell you. They've been quite prompt when I've asked them questions in the past. My Super II APO had a red ring around the top of the barrel, if that helps!? Don't THINK the cheaper one has that.

    The instruction book has Super II written on it, of course, but that's no guarentee you have a Super II lens unless bought new I guess! Ditto the box.

    The APO II is a very decent lens. I have sold mine now and lost just £1.50 on the deal :clap: over what I paid for it, so very happy. Can't go wrong with these lenses if you buy carefully.

    Mattym, did bidding go too high, or did you fancy something else?
     
  20. mattym

    mattym
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,116
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    maidstone
    Ratings:
    +101
    no i missed it, i was working! Got a New one ordered though, so not a problem!
     
  21. mattym

    mattym
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,116
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    maidstone
    Ratings:
    +101
    Got my sigma 70-300 apo super macro II, i need a bigger kit bag!
     
  22. DJW

    DJW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Messages:
    965
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    What price did you pay in the end & from where please ? Might be tempted ;)
     
  23. mattym

    mattym
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,116
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    maidstone
    Ratings:
    +101
    i got it from Microglobe, they delivered it next day special delivery, as soon as i remembered the auction and realised i missed it i rang them. £139 + £7 for delivery
     
  24. condyk

    condyk
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    399
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Jewellery Quarter, Birmingham
    Ratings:
    +7
    As far as I know that's the best price around at the moment for new in stock item. I checked before I ebayed mine.
     
  25. mattym

    mattym
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,116
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    maidstone
    Ratings:
    +101
    there is some debate that it might be a grey import, but it has a warrenty card in english with it, so im not really bothered. Also preliminary wobbly shots suggest that if i can keep the damn camera still it is quiet sharp at the 300mm end!
     
  26. condyk

    condyk
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    399
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Jewellery Quarter, Birmingham
    Ratings:
    +7
    Yes, I agree with you about the whole shake, rattle and roll thing, but you can still see it's a good lens for the price ... even better had you got mine for £100 :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Just joking!

    It's cash and more cash, eh? First lenses, then bigger bag, then a tripod or monopod.
     
  27. mattym

    mattym
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,116
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    maidstone
    Ratings:
    +101
    well i got a bigger bag and a tripod but i think i will invest in a bean bag for resting the lens on stuff...
     

Share This Page

Loading...