sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX

Well, since this seems to be more about how much one is spending and

not so much what the performance is, let me give you some cold facts.

This may be futile as you some of you seem to have embraced the

Canon/Nikon advertising copy per se, without really bothering to

think what you're actually paying for. Well, if you want to spend

more money and you want a zoom in the 100-300 range, here's what to

do:

study the comparative test results below on Nikon, Canon, and Sigma

counterparts, and if the amount of money spent equals quality to you,

you should have no problem. Or then you really would rather settle

for a consumer lens than a pro one.

Color Foto/March 2002, test results: the best supertelezooms in the

range 100-300 ever:

Canon EF 4.5 - 5.6/100-300 mm USM: Overall score: 73 pts/100

Shaprness: (100-200-300): 20-18-16

Contrast: 27-25-24/30

Zentrierung: 14-16-16/20

Verzeichnung: 8-4-4/10

Vignettierung: 9-9-9/10

Price: ca. 510 euro (what's that in dollars? go figure it out)

 

<p>

 

Leica Vario-Elmar-R 4.2/105-280, overall score: test winner: 89/100

Shaprness: (105-200-280): 23-24-22

Contrast:28-29-28

Zentrierung: 20-20-19/20

Verzeichnung: 7-10-9/10

Vignettierung: 10-10-9/10

price: 4754 euro

 

<p>

 

Minolta AR 4.5-5.6 100-300 APO (D)

Overall score: 72/100 pts

Shaprness: (100-200-300): 16-20-18

Contrast: 25-27-26/30

Zentrierung: 13-15-14/20

Verzeichnung: 6-4-5/10

Vignettierung: 8-9-9/10

price: 519 euro

 

<p>

 

Pentax SMC-FA 4.7-5.8/100-300

Shaprness: (100-200-300): 19-18-15

Contrast: 26-26-24/30

Zentrierung: 13-17-18/10

Verzeichnung: 9-5-5/10

Vignettierung: 9-9-8/10

price: 239 euro

 

<p>

 

Sigma 4.5-6.7/100-300 DL

overall score: 70/100 pts

Shaprness: (100-200-300): 18-17-16

Contrast: 26-26-26/30

Zentrierung: 12-13-14/20

Verzeichnung: 6-4-5/10

Vignettierung: 8-9-9/10

price: 199 euro

 

<p>

 

Sigma EX 4/100-300 mm APO IF HSM

overall score: 84

Shaprness: (100-200-300): 23-24-21

Contrast: 28-28-28/30

Zentrierung: 17-17-17/20 (build)

Verzeichnung: 9-8-7/10 (distortion)

Vignettierung: 9-9-9/10 (Vignetting)

price: 1495 euro

 

<p>

 

Well, it seems to me that Joe's options are pretty limited: either he

will fit a lowdown Canon/Nikon engine in his expensive N5, and get

poor results, BUT SAVE A BIT OF MONEY IN THE PROCESS!, or then he

will reconsider, and buy that darn Sigma he so detested, an get

better results.

 

<p>

 

Now of course some can claim that they would never buy a 100-300

zoom in the first place. I wonder if that is because Canon doesn't

make a decent one (not to mention Nikon, whose equivalent is,

however, only in the 70-300 range, with both models tested in the

same test: overall score: 72-74/100).

Unfortunately for those who claim that the only useable lens for

nature photography is that of a high price and with a Canon or Nikon

price tag on it: I am sorry you are mistaken: you can even spend more

money, and feel better about it, and get better results, if you

choose the right Sigma EX lens.

Well, I mean for a guy who brags about his income and doesn't really

know a thing about Finland, (like for example the fact that it's the

second most competitive country in the world, after, I regret to say,

the USA, and that it is not any of your states, situated somewhere

between Arkansas and India, or whatnot..., as maybe (90% of your so-

called literate folks seem to think (a gut feeling based on my

numerous sojourns in your country have proved,

I think this is just a waste of time.

But for the rest of you: think about it: Canon and Nikon have screwed

you big time: you are ready to wave that flag regardless of what they

launch onto the market. I call that suckers and I can that shrewd and

successful marketing.

 

<p>

 

By for good, suckers

Macro-Marko

Kerava, Finland

and Joe, maybe we should just count your pennies here, you might even

get a shack in the shantytown...

Well Marko, fortunatly most people in the USA (yes that would include

the states that you trashed)are smart enough not to allow their

government to tax them at 80%. You may also try a 70-200L or 100-300L

comparison since these are as close to you price point, Oh Im sorry,

that would make your decision look,(you fill in the blank)

I also think it may be time for an economics lesson, that is, one

outside Finland. JC

Well, for once I agree with you Joe. Finland is a tax haven, for the

tax man, that is.

By the way, in case it's of relevance to you, the Canon EF 2,8/70-200

L USM (1500 euro) you referred to received 78/100 pts in a test by

Color Foto. (The Sigma equivalent would be the EX 2.8/70-200, with an

equal 78/100 pts.)The magazine did not list the 100-300L in the April

2002 issue. However, whether one should always embrace test results

as such is a bit controversial, as sometimes different tests may show

at least some variation (regardless of make). Anyways, I guess it's

time to bring the discussion back on a more mature track. And

slashing nationalities with prejudiced stereotyping is certainly

anything but fruitful for the present "dispute". So no offence, I

hope. Besides, I guess the bottom guideline remains "whatever makes

you happy", though by now we can supposedly all agree that there is

one in every crowd, even in the case of Canon. (with the exception of

some "generic" brands like Soligor, whose lenses are all of solid

quality (solid sh.., that is.)

Take Care y'all

Marko

I'm a beginner in photography, I bought my first camera three months ago, but I bought it with a good idea of what I wanted to photograph. I own a Canon EOS Rebel 2000. Knowing what I want to shot, I wanted to buy a Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM lens. I live in Mexico and back then, my father was traveling to the USA, so I asked him to buy me the lens I wanted. One thing u have to know about my father is that he will never take to much time in anything, so he found the Sigma Zoom 100-300mm 1:4.5-6.7 DL, someone at the store where he bought it told him that it was for the Canon, and without giving it a second thought (like �Hey! this is not exactly what my son asked me�) he bought the lens and his problem was over, no more time wasted in looking for a lens for me =). That�s my father, he always do that kind of things.

 

OK, enough for the boring story. Right now I own a Sigma Zoom 100-300mm 1:4.5-6.7 DL lens or something like that, but I haven�t been able to take pictures with it and even if I go and take some pictures, as an amateur maybe I will not notice if the lens is a good one or no. Budget is not really a problem and I can buy a Canon lens if I can find the one that I want here in Mexico (finding it has been a problem because I haven�t been able to find the USM) and even if I find it I don�t know if it would be a good idea to buy a lens that is similar to the one I have in my actual amateur condition.

 

I bet that the Canon one is a lot better than the Sigma one (that is out of question here). But let me see, the original question was: �Well, have anyone here tried this lens? Contrast? Sharpness? AF speed? Are there any lenses for comparison? Thanks� and no if it was better or worse than any other lens.

 

Joe, maybe you hate Sigma, and maybe u r a die hard fan of Canon and nobody will make u change your mind and actually, nobody is trying to do it. But really, your answers are not helping anyone. They are all just stupid answers. Look at what u r saying: �Don�t buy Sigma, Canon lenses are better�, now after reading that, put yourself in my shoes. What u get from that? Nothing, I�m stuck with the Sigma lens and what I really want to know is what can I make and what can�t I make with it.

 

I think that the question is: How good are the Sigma lenses? I will really appreciate any honest, objective answer to that question.

 

TIA

 

Antonio R.

Hehe, somehow I thought that this discussion was taking place this year, but know, I found my mistake, forget it anyway =)

legnum and antonio, yeah i've read this whole thread,never had/tried a sigma lens tho,but i have/use a EF100-300mm F4.5-5.6 USM,and it performs well.(IMO)will upload a photo shot w/ EOS 3 and this lens.maybe it'll give u an idea of this lens. hope you find a good sample like this one i got.,, cheers ,,pc<div></div>

I always thought being an AP photographer was always kind off a third rate existence for a photographer. In any case, I am fortunate enough to own some exceptional Canon glass. The only third party lens I own is a Sigma 14mm 2.8 and it is superb! Superior to the Canon 14mm both in build quality and optically. Does this mean I am a fan of Sigma or Canon? No. It just means that I f...king buy what ever the f..k I think is best. Joe you don't know your ass from a hole in the wall. I'm gonna check my sources and see if anybody knows who the hell you are or were. I'll follow up with my findings in this post. I have zero tolerance for horses asses like you!