sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX

Well,have anyone here tried this lens? Contrast? Sharpness? AF speed?

are there any lenses for comparison?

Thanks

Do not buy sigma, In case you missed it, DO NOT BUY SIGMA FOR CANON.

the sigmas for canon made only 4 years ago such as 24f2.8 50f2.8macro

35-135 will not work with canon eye control cameras, and they will

not update them. sigma also uses a cheep plastic belt for

autofocusing canon af compatable lenses. in about 2 years of use

(depending on your use) it will need repair, now your up to the cost

of a canon. DONT BE CHEEP return the sigma and buy a canon 75-300is if

you want good speed, the is will give you 2 stops of its stated

aperture.

I don't know where Joe gets his information on Sigma lenses, but it's

certainly contrary to what I've read, heard, and experienced. Half a

dozen years ago Sigma's lens quality was somewhat suspect but with

the advent of the EX series the optical and build quality

improvements have been notable. Also, if for some reason a Sigma

lens has an incompatiblity problem with your Canon camera, Sigma is

very good up doing a quick upgrade.

<p>

If you check at Photo Review, you'll note there are quite a few

owners/users of the new 100-300 f/4 EX that rate it very highly. I

just bought the new Sigma 180 f/3.5 EX Macro and am totally impressed

at how good it is optically. And it had no problems regarding

compatibility with my 1v right out of the box.

<p>

Sigma like any other lens manufacture has some dogs but I wouldn't be

put off just by the Sigma name these days--it just depends upon the

specific lens. Even Canon has some mediocre lenses--the 75-300

f/4.5.6 IS that I once owned is very soft out at 300mms for instance.

Gary if you are wondering were my info comes from it is baised on

owning the 24f2.8, 502.8 macro and the current 28-105f2.8 as well as

2 people in my local organization who have experianced similar

problems, no sigma will not update the primes, although they did

repair the 28-105 with another plastic focusing belt.The main point

is why take the chance, obviously sigma is not making their

electronics of focus mechanisms the same way that canon is. all

previous canons still work with the most current bodies. The main

purpose of this forum is to help people and pass along usefull advice

and something as big as compatibility and quality problems certainly

are big issues,especially since sigma is the only lens of the

independents which has them.

As far as Sigma's brand quality-- I recently bought the Sigma 105mm

EX macro. It came with a zippered, padded case and a metal hood, and

it was compatible with my Elan 7E. I am not an engineer, and I don't

know how much validity there is to "plastic bad, metal good," but

it's certainly mostly metal construction. The build, finish, and

appearance are all good, and there are several thoughtful features

(focus limit switch, a wide focusing ring that can disengage during

AF, distance/scale markings, etc.) that I like. According to my

improvised testing procedure (read: looking at prints) the optical

quality is also very pleasing. My only complaint is the slow micro-

motor AF, but it might as well be a manual-focus lens for me-- I

pretty much always focus manually for macro work. A version with

ring USM would be a much better telephoto, but not really a better

macro.

<p>

Overall, I find it a very classy lens at a good price, and even

though I suspect that macros tend to be some of the better specimens

in anyone's lineup, I have no qualms about buying Sigma EX lenses of

recent manufacture.

Plastic is not a problem. Hell, they're making handguns with plastic

receivers now. That should tell you modern plastics can withstand a

lot of abuse and perform as well as metals.

<p>

The 100-300 Sigma is probably pretty good optically. There are a lot

of third party lenses which have good performance. But I prefer

using my Canon 70-200/2.8L with the Canon 1.4x extender. The

resulting 98-280/4 lens is excellent in all respects and only

slightly slower autofocusing than the lens without the extender.

I would also recommend the Sigma EX lenses with Canon EOS. I have the

20 f1.8 and in every respect it works as well as a Canon lens on my

EOS 3. I have not used the 100-300, but have seen some pretty nice

pictures taken with it.

<p>

I would recommend buying it from someone with a liberal return

policy, and giving it a good test during the grace period, then you

can always return it if not happy.

I assume they will be renaming this forum the-save money and justify

your sigma purchase forum. Pros do not use sigma. What do you think

the resale on sigma is compared to canon, just check ebay. Everyone

should know by now that you get what you pay for.

"Pros do not use Sigma"? Joe, National Geographic photographer Jim

Richardson would be surprised to hear that. Check out

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0104/feature1/zoom3.html

and scroll down to see what lens he used on a great shot of the

Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River.

Now I can call everyone else who works for the AP and tell them to

sell their Nikon, canon,and leica lenses and go out and buy sigma

since a photographer from National Geographic used one once for a

photo. Thanks Gary

I agree with Joe, To campare Sigma to Canon is silly, people buy Sigma

to save money. people buy Canon for top quality. Im sure there are

some good Sigmas out there, but why not buy the best for your camera.

I just got back from the olympics and had an eye opener. I brought

the sigma 28-70f2.8 and 75-300dl, my gilfriend brought the 28-135is

and the 100-300f5.6L. First of all almost all of the serious

photographers shot L-series canons and top end Nikons(no sigmas except

a few spectators)the eye opener was when we got our slides back. my

slides were not even close. less color much less sharpness, and far

more distortion, I am selling both and will upgrade to canon.

Okay, joe, I'll take you up on that "save money and justify your

Sigma purchase" crack.

<p>

I have the same amount of money to spend on photo equipment whether

or not I buy Sigma. So what I have to do is compare the Sigma lens

(and whatever else I buy with the savings) to the Canon (and whatever

else I don't get to buy because of it). In this case, I got the

Sigma lens for just over $400.00, and Adorama lists the Canon

equivalent, their 100mm USM macro, for upwards of $500.00, depending

on whether or not you buy gray market and whether or not you get the

hood and case. And like I said, my budget is the same either way.

So I'm really not comparing the Sigma to the Canon. I'm comparing

the Sigma to a used Canon, or the Sigma and a pile of film to a new

Canon, or the Sigma and some nice new filters to a Canon, or the

Sigma and a hundred dollars of tripod gear to a Canon. Sure, I'd

rather have a higher-quality lens. But I'd also rather get the shot

on a second-tier lens than not get it because I ran out of film, or I

couldn't afford a clamp, or flare ruined my negative because I

scrimped on the accessories, or whatever.

<p>

And as for pros not using Sigma? I couldn't care less whether they

do or not. They have other needs, concerns, budgets, and resources

than I do, and our gear will be quite different no matter what I have

to spend.

<p>

And as for getting what you pay for? If only it were that simple.

Both companies have different business models, overheads, and ways of

operating, so while a $4000 Canon is certainly better than an $800

Canon, "you get what you pay for" isn't the complete picture where

third-party lenses are concerned.

<p>

Maybe you should think about contributing some useful (or at least

interesting) content, rather than just mindlessly bashing entire

product lines. If I wanted to hear ranting, I'd read usenet; I come

here instead because most of the posters aren't like you.

R.D. if you look at where the (crack) came from it was because of a

legitimate warning about specific sigmas incompatibility with eye

controll canons. All you had to do is read this from the begining. If

you are part of the sigma crowd then good for you. Top level I would

assume by definition are field users. In my 16 years with the

associated press and 50,000 photos later I think I have learned a

little something about photography. If you want to take advice you

are in the right place. If you want to challenge everything I would

suggest a teenage chat room.

As I said previously, some third party lenses are noted to be quite

good. But I would have to clarify that by saying NONE of the third

party lenses available are considered the BEST within their focal

length range.

<p>

I prefer to use camera manufacturer lenses. I did it when I shot

Leica, I did it when I shot Nikon, I do it now that I shoot Canon. I

did not buy into the Leica system to use Sigma lenses. I did not buy

into the Nikon system to use Tamron lenses. I did not buy into the

EOS system to use Tokina lenses. I chose Canon as a system of

bodies, lenses and accessories.

<p>

That does not mean great photos cannot be taken with third party

lenses. They can and they are every day. I always try to keep in

mind that one of my photographic heros, Edward Weston, shot most of

his masterpieces on a cheap, unbranded lens that he bought to fit his

8x10 view camera.

Sigma make some decent lenses. Just don't expect them to work with the

successors to the Elan 7, EOS 3 and EOS 1v, maybe not even the

successors to the D60 and EOS-1d. Everytime a new Canon EOS body comes

out the various photo forums fill with complaints that their old Sigma

lenses won't work on the new bodies.

<p>

Now you might get lucky and this time they will work, or you might

never upgrade your current EOS body. Who knows.

<p>

Pesonally I've tested maybe 3 or 4 Sigma lenses and while they've

generally not been junk, I've rejected them or eventually sold them in

favor of the Canon counterparts.

<p>

Of course if you want a 50-500 zoom, you don't have a lot of choice!

well i have a sigma EX lense (the 24-70 f2,8 to supplement my canon

primes) and i'm very happy with it. very good value for money. i must

say that i never expected it to compare with a canon f2,8 pro zoom -

but i didn't want to pay 3 times as much for a lense that is probably

10% better in absolute terms.

<p>

from what i've heard the 100-300 from sigma is a darn good lense.

<p>

and joe, pro photographers make great photos. whether the shot was

taken with a canon, sigma, tamron, or idon'tknowwhat lense is not

worth discussing. we shouldn't let equipment snobbery get in the way

of taking great pictures.

<p>

thats all,

<p>

carl

Carl Im glad that you are happy with your purchase, Lets hope that

you don't run in to the compatability problem if and when you decide

to upgade you camera. When you do run in to this problem Im sure that

this forum (if you read it in its entirity) will come to mind.

to be honest joe, i don't know what compatibility problem you're

talking about. sigma here in germany replaces the chips in all its

older lenses for free when you have a problem with the elan 7(e). i

imagine they'll do the same thing when newer cameras come out.

<p>

as for me, i won't ever have a compatability problem - the lense works

perfectly with my eos 3 and i don't expect that there will be a new

analogue canon camera that would convince me to upgrade. the next step

is digital and i'll worry about that in a few years when the gear is

good enough and less expensive. when that day comes we can all forget

about the resale value of a lot of our old gear.

<p>

plus i expect that they'll have made good advances in lense technology

too - so i can throw the sigma away when the mood strikes me and buy a

new up-to-date one.

Hi. I am also seriously thinking of buying this lens, but would need

objective personal experiences (free from all those ridiculous "Don't

EVER buy Sigma - buy Canon, buy Nikon, but do NOT buy Sigma" mantras

the pro-wannabees keep chanting. Sometimes I wonder if the die-hard

fans of Canon and Nikon ever read any reviews...)

So just to get this discussion back on track:

Please share your personal, objective experience from THIS PARTICULAR

lens with me.

(I do not need to be convinced about NIKON or CANON superiority: In

addition to some reviews on this particular lens, I have studied

quite a few reviews on other SIGMA EX lenses with comparisons to

NIKON and CANON ones, (according to which some of them are not so

good, while others are excellent, applying to ALL THREE parties).

<p>

What would I use it for? Shooting wildlife in Namibia in two months,

so I'll have to make the decision quickly.

<p>

Much obliged,

Macro-Marko

Finland

<p>

Much obliged,

Macro-Marko

Finland

First of all there is enough information in this debate for you to

make an informed decision. The pro wanna be is pretty funny. I can

assure you that my income in the last ten years is higher than the GDP

of your village in Finland.Maybe you should try a Sigma forum, or

better yet go try it and tell us how wonderful your lens is.

I hear that Yugo engines can be fitted to BMW's. Since your such a

fan of saving money you should try this too and report back to us. JC

Well, Joe's reply needs no comment: it speaks for itself and for him,

too.

Macro-Marko

>Well, Joe's reply needs no comment: it speaks for itself and for

him, too.

<p>

Heh. Yeah. Kind of sums things up pretty completely.

I had to read that response a couple of times, now I get it The BMW

is the Canon and the Yugo is Sigma. Never hear it put that way before-

Get the point. Marko if you already read the reviews and made up your

mind why ask the question and dismiss the opinions of the responders

on this pannel. I have learned alot from Joe, NK guy, Preston

Merchant, Puppy Face, and others who obviously know their business. -

Louis Brown