sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by legnum, Mar 22, 2002.

  1. Well,have anyone here tried this lens? Contrast? Sharpness? AF speed?
    are there any lenses for comparison?
    Thanks
     
  2. 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.
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. 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.
     
  9. "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.
     
  10. 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
     
  11. 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.
     
  12. 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.
     
  13. 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.
     
  14. 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.
     
  15. 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.
     
  16. Exceptionally well put Lee.
     
  17. 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!
     
  18. 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
     
  19. 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.
     
  20. 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.
     
  21. 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
     
  22. 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
     
  23. Well, Joe's reply needs no comment: it speaks for itself and for him,
    too.
    Macro-Marko
     
  24. >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.
     
  25. 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
     
  26. 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...
     
  27. 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
     
  28. 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
     
  29. 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.
     
  30. Hehe, somehow I thought that this discussion was taking place this year, but know, I found my mistake, forget it anyway =)
     
  31. 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
    004nXh-12016684.JPG
     
  32. 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!
     

Share This Page