Canon EOS and now a lens?

[liz_hillock]

Hi folks,

 

I have a EOS 300 and want to get a 90-300mm lens. The toss up cames

between the Canon 300mm lens with USM, and the Sigma 300mm lens with

Macro (APO). Although I can feel the difference in the speed to

focus, in that the canon is a lot quicker and of course quieter than

the Sigma, I must say that the Sigma feels a bit more robust and of

course has the Macro functionality. I have read in the forums the

same question but with regard to the Nikon lens. I just want to be

sure that the actual lens quality is the same and if I go for the

Sigma I'm not making a real mistake. I'm an amateur photographer,

using camera mainly on traveling expeditions. Any help?

[basscheffers]

I think you have to be a bit more descriptive, neither brand has a 90-300 and later on you only mention "300mm".

 

In the "budget" 75/100-300 range I would go for the Canon 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM lens. Canon's 75-300 USM has the "Micro-USM" motor, which realy isn't USM. I have never used one, but the Sigma's in this range just seem too cheap to be true, and especialy adding macro capability on an already cheap lens (though not true macro) makes me even more suspicious.

 

Cheers,

[liz_hillock]

sorry, I mean 70mm-300mm lens for both Canon and Sigma.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Canon doesn't make a 70-300, either.</p>

 

<p>As far as the Canon lenses are concerned: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300">http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300</a></p>

[liz_hillock]

Okay, funnily enough I'm not blonde but you're right it's a 75-300mm ?

It;s not in front of me hence the error. Anyhow, regardless of the error, the Canon seems to be the better bet than the Sigma.

[colin_jones]

I have the canon 75-300 and I think for the price its a great lens,really quiet and suits my EOS 650 more than your 300. The Sigma isnt that much difference as has been said the difference is with the USM. They are all f4-5.6 and whether you use macro or not may make your choice. The Canon has x.25 at 1.5m, not sure about the Sigma use it before you buy due to possible compatibility problems discussed here previously. Tamron also make a cheap 70-300mm. You pays your money coz at this pricepoint they're all the same.

 

Consider used stuff £150 will buy an awful lot more S/H than any of the above mentioned, dont rush to buy the 1st you see. Try them out and then shop around. +/-£50 difference is not unusual

[steve_dunn2]

<p>One other thing to keep in mind regarding "macro" zoom lenses: they're not truly macro lenses. They don't focus close enough to provide anywhere near 1:1 magnification (most of them stop at 1/4 or 1/5 life-size), and most of them are not dreadfully sharp at their closest focusing distance. For example, an old Canon lens brochure says that with the 75-300 "you can fill the frame with a postcard from 1.5m away." Not exactly close, not exactly high-magnification. I dno't know the specs on the Sigma; it may focus somewhat more closely but I'd be surprised if it does any better than about 1/3 life-size (the Canon goes to about 1/4 life-size).</p>

 

<p>If you want to do a lot of macro work, you may wish to look for a real macro lens. If you want a telephoto zoom and occasionally want to fill the frame with a postcard-sized object 1.5m away, then these lenses will be fine.</p>

 

<p>Given the history of incompatibilities between Sigma lenses and EOS bodies, I'd lean towards the Canon. It also gives you quicker, quieter focusing, as you noticed. I wouldn't worry about robustness; I have some consumer-grade Canon lenses that have not had any problems. Just try to be reasonably gentle with your equipment and you should be fine.</p>

[lovethismoment]

I have the Sigma 70-300mm DL Macro Super. This is a slightly cheaper version than the APO, but I don't really know what the exact differences are.

 

I would not buy this lens again. The big problem with it has been with the AF. It was always slow focusing, and hunted back and forth a lot in low light or when there were a lot of different things it could focus on (like in a forest). From the start it was noticeably worse than the cheap kit zoom (28-80mm non-USM) that I got with my camera (EOS 300). Now the AF seems to not work at all. I can point it at a wall and it will just not be able to focus. It may still be under warranty so I could probably get it fixed, but to be honest I really couldn't be bothered given that even when it worked it was a lot easier just to focus it manually and I intend to replace it at some stage in the future.

 

Optically it performs OK some of the time. I actually can't work it out. It looks like it suffers from flare on occasion - but I always use it with the lens hood and I get the problem even when the sun is not in the scene, so maybe there is something else wrong with it.

 

I have taken some decent photos with it but I would recommend getting a Canon lens - this one has put me off third party lenses for the time being. As others have suggested I think you'd be better off spending the same amount and getting something of better quality that's second hand than one of the cheapest zooms new.

 

Have you looked at the Canon 75-300mm with IS? I don't know if it's optically any better than the cheaper versions, and there is a bit of a price difference, but if you want to take hand-held photos with this lens the IS will be a big help, and would probably make more of a difference than better glass anyway. If you'll be using a tripod most of the time though then it might not be much benefit at all.

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>Have you looked at the Canon 75-300mm with IS? I don't know if it's optically any better than the cheaper versions</cite>

 

<p>It's not - all of Canon's current consumer 75/100-300 lenses are in the same ballpark (see <a href="http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300">http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300</a>). As you point out, if you like to shoot handheld, IS is a major benefit. If you can't spring for a pro-quality lens (even something like a used 100-300 f/5.6L), the 75-300 IS is the one to get if you want to handhold it. That's if you can afford it - it ain't cheap.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

Sigma and Canon do not live well together (Tokina and Tamron are much better in this issue). There are numerous posts of compatibility problems. It's all over the net. Thus, my general advice to you is to get a Canon lens.

[liz_hillock]

Wow - thanks for all the response. I have just taken the Sigma back to the shop and exchanged it for the Canon! Took it home last night and had a good gadget session and am really happy with it. I'm off to Egypt in 2 weeks time, so hopefully will get some great shots. Shooting with a zoom this size is new to me, so will have to watch for all the things you mentioned like flare etc as it will be HOT in the desert! Any tips, then shout.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Tip #1: get the lens hood. That will help with flare, as well as giving your lens a little bit of physical protection against airborne crap, babies' fingers, etc.</p>

 

<p>You said desert, right? Be careful with sand and dirt! Your lens and your body are <em>not</em> sealed like pro equipment is, so try to keep them protected when not in use. Be careful not to let any dirt get in, particularly when changing lenses or film.</p>

 

<p>Last but not least, have fun!</p>

[colin_jones]

Congrats, enjoy the lens 300mm lets you take shots that wouldnt work with anything less. Get a 58mm UV or skylight filter to protect the front element.