Canon or Sigma

[daniel belini]

Hi fellows.

I am about to buy a tele lenses, i was going to buy a 75-300 Canon

USM, but its magnification is 1:4, and now i found a Sigma, a litle

cheapper, and its magnification is 1:2.

Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DL Macro Super Autofocus, and a

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM.

I own a EOS3000n, and to me take flowers pictures i guess sigma is

better.

What you people here think??

 

Thanks in advance.

 

May God bless you all.

[beauh44]

Hi Daniel, For flower shots, I'd look at the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro. I think that the high-end Sigmas are going to be pretty good - altho' I have mixed feelings about Sigma lenses in general on Canon cameras. I think most lenses that travel such a long distance (70-300mm) aren't going to quite stand up to a prime. That said, you probably won't find a huge difference in Sigma's top of the line lenses and a Canon - optically speaking. (With Canon, "L" glass is ideal if not terribly affordable) I'd be a bit concerned about compatibility and build-quality with Sigma. Best wishes . . .

[isaac sibson]

The Sigma DL lens is not worth buying. There is a more up market version, the APO Macro Super, and this may be worth buying. Optically the sigma APO is quite acceptable (the DL is not), probably even a little better than the 75-300 or 100-300 USM from canon. The Sigma APO macro goes to 1:2 like the DL.

 

However, from a compatibility point of view, I'd be more inclined to stick with canon, as the lenses tend to handle rather better than the clunky sigma.

[scott_currie1]

If you are looking to take pictures of flowers then the 100mm/2.8 USM macro is the way to go. Very sharp lens. It also makes an excellent portrait lens.

Check it out before you buy the Sigma.

 

Scott

[vsevolod_krishchenko]

As I understand, you budget is quite limited and recomendation about 100/2.8 USM could be useless. I'd think about Sigma 100/2.8 or old (non-usm) Canon 100/2.8 s/h.

[anthony_thornborough1]

Try the Sigma 105 f/2.8 EX Macro. It also works well as a portrait lens.

Though it depends on the flowers, and what you want. If you just want to fill the frame ordinary standard zooms with a "macro" facility often work quite well, despite not being anything like true macros - though the magnification ratio is often sufficient if you develop a good relationship with a good film processor. I find my Sigma 28-70 EX DF does adequately, but I'm not a pro macro shooter in which case I'd definitely go for the Sigma 105 f/2.8 EX Macro or maybe Canon EF 50 f/2.8 Macro on your budget, or maybe even the Tamron 90mm.

[klaus_schleicher]

Hi,

 

i have a sad feeling to use Sigma-lenses on Canon bodys. I had tried three of the Sigma 24mm/2.8 (optical a fine lens) on my EOS 33. No chance. Sigma Germany told me: It is not possible to update this lens. So will go for a use Canon EF 24mm/2.8. The 70-300 DL is in the current product range, so it will do it's job on your 3000n. But what will be in future, if you update your body?

 

my2cents

 

 

Klaus

[jimstrutz]

I've owned both of the lenses you are considering. The Canon 75-300 (all versions of it) is just a little bit sharper than the Sigma DL, not by all that much though. The Sigma APO version is a bit better than the Canons, but again, not by all that much. The Sigmas probably will have compatability issues with any camera that Canon comes out with in the future, but should work fine with what you have now. This has been an on going problem for at least the last decade and there is no reason to think that anything has changed. They also have not proven themselves to be very reliable. Occaional autofocus problems and they need to be handled more carefully to keep from breaking.

 

The other down side to the Sigma's is that they are not at all sharp at the macro settings. Not too bad in the center, but the edges are awfull. So I'm not so sure the 1:2 feature is worth much.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

Ouch,don't worry about the special macro lenses.They are extremely good but far more than most people need.Try to get the better apo sigma if you can

[yakim_peled1]

A used Tamron 90/2.8 or Canon 100/2.8 non-USM may be the most affordable to you while making for very good image quality and very little (Tamron) to no (Canon) compatibility problems.

[craig_allyn_rose]

Uh oh! I hope I don't step on any toes with this opinion. I have the Sigma 70-300 4/

5.6 DL Macro Super for my EOS Elan 7 and Rebel 2000. I like this lens very much. It's

been a sturdy and inexpensive performer since day one. In fact, I have taken as many

macro shots with it as I have standard telephoto shots. The optics are not awesome.

but certainly serviceable. For some examples point your browser to:

 

http://www.andromedafilms.com/carosephoto/index.html

 

At the top are some flower images that were shot with this lens in macro mode and

normal. Like I said, the optics are not L lens grade, but this lens can be had brand

new for $169 at Adorama and B&H. I wouldn;t hesitate to buy this one and cement it

to your Canon body - you'll be satisfied most likely.

 

Craig Allyn Rose // www.carosephoto.com