300D + Sigma 70-300 or Canon 100-300?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Marcel Alsemgeest, Aug 13, 2004.

  1. Hi,

    I recently bought a Canon EOS 300D and now I want to buy a telelens with
    decent range to be able to make pictures of more or less distant animals and
    other interesting subjects in the distance. I have searched for information
    and prices on zoom telelenses and have narrowed my options to the:
    - Sigma 70-300/4.0-5.6 APO Macro Super II;
    - Canon EF 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM.

    Both are priced about equally and seem to get relatively good reviews (taken
    into account that these are relatively cheap lenses). My budget is limited
    so the often recommended L-lenses are no options. I have found comparisons
    between different lenses, with example pictures to show the differences in
    image quality. That's how I filtered most of the lenses away and ended up
    with these two options. They are about equally priced with the Canon lens
    only some 50 Euro's above the Sigma. But now I need to make a choice: should
    I go for the Canon or the Sigma? I haven't been able to find good
    comparisons between these two lenses. Maybe someone in this group knows
    these types of lenses and is willing to give me advice on which to buy to
    use with the EOS 300D. Any help is greatly appreciated!

    Marcel
    The Netherlands
    Marcel Alsemgeest, Aug 13, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Marcel Alsemgeest

    YoYo Guest

    Go for the Canon Lens! How can you go
    wrong when it is the same brand? :+)

    "Marcel Alsemgeest" <>
    wrote in message
    news:cfh0pr$hqf$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I recently bought a Canon EOS 300D and

    now I want to buy a telelens with
    > decent range to be able to make

    pictures of more or less distant animals
    and
    > other interesting subjects in the

    distance. I have searched for
    information
    > and prices on zoom telelenses and have

    narrowed my options to the:
    > - Sigma 70-300/4.0-5.6 APO Macro Super

    II;
    > - Canon EF 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM.
    >
    > Both are priced about equally and seem

    to get relatively good reviews (taken
    > into account that these are relatively

    cheap lenses). My budget is limited
    > so the often recommended L-lenses are

    no options. I have found comparisons
    > between different lenses, with example

    pictures to show the differences in
    > image quality. That's how I filtered

    most of the lenses away and ended up
    > with these two options. They are about

    equally priced with the Canon lens
    > only some 50 Euro's above the Sigma.

    But now I need to make a choice: should
    > I go for the Canon or the Sigma? I

    haven't been able to find good
    > comparisons between these two lenses.

    Maybe someone in this group knows
    > these types of lenses and is willing

    to give me advice on which to buy to
    > use with the EOS 300D. Any help is

    greatly appreciated!
    >
    > Marcel
    > The Netherlands
    >
    >
    YoYo, Aug 13, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Marcel Alsemgeest

    jean Guest

    Add a few $ and go for the Canon 75-300 f4-5,6 with IS, worth every penny.

    Jean

    "Marcel Alsemgeest" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:cfh0pr$hqf$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I recently bought a Canon EOS 300D and now I want to buy a telelens with
    > decent range to be able to make pictures of more or less distant animals

    and
    > other interesting subjects in the distance. I have searched for

    information
    > and prices on zoom telelenses and have narrowed my options to the:
    > - Sigma 70-300/4.0-5.6 APO Macro Super II;
    > - Canon EF 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM.
    >
    > Both are priced about equally and seem to get relatively good reviews

    (taken
    > into account that these are relatively cheap lenses). My budget is limited
    > so the often recommended L-lenses are no options. I have found comparisons
    > between different lenses, with example pictures to show the differences in
    > image quality. That's how I filtered most of the lenses away and ended up
    > with these two options. They are about equally priced with the Canon lens
    > only some 50 Euro's above the Sigma. But now I need to make a choice:

    should
    > I go for the Canon or the Sigma? I haven't been able to find good
    > comparisons between these two lenses. Maybe someone in this group knows
    > these types of lenses and is willing to give me advice on which to buy to
    > use with the EOS 300D. Any help is greatly appreciated!
    >
    > Marcel
    > The Netherlands
    >
    >
    jean, Aug 13, 2004
    #3
  4. Marcel Alsemgeest

    Skip M Guest

    "Marcel Alsemgeest" <> wrote in message
    news:cfh0pr$hqf$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I recently bought a Canon EOS 300D and now I want to buy a telelens with
    > decent range to be able to make pictures of more or less distant animals

    and
    > other interesting subjects in the distance. I have searched for

    information
    > and prices on zoom telelenses and have narrowed my options to the:
    > - Sigma 70-300/4.0-5.6 APO Macro Super II;
    > - Canon EF 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM.
    >
    > Both are priced about equally and seem to get relatively good reviews

    (taken
    > into account that these are relatively cheap lenses). My budget is limited
    > so the often recommended L-lenses are no options. I have found comparisons
    > between different lenses, with example pictures to show the differences in
    > image quality. That's how I filtered most of the lenses away and ended up
    > with these two options. They are about equally priced with the Canon lens
    > only some 50 Euro's above the Sigma. But now I need to make a choice:

    should
    > I go for the Canon or the Sigma? I haven't been able to find good
    > comparisons between these two lenses. Maybe someone in this group knows
    > these types of lenses and is willing to give me advice on which to buy to
    > use with the EOS 300D. Any help is greatly appreciated!
    >
    > Marcel
    > The Netherlands
    >
    >

    All things being equal, stick with Canon. The Sigma lacks their version of
    USM, called HSM, the Canon has true ring motor USM, which is fast and quiet.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Aug 13, 2004
    #4
  5. "Marcel Alsemgeest" <> wrote in message news:<cfh0pr$hqf$>...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I recently bought a Canon EOS 300D and now I want to buy a telelens with
    > decent range to be able to make pictures of more or less distant animals and
    > other interesting subjects in the distance. I have searched for information
    > and prices on zoom telelenses and have narrowed my options to the:
    > - Sigma 70-300/4.0-5.6 APO Macro Super II;
    > - Canon EF 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM.


    Sigma makes the 3 best lenses available in this range, the first is
    the 120-300mm EX with a constant f/2.8, but it sells for up to $2500,
    the second is actually a tad sharper but a stop slower and goes for
    around $800, thankfully the world's third place lens in this range is
    the Sigma 70-300 APO you mention above, and it's only $200. Here
    you'll find them rated next to Canon L, which is not remotely
    competive with anything but the Sigma 70-300 APO, and even compared to
    that Canon L glass loses...

    http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Ztelel

    The cheaper Canon lens you are considering should be avoided. Even
    the 70-300 in Sigma's 24-70/70-300 two lens starter kit is as good.
    In fact the 24-70 in that kit is an outstanding lens for the money, so
    you'll definitely want to buy that first. The Sigma two lens kit is
    $150 in total.

    > Both are priced about equally and seem to get relatively good reviews (taken
    > into account that these are relatively cheap lenses). My budget is limited
    > so the often recommended L-lenses are no options. I have found comparisons
    > between different lenses, with example pictures to show the differences in
    > image quality. That's how I filtered most of the lenses away and ended up
    > with these two options. They are about equally priced with the Canon lens
    > only some 50 Euro's above the Sigma. But now I need to make a choice: should
    > I go for the Canon or the Sigma? I haven't been able to find good
    > comparisons between these two lenses. Maybe someone in this group knows
    > these types of lenses and is willing to give me advice on which to buy to
    > use with the EOS 300D. Any help is greatly appreciated!


    Realize that most Canon users seem to feel the need to rationalize
    their expense. Canon L glass is not competitive in the range you
    want, although the Canon 300mm IS L prime is a very nice lens.
    Georgette Preddy, Aug 13, 2004
    #5
  6. Marcel Alsemgeest

    Rick Guest

    "Marcel Alsemgeest" <> wrote in message
    news:cfh0pr$hqf$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I recently bought a Canon EOS 300D and now I want to buy a telelens with
    > decent range to be able to make pictures of more or less distant animals

    and
    > other interesting subjects in the distance. I have searched for

    information
    > and prices on zoom telelenses and have narrowed my options to the:
    > - Sigma 70-300/4.0-5.6 APO Macro Super II;
    > - Canon EF 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM.
    >
    > Both are priced about equally and seem to get relatively good reviews

    (taken
    > into account that these are relatively cheap lenses). My budget is limited
    > so the often recommended L-lenses are no options.


    Can you manage to stretch your budget to $500? Because if you can, you can
    find the Canon 70-200 f4 L lens for that price used on ebay or photo forums
    for sale boards on the internet.
    Rick, Aug 13, 2004
    #6
  7. "Rick" <> wrote in message news:<NN5Tc.24478$>...
    > "Marcel Alsemgeest" <> wrote in message
    > news:cfh0pr$hqf$...
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > I recently bought a Canon EOS 300D and now I want to buy a telelens with
    > > decent range to be able to make pictures of more or less distant animals

    > and
    > > other interesting subjects in the distance. I have searched for

    > information
    > > and prices on zoom telelenses and have narrowed my options to the:
    > > - Sigma 70-300/4.0-5.6 APO Macro Super II;
    > > - Canon EF 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM.
    > >
    > > Both are priced about equally and seem to get relatively good reviews

    > (taken
    > > into account that these are relatively cheap lenses). My budget is limited
    > > so the often recommended L-lenses are no options.

    >
    > Can you manage to stretch your budget to $500? Because if you can, you can
    > find the Canon 70-200 f4 L lens for that price used on ebay or photo forums
    > for sale boards on the internet.


    In that case, you'd be crazy not to get the Sigma 70-200 EX with a constant f/2.8.
    Georgette Preddy, Aug 14, 2004
    #7
  8. In article <>, Georgette
    Preddy <> wrote:

    > In that case, you'd be crazy not to get the Sigma 70-200 EX with a constant f/2.8.


    I agree. After the piece of junk has fallen apart in short order he'll
    have learned a valuable lesson in life...don't buy crap.
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 14, 2004
    #8
  9. Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<140820040836090443%>...
    > In article <>, Georgette
    > Preddy <> wrote:
    >
    > > In that case, you'd be crazy not to get the Sigma 70-200 EX with a constant f/2.8.

    >
    > I agree. After the piece of junk has fallen apart in short order he'll
    > have learned a valuable lesson in life...don't buy crap.


    I actually did learn that lesson the hard way when the permanent
    cardboard lens hood on my Canon 300mm L prime was partially partly
    torn off by a twig. Now my $1450 lens has $0 resale.
    Georgette Preddy, Aug 16, 2004
    #9
  10. Marcel Alsemgeest

    Big Bill Guest

    On 16 Aug 2004 04:56:57 -0700, (Georgette
    Preddy) wrote:

    >Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<140820040836090443%>...
    >> In article <>, Georgette
    >> Preddy <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > In that case, you'd be crazy not to get the Sigma 70-200 EX with a constant f/2.8.

    >>
    >> I agree. After the piece of junk has fallen apart in short order he'll
    >> have learned a valuable lesson in life...don't buy crap.

    >
    >I actually did learn that lesson the hard way when the permanent
    >cardboard lens hood on my Canon 300mm L prime was partially partly
    >torn off by a twig. Now my $1450 lens has $0 resale.


    I'll give you $10 plus actual shipping costs for it.

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
    Big Bill, Aug 16, 2004
    #10
  11. Marcel Alsemgeest

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Big Bill <> wrote:

    >On 16 Aug 2004 04:56:57 -0700, (Georgette
    >Preddy) wrote:


    >>Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<140820040836090443%>...
    >>> In article <>, Georgette
    >>> Preddy <> wrote:


    >>> > In that case, you'd be crazy not to get the Sigma 70-200 EX with a constant f/2.8.


    >>> I agree. After the piece of junk has fallen apart in short order he'll
    >>> have learned a valuable lesson in life...don't buy crap.


    >>I actually did learn that lesson the hard way when the permanent
    >>cardboard lens hood on my Canon 300mm L prime was partially partly
    >>torn off by a twig. Now my $1450 lens has $0 resale.


    >I'll give you $10 plus actual shipping costs for it.


    He never owned that lens. He's lying, as usual. He just wrote here a
    few weeks ago that he learned that the builtin hood was cardboard
    through reading a forum.

    I have the lens, and the cardboard is too strong for what he said, and
    frankly, the lens is so glare-free that the lens hood is always
    retracted. I have *never* seen glare, even shooting right next to the
    burning sun.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Aug 16, 2004
    #11
  12. Man talk about SPF 6,000 You must have some thick skin ;-)
    Sorry couldn't resist.


    In article <>,
    wrote:

    >I have *never* seen glare, even shooting right next to the
    > burning sun.


    --
    LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
    or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
    is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
    to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
    Gregory Blank, Aug 17, 2004
    #12
  13. wrote in message news:<>...
    > In message <>,
    > Big Bill <> wrote:
    >
    > >On 16 Aug 2004 04:56:57 -0700, (Georgette
    > >Preddy) wrote:

    >
    > >>Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<140820040836090443%>...
    > >>> In article <>, Georgette
    > >>> Preddy <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> > In that case, you'd be crazy not to get the Sigma 70-200 EX with a constant f/2.8.

    >
    > >>> I agree. After the piece of junk has fallen apart in short order he'll
    > >>> have learned a valuable lesson in life...don't buy crap.

    >
    > >>I actually did learn that lesson the hard way when the permanent
    > >>cardboard lens hood on my Canon 300mm L prime was partially partly
    > >>torn off by a twig. Now my $1450 lens has $0 resale.

    >
    > >I'll give you $10 plus actual shipping costs for it.

    >
    > He never owned that lens. He's lying, as usual. He just wrote here a
    > few weeks ago that he learned that the builtin hood was cardboard
    > through reading a forum.
    >
    > I have the lens, and the cardboard is too strong for what he said,


    $1500 for a cardboard lens is absurd.

    > and
    > frankly, the lens is so glare-free that the lens hood is always
    > retracted. I have *never* seen glare, even shooting right next to the
    > burning sun.


    Nothing justifies the use of a cardboard tube on a $1500 lens.
    Georgette Preddy, Aug 23, 2004
    #13
  14. (Georgette Preddy) wrote in message news:<>...
    > "Marcel Alsemgeest" <> wrote in message news:<cfh0pr$hqf$>...


    > Sigma makes the 3 best lenses available in this range, the first is
    > the 120-300mm EX with a constant f/2.8, but it sells for up to $2500


    Plus it is steel, not cardboard. Parts of Canon's pricey $1500 300mm
    L prime are cardboard.
    Georgette Preddy, Aug 23, 2004
    #14
  15. In article <>, Georgette
    Preddy <> wrote:

    > $1500 for a cardboard lens is absurd.


    Amazing! You're both right *and* full of shit in the same sentence.
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 23, 2004
    #15
  16. Marcel Alsemgeest

    Steve Dell Guest


    > Add a few $ and go for the Canon 75-300 f4-5,6 with IS, worth every penny.


    I couldn't agree more. Especially, if you don't have a tripod, you should be
    able to hand hold this one reasonably well.

    Steve
    Steve Dell, Aug 23, 2004
    #16
  17. Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<220820042137324177%>...
    > In article <>, Georgette
    > Preddy <> wrote:
    >
    > > $1500 for a cardboard lens is absurd.

    >
    > Amazing! You're both right *and* full of shit in the same sentence.


    Well, yes, that may have been a little high, the cardboard tubed Canon
    L 300mm L goes for around $1400 street.
    Georgette Preddy, Aug 25, 2004
    #17
  18. Marcel Alsemgeest

    HooDooWitch Guest

    (Georgette Preddy) somehow managed to post:

    >Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<220820042137324177%>...
    >> In article <>, Georgette
    >> Preddy <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > $1500 for a cardboard lens is absurd.

    >>
    >> Amazing! You're both right *and* full of shit in the same sentence.

    >
    >Well, yes, that may have been a little high, the cardboard tubed Canon
    >L 300mm L goes for around $1400 street.


    For best results, take the equipment *out* of the box.

    --
    HooDooWitch (NaCl - Gratis)

    http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/51251.html
    HooDooWitch, Aug 25, 2004
    #18
  19. HooDooWitch <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > (Georgette Preddy) somehow managed to post:
    >
    > >Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<220820042137324177%>...
    > >> In article <>, Georgette
    > >> Preddy <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > $1500 for a cardboard lens is absurd.
    > >>
    > >> Amazing! You're both right *and* full of shit in the same sentence.

    > >
    > >Well, yes, that may have been a little high, the cardboard tubed Canon
    > >300mm L goes for around $1400 street.

    >
    > For best results, take the equipment *out* of the box.


    The $1400 Canon's tube is made of painted cardboard, so it's
    definitley best to leave this lens in the box for protection.
    Georgette Preddy, Aug 26, 2004
    #19
  20. Marcel Alsemgeest

    Summitar Guest

    (Steve Giovanella) wrote:
    >
    > The $1400 Canon's tube is made of painted cardboard, so it's
    > definitley best to leave this lens in the box for protection.



    Shut up, Preddy
    Summitar, Sep 5, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. No Spam
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    10,392
  2. PeterH

    Canon 90-300 or Sigma 70-300 ?

    PeterH, Jan 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    5,817
    Steven M. Scharf
    Feb 11, 2004
  3. Nickyvonbuskergr

    sigma 120-300 2.8 or canon 70-200 2.8l ,canon 10d

    Nickyvonbuskergr, Mar 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    848
  4. John

    300D and Sigma 70-300 Lens

    John, May 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,261
    grant kinsley
    May 25, 2004
  5. friglob
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    476
    Michel Souris
    Feb 6, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page