telephoto zooms - canon 70-200 F4 v sigma 70-200 f2.8 vs sigma 100-300F4

Discussion in 'Canon' started by s, Jan 15, 2005.

  1. s

    s Guest

    I'm looking to replace my canon 90-300. I'm looking for something that
    covers roughly the 100-300 range, has a non-rotating front element and
    preferably internal zooming. I'm not too concerned about IS. The 90-300
    has served me well but is showing signs of wear and tear, and the
    rotating front irritates me.

    So, the shopping lists currently includes the canon and the two sigma.
    All three seem to get very positive user reviews. Unfortunately, so far,
    i've not had the opportunity to try and of the lenses. I will get a go
    of the canon in the coming weeks, but don't know anyone with any of the
    sigmas. (there was someone here a while back selling the sigma 100-300
    ... i wonder if he sold it ..)

    Although i'm after as much focal length as possible (wild-life
    photography) the canon 70-200 is attractive because of price, quality
    and weight. Being roughly half the weight of the two sigmas, and about
    60% of the price (assuming i get it from B&H).

    Even though it is only 200mm, not 300mm, i would hope that the extra
    quality (over the 90-300) would allow me some leeway in cropping images
    before enlarging and printing.

    The sigma 70-200 is attractive because it's a stop faster, but
    unfortunately heavier and costlier.

    The sigma 100-300 is probably ideal in terms of focal length, but is the
    most expensive and heaviest of the lot.

    So .. any comments ? Any recommendations ? It's probably coming down to
    the canon vs the sigma 100-300.
    s, Jan 15, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. s

    Beena Guest

    Have you looked at the Canon 100-300? Has inner rear focusing, better
    optics than the 90-300 and a ring type USM.

    They are hard to find (I know Michaels in Elizabeth St Melbourne has
    one, I looked at it the other day) but focus very quickly and are cheap
    - about $650. Might be worth a look?
    Beena, Jan 16, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. s

    s Guest

    I've contemplated that one. As it is only marginally dearer than the
    90-300 that i already have, i wasn't sure it was worth the 'upgrade'. stock them...
    s, Jan 16, 2005
  4. I'm looking to replace my canon 90-300. I'm looking for something that
    Well, I'm probably one of very few people who has owned both the Sigma
    100-300 and the Canon EF70-200f4. I also owned the Canon 80-200f4.5-5.6
    (I think?) which is similar to but slightly better than the 90-300 you have.

    The Sigma is a very, very good lens. It's amazing at f4 and just gets better
    as you increase the stops. It's even very good, bordering on amazing, with
    a (Sigma) 1.4x TC. With a 10D/20D/300D that combination gives you a
    670mm f5.6 lens! And *is* handholdable (though barely). It's internal
    focus and the HSM AF is remarkable - it's faster than the 70-200L !
    Even though it's got to go out to 300mm rather than 200mm. Really,
    there is only one downside to the lens, and that's weight. However, you
    get a constant f4 lens upto 300mm (or 480mm f4 if you're using a 1.6
    multiplier digital camera). Bokeh is very good as well, as is colour and
    flare resistance. Add the hood to really make people look at you :)

    The 70-200L is a different kettle of fish. You lose the 200-300mm.
    You gain...less weight and price.

    The bottom line is that if you need a longer lens for lowish
    light (ie constant f4) then you should get the Sigma. No doubt. If you
    don't need the 200-300 part, then you should get the Canon EF. No
    doubt. I have no experience with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 though, so
    can't comment there. I bought the Sigma first, then the Canon. I found
    that I don't need the extra reach of the Sigma so am selling it (already
    have a buyer so I'm not biased to try and get you to buy it :). If I did
    need the reach, for sports for example, the Sigma would be the one
    being kept. Even more so for it's quality with TC. I'm selling it to a
    birder who's very happy with it.

    Ask any more questions. I just re-read your message above and, for
    wildlife, I'd suggest you need the longest lens you can afford/hold. I'd
    go for the Sigma 100-300 (with TC) any day for that application. Either
    of these lenses wallop the 90-300 (and the similar 80-200), but don't
    count that much on cropping IMHO - go for as much in the frame as

    Robert McArthur, Jan 17, 2005
  5. s

    s Guest

    Robert McArthur wrote:
    Damm .. i was going to ask you had you sold it, but was waiting until
    next pay packet. (we exchange emails about this months ago)
    s, Jan 17, 2005
  6. s

    petal666 Guest

    While I own the following Sigma lenses:

    15mm f2.8 fisheye
    180mm f3.5macro
    1.4x tele

    they were all bought 2nd hand. The reason for this is that the Sigma
    quality control is very poor. The one lens I bought new was a 100-300f4
    and it was crap. It even went back to Sigma for fixing and came back
    better but not good enough to justify its price tag. Buying 2nd hand i
    can see images from the lens before I buy. The is important if you plan
    to buy from B&H as sending lenses back for replacement can get costly.

    I am more than happy with my Sigma lenses, in terms of build quality,
    image quality and price compared to the canon equivalent (if there even
    is one i.e.120-300f2.8)
    petal666, Jan 19, 2005
  7. s

    s Guest

    How long ago did you get them ?
    Nothing quite like that, which is why i've ended up looking at sigma.
    Canon don't seem to make something to cover 100-300 in their L range.
    There's more expensive ones with more covered (e.g. 100-400) and then
    there are ones that come close and cost less (70-200f4) .. but nothing
    quite like what i want. There is a 100-300 f5.6, but it's not that much
    better than what i already have.
    s, Jan 19, 2005
  8. s

    petal666 Guest

    I got them all within the last year. The macro I have only have for a
    petal666, Jan 19, 2005
  9. s

    s Guest

    Where did you get them from ? I've check ebay and the tradingpost every
    now and then, but never see anything worthwhile second hand. eBay seems
    to be almost entirely new stuff, and tradingpost seems to be a great
    source of obsolete stuff.
    s, Jan 19, 2005
  10. s

    turbo6i Guest

    I have a Sigma 70-200mm APO HSM lens which i bought a month ago, and
    still includes 11 months warranty.

    if you are still looking for that lens, perhaps i can help you out?

    i'm selling due to it being a little too telephoto for my needs on my
    if i dont sell it, then its still a great lens on my film camera..


    turbo6i, Mar 30, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.