Sigma lenses.

[Steve Coppolo]

I want to buy a zoom lens for my Canon 350D. I don't want to spend a lot of money because it would be wasted on me and my limited ablity. I am looking at getting the basic Canon 70-300 non USM, but today a shop assistant showed me the Sigma 70-300 Canon fit with macro facility for a lot less money. It did look good, but I know absolutely nothing about lenses other than that good ones cost a fortune.

 

Would I be better off with the Sigma, or the bottom of the range Canon?

 

Cheers.

[Alnath]

The sigma is pretty average but then again most cheap lenses are. The Canon 70-300 will be crap that is for sure, cheap Canon lenses are terrible and the 18-55mm kit lens wants a drop kick. The Sigma should be better but don’t expect miracles, go for the APO version as it is supposed to be better.

 

Some chat about it here mate http://www.photo.net/ezshop/product?product_id=1307

 

If you could save for a Canon 70-300mm IS (aroun £360) then you are going to be very happy, it is opticaly up with some of the Canon L series lenses, just the build is a bit crapper.

[Steve Burke]

Another alternative is to buy secondhand, perhaps a really good Canon lens. You'll get better value for money, and it would have a higher resale value.

[Guest CJS2]

I want to buy a zoom lens for my Canon 350D. I don't want to spend a lot of money because it would be wasted on me and my limited ablity. I am looking at getting the basic Canon 70-300 non USM, but today a shop assistant showed me the Sigma 70-300 Canon fit with macro facility for a lot less money. It did look good, but I know absolutely nothing about lenses other than that good ones cost a fortune.

 

Would I be better off with the Sigma, or the bottom of the range Canon?

 

Cheers.

 

Steve, I use the Sigma 70-300 APO, or should I say I have one in my bag. Since changing bodies and acquiring the 'N' kit lens 18-70 I am finding that the close up is so good, not macro, but pretty dam close, I have not needed the the macro facility on the Sigma. I seem to remember the Canon kit lens gets pretty close as well? If you have a good copy it should be OK, Ultimate quality required, are we at that stage yet? l suspect I have as much quality as I want, or want to afford? That cynic in me again, lol

 

Suggestion, what about the new breed of 18-200m, whole range in one lens and well under £300? Aperture may be an issue?

 

It depends on how much hosing about you will be doing with a zoom? I know from my experience, and the type of pics I take, the shorter end is in almost constant use. Its only that I have a zoom/macro in my bag, I rarely use it. It was originally bought for my other life in aircraft photography.

 

Canon better than the Sigma???? Cynically, I would save some cash, they are both 'cheap lenses'?

 

By the way Steve, Tope to 36lbs, Hounds to 12lbs and Bass to 12lb last Wednesday!

 

[Charlie Bettell]

The only Sigma lens that I own is the 12-24mm wide angle - which many rate as being better than the Canon 10-20mm EFS.

 

Personally, I would not waste my money on buying an EFS lens - as the high end Canon cameras don't take them - of which I will be aiming to buy one in due course.

 

A 5D perhaps?

 

I've heard a 3D is on the way?

 

Personally, I think that my Canon 18-55mm EFS lens (which came in a package deal) takes good photos - i.e. portrait shots - and half decent macro shots. It would appear that some of the Canon 18-55 EFS lens were better than others.

 

 

My Cameras/Lenses:-

 

Canon 20D/300D

Canon 75-300mm Ultrasonic IS

Canon 100-400mm Ultrasonic IS L

Canon 28-135 Ultrasonic IS

Canon 18-55mm EFS

Sigma 12-24mm

[Charlie Bettell]

The sigma is pretty average but then again most cheap lenses are. The Canon 70-300 will be crap that is for sure, cheap Canon lenses are terrible and the 18-55mm kit lens wants a drop kick. The Sigma should be better but don’t expect miracles, go for the APO version as it is supposed to be better.

 

Some chat about it here mate http://www.photo.net/ezshop/product?product_id=1307

 

If you could save for a Canon 70-300mm IS (aroun £360) then you are going to be very happy, it is opticaly up with some of the Canon L series lenses, just the build is a bit crapper.

What lens did you use for the following shot:-

 

http://alnath.fotopic.net/p28417365.html

 

Not any better than the shots I have taken with the Canon 18-55mm EFS - in my opinion.

 

I would be very interested to know what lenes you used for the Chester Zoo shots.

Edited June 14, 2006 by Charlie Bettell

[bikerian]

hi steve

i use a nikon d50 with a sigma 70-300mm apo and they are pretty damm good for the money.

i for one cannot afford the nikon range.

i do sports photography (mainly bikes ) and over the moon with the results.

lets face facts not all of us can afford the prices for the hot lenses ,so go here and have a look.www.eyepics.net

hope this helps go do it!.

failing that take your camera to the shop and pop the lense on and play

regards

ian

[Charlie Bettell]

hi steve

i use a nikon d50 with a sigma 70-300mm apo and they are pretty damm good for the money.

i for one cannot afford the nikon range.

i do sports photography (mainly bikes ) and over the moon with the results.

lets face facts not all of us can afford the prices for the hot lenses ,so go here and have a look.www.eyepics.net

hope this helps go do it!.

failing that take your camera to the shop and pop the lense on and play

regards

ian

Good advice by Ian.

 

Take a good few shots - long and short distance.

 

 

Within a couple of hours you will be able to see for yourself just how good the lens is - i.e. via your PC screen!

 

Note: Make sure you view at 100%

Edited June 14, 2006 by Charlie Bettell

[Guest CJS2]

Kit lenses ain't that bad . . . ? for the likes of me, that is. I have regularly published photos, no! not in Vogue! The latest are taken with my new Nikon D70s, + 18-70 kit lens. Compared with the previous Nikon D100, Sigma 18-35 it is a whole new 'ball game'. The amount of fiddling in PS is reduced to almost nothing, in fact, on most I have not bothered with any sharpening, just a minor adjustment to 'levels' which is normal for the way Nikon set their camera software.

 

Can see the enthusiast type wanting the ultimate, and enjoying the results, but Steve, we ain't in that league mate, enjoy your pictures

 

Here is a pic I took the other day to illustrate a knot tied in 150lb mono 6/0 hook. Not true macro and I have reduced the res to 100dpi. At 300dpi and full screen it is brilliant, I also like the way the Nikon 18-70 gives the tight focal length.

 

 

I recon its good advise, go try the Sigma and then look at the results, you could do the same with the Canon version and compare in the comfort of your own home. Post a couple on here for evaluation?

 

Cliff

 

PS. out this Saturday again, Tope/Smoothies in the morning, Bass in the afternoon??

Edited June 14, 2006 by CJS2

[Alnath]

What lens did you use for the following shot:-

 

http://alnath.fotopic.net/p28417365.html

 

Not any better than the shots I have taken with the Canon 18-55mm EFS - in my opinion.

 

I would be very interested to know what lenes you used for the Chester Zoo shots.

 

Yeah going from 8mp down to 800 pixels and compessed to 200KB and recompressed by fotopic tends to be a great leveler doesnt it. The lens used was a Canon 70-300mm IS. This is also with the same lens again at only 800 pixels but only compressed once by me, not again by fotopic, much better than the mess fotopic make i am sure you will agree

 

 

The chester zoo pics were with a Sigma 18-125 on my 350D (both now gone) all the shots required post processing.