Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III lens ??

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 2:41:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi

Looking for a lens for my (still to arrive) 350d. ICD have in the package
on of the above lenses. I noticed on a quick search that there are several
versions of this.: DO IS USM, USM and Imag stab

As a total novice - whats the difference? My budget is < £300?

Is this a good lens or should I be looking at non-canon lenses

Do the sigma etc work with the 350d?

Any advice will be great

Thanks

Mike

More about : canon 300mm iii lens

May 19, 2005 3:03:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike R" <news@mikeread.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 6hn2t$j37$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> Hi
>
> Looking for a lens for my (still to arrive) 350d. ICD have in the package
> on of the above lenses. I noticed on a quick search that there are
> several versions of this.: DO IS USM, USM and Imag stab
>
> As a total novice - whats the difference? My budget is < £300?
>
> Is this a good lens or should I be looking at non-canon lenses
>
> Do the sigma etc work with the 350d?
>
> Any advice will be great
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
>

The DO is supposed to be close to the L series pro lenses and uses a special
lens to enable it to be very short, you pay the price for this but you will
get better quality compared to the other 2.

I believe the other 2 are very similar apart from the IS. I have the IS
version which is very useful for hand holding it especially at 300mm, gives
you 2 or 3 stops improvement. The usual comments are the lens are soft at
the 300mm end, but I'd say still very usable.

Basically you pay the price for the quality and features you want.

Can't comment on non-canon lenses, don't have any.
May 19, 2005 5:51:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"dylan" <no@nospam.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:D 6hoan$dgq$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Mike R" <news@mikeread.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:D 6hn2t$j37$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> > Hi
> >
> > Looking for a lens for my (still to arrive) 350d. ICD have in the
package
> > on of the above lenses. I noticed on a quick search that there are
> > several versions of this.: DO IS USM, USM and Imag stab
> >
> > As a total novice - whats the difference? My budget is < £300?
> >
> > Is this a good lens or should I be looking at non-canon lenses
> >
> > Do the sigma etc work with the 350d?
> >
> > Any advice will be great
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Mike
> >
>
> The DO is supposed to be close to the L series pro lenses and uses a
special
> lens to enable it to be very short, you pay the price for this but you
will
> get better quality compared to the other 2.

I have the 70-300 DO IS lens and it does not perform as well as my old
75-300 IS, the pictures are soft, very soft and not worth the price of the
lens.

> I believe the other 2 are very similar apart from the IS. I have the IS
> version which is very useful for hand holding it especially at 300mm,
gives
> you 2 or 3 stops improvement. The usual comments are the lens are soft at
> the 300mm end, but I'd say still very usable.

The 75-300 with IS is a solid performer, it has it's flaws like slow
focussing and the front element rotates so polarising filter use is
problematic. The IS works very well.

> Basically you pay the price for the quality and features you want.

Exactly, as others have pointed out, a good buy is the 70-200 f4 L, it's
only drawback is the color (white) which may attract attention. After
getting the 70-200, save your pennies and get the 1.4X teleconverter which
will give you 98-280 or 156.8-448 taking the 1.6X factor of the camera.
Don't get the 70-200 f2,8, it's too heavy to carry around on trips. I have
one and it stays home unless I have a special event to attend and I know for
sure I will be using it.

> Can't comment on non-canon lenses, don't have any.

I had a Sigma 28mm f1,8 and it was a disaster so I shy away from Sigma, they
may make good lenses, but having been burned once, I will not try them
again.

Jean
Related resources
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 7:21:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike R" <news@mikeread.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 6hn2t$j37$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> Hi
>
> Looking for a lens for my (still to arrive) 350d. ICD have in the package
> on of the above lenses. I noticed on a quick search that there are
> several versions of this.: DO IS USM, USM and Imag stab

The Canon 75-300 IS is an excellent choice. I also have a 100-400 IS and my
test shots show that it is indeed sharper, but not all that much. Here is a
shot taken with the 75-300 IS (hand held at full zoom from a moving tram in
the FL everglades):
http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/29130...
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 9:27:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
> As a total novice - whats the difference? My budget is < £300?
>
> Is this a good lens or should I be looking at non-canon lenses
>

The 75 to 300 is a decent lens but does not make full use of the abilty of
the sensor in the 350D. Also; it's fairly slow and 300mm is very long on a
1.6x sensor.

I keep advising the L series and I won't stop now because £300 is quite
close to the £333 you would need to spend.

With your camera you will get a book of vouchers for cash back. One of them
is £70 back on the 70-200mm f4 L series. 7 Day Shop will sell you one for
£403 - delivered - they are a Channel Island company. I wrote to Canon and
asked if the cash back offer applies to the Channel Islands, they wrote
back - and it does. The 70 to 200 will translate in to 112 - 280mm in old
money.

Get the L series zoom and you will have paid very little for a fantastic
piece of kit that will knock the 75-300 into next week. The L lens will be
bigger but it will be much better built and will be worth a lot more if you
decide to sell it at some time.

Go here
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-L... for
details on all the Canon lenses.

I bought the f2.8 version and that extra stop cost an extra £400, the lens
is bigger and heavier, I am wondering if I should have bought the f4 one and
jack the ISO up on the camera. Today I took some shots in a school canteen
with the blinds 3/4 drawn. I used ISO 1600 and no flash - most of the time
the camera was hovering around f4 with a shutter speed of 1/200 - several of
the shots are very good. I would not have missed much with the f4.

Save up for L series lenses, you will never go back.

John
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 9:50:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"eatmorepies" <jan9mung9mun9day@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:428cbe59$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >
>> As a total novice - whats the difference? My budget is < £300?
>>
>> Is this a good lens or should I be looking at non-canon lenses
>>
>
> The 75 to 300 is a decent lens but does not make full use of the abilty of
> the sensor in the 350D. Also; it's fairly slow and 300mm is very long on a
> 1.6x sensor.
>
> I keep advising the L series and I won't stop now because £300 is quite
> close to the £333 you would need to spend.
>
> With your camera you will get a book of vouchers for cash back. One of
> them
> is £70 back on the 70-200mm f4 L series. 7 Day Shop will sell you one for
> £403 - delivered - they are a Channel Island company. I wrote to Canon and
> asked if the cash back offer applies to the Channel Islands, they wrote
> back - and it does. The 70 to 200 will translate in to 112 - 280mm in old
> money.
>
> Get the L series zoom and you will have paid very little for a fantastic
> piece of kit that will knock the 75-300 into next week. The L lens will be
> bigger but it will be much better built and will be worth a lot more if
> you
> decide to sell it at some time.
>
> Go here
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-L...
> for
> details on all the Canon lenses.
>
> I bought the f2.8 version and that extra stop cost an extra £400, the lens
> is bigger and heavier, I am wondering if I should have bought the f4 one
> and
> jack the ISO up on the camera. Today I took some shots in a school canteen
> with the blinds 3/4 drawn. I used ISO 1600 and no flash - most of the time
> the camera was hovering around f4 with a shutter speed of 1/200 - several
> of
> the shots are very good. I would not have missed much with the f4.
>
> Save up for L series lenses, you will never go back.
>
> John
>
>

Thanks for this John, I feel a bigger dent appearing on my visa.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 11:08:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike R" <news@mikeread.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
news:D 6ig6b$lj$1$830fa7a5@news.demon.co.uk:

>
> "eatmorepies" <jan9mung9mun9day@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:428cbe59$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> >
>>> As a total novice - whats the difference? My budget is < £300?
>>>
>>> Is this a good lens or should I be looking at non-canon lenses
>>>
>>
>> The 75 to 300 is a decent lens but does not make full use of the
>> abilty of the sensor in the 350D. Also; it's fairly slow and
>> 300mm is very long on a 1.6x sensor.
>>
>> I keep advising the L series and I won't stop now because £300 is
>> quite close to the £333 you would need to spend.
>>
>> With your camera you will get a book of vouchers for cash back.
>> One of them
>> is £70 back on the 70-200mm f4 L series. 7 Day Shop will sell you
>> one for £403 - delivered - they are a Channel Island company. I
>> wrote to Canon and asked if the cash back offer applies to the
>> Channel Islands, they wrote back - and it does. The 70 to 200
>> will translate in to 112 - 280mm in old money.
>>
>> Get the L series zoom and you will have paid very little for a
>> fantastic piece of kit that will knock the 75-300 into next week.
>> The L lens will be bigger but it will be much better built and
>> will be worth a lot more if you
>> decide to sell it at some time.
>>
>> Go here
>> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-L...
>> .aspx for
>> details on all the Canon lenses.
>>
>> I bought the f2.8 version and that extra stop cost an extra £400,
>> the lens is bigger and heavier, I am wondering if I should have
>> bought the f4 one and
>> jack the ISO up on the camera. Today I took some shots in a
>> school canteen with the blinds 3/4 drawn. I used ISO 1600 and no
>> flash - most of the time the camera was hovering around f4 with a
>> shutter speed of 1/200 - several of
>> the shots are very good. I would not have missed much with the
>> f4.
>>
>> Save up for L series lenses, you will never go back.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for this John, I feel a bigger dent appearing on my visa.

You'll and your Visa will be better off buying Sigma's pro series EX
lenses regardless of the camera system you own. They are the best
performers, rated better than Canon L glass most of the time at
about 25% of the cost.
May 19, 2005 11:08:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"George Preddy" <george.preddy@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:Xns965B864E8DC82xxxxSIGMASD10xxxx@81.174.12.30...
> "Mike R" <news@mikeread.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> news:D 6ig6b$lj$1$830fa7a5@news.demon.co.uk:
>
> >
> > "eatmorepies" <jan9mung9mun9day@lineone.net> wrote in message
> > news:428cbe59$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >> >
> >>> As a total novice - whats the difference? My budget is < £300?
> >>>
> >>> Is this a good lens or should I be looking at non-canon lenses
> >>>
> >>
> >> The 75 to 300 is a decent lens but does not make full use of the
> >> abilty of the sensor in the 350D. Also; it's fairly slow and
> >> 300mm is very long on a 1.6x sensor.
> >>
> >> I keep advising the L series and I won't stop now because £300 is
> >> quite close to the £333 you would need to spend.
> >>
> >> With your camera you will get a book of vouchers for cash back.
> >> One of them
> >> is £70 back on the 70-200mm f4 L series. 7 Day Shop will sell you
> >> one for £403 - delivered - they are a Channel Island company. I
> >> wrote to Canon and asked if the cash back offer applies to the
> >> Channel Islands, they wrote back - and it does. The 70 to 200
> >> will translate in to 112 - 280mm in old money.
> >>
> >> Get the L series zoom and you will have paid very little for a
> >> fantastic piece of kit that will knock the 75-300 into next week.
> >> The L lens will be bigger but it will be much better built and
> >> will be worth a lot more if you
> >> decide to sell it at some time.
> >>
> >> Go here
> >> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-L...
> >> .aspx for
> >> details on all the Canon lenses.
> >>
> >> I bought the f2.8 version and that extra stop cost an extra £400,
> >> the lens is bigger and heavier, I am wondering if I should have
> >> bought the f4 one and
> >> jack the ISO up on the camera. Today I took some shots in a
> >> school canteen with the blinds 3/4 drawn. I used ISO 1600 and no
> >> flash - most of the time the camera was hovering around f4 with a
> >> shutter speed of 1/200 - several of
> >> the shots are very good. I would not have missed much with the
> >> f4.
> >>
> >> Save up for L series lenses, you will never go back.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for this John, I feel a bigger dent appearing on my visa.
>
> You'll and your Visa will be better off buying Sigma's pro series EX
> lenses regardless of the camera system you own. They are the best
> performers, rated better than Canon L glass most of the time at
> about 25% of the cost.

OH NO HE'S BACK!!!

Don't listen to GP, buy Canon "L" lenses and you will not regret it!

Jean
May 19, 2005 11:34:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you can afford the Canon IS get it - my wife won't take ours off her
camera. For the money it is a lot of lens. The USM and standard versions of
this lens are good for the money too. The DO version has some problems that
would not make it a good ONLY telephoto. The Sigma is junk

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Mike R" <news@mikeread.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 6hn2t$j37$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> Hi
>
> Looking for a lens for my (still to arrive) 350d. ICD have in the package
> on of the above lenses. I noticed on a quick search that there are
several
> versions of this.: DO IS USM, USM and Imag stab
>
> As a total novice - whats the difference? My budget is < £300?
>
> Is this a good lens or should I be looking at non-canon lenses
>
> Do the sigma etc work with the 350d?
>
> Any advice will be great
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
>
>
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:09:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"jean" <try-to@find.it> wrote in
news:ym4je.8510$dS3.921953@news20.bellglobal.com:

> Sigma, they
> may make good lenses

Correction: Sigma makes EXCELLENT lenses, especially the EX pro series
glass. Sigma is a lens manufacturer. Canon is a general electronics
manufacturer.
May 20, 2005 12:09:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Correction - Preddy is a liar. He owns no cameras or lenses, and has some
bug up his rectum for promoting Sigma - which is the poorest of the off
label lens brands and has severe compatibility problems with both Canon and
Minolta.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"George Preddy" <george.preddy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns965B90A0DA690xxxxSIGMASD10xxxx@81.174.12.30...
> "jean" <try-to@find.it> wrote in
> news:ym4je.8510$dS3.921953@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
> > Sigma, they
> > may make good lenses
>
> Correction: Sigma makes EXCELLENT lenses, especially the EX pro series
> glass. Sigma is a lens manufacturer. Canon is a general electronics
> manufacturer.
May 20, 2005 12:09:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The Sigma lens I had was a Sigma Wide Angle 28mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF
Macro and it didn't work on my Drebel, after sending it back twice, they
sent me a brand new lens directly from Japan. That one worked, but the
quality of my pictures was nothing to write home about, lots of purple
fringing in the corners and a slow noisy focus motor. Half the price of a
similar Canon lens for sure, but surely half the quality.

EX does NOT equal EXcellent!

Jean

Since Sigma makes only lenses and cameras, they should get it right? no?

"George Preddy" <george.preddy@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:Xns965B90A0DA690xxxxSIGMASD10xxxx@81.174.12.30...
> "jean" <try-to@find.it> wrote in
> news:ym4je.8510$dS3.921953@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
> > Sigma, they
> > may make good lenses
>
> Correction: Sigma makes EXCELLENT lenses, especially the EX pro series
> glass. Sigma is a lens manufacturer. Canon is a general electronics
> manufacturer.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:20:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CK2dnaf5f4HVehHfRVn-oA@comcast.com...
>
> "Mike R" <news@mikeread.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:D 6hn2t$j37$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Hi
>>
>> Looking for a lens for my (still to arrive) 350d. ICD have in the
>> package on of the above lenses. I noticed on a quick search that there
>> are several versions of this.: DO IS USM, USM and Imag stab
>
> The Canon 75-300 IS is an excellent choice. I also have a 100-400 IS and
> my test shots show that it is indeed sharper, but not all that much. Here
> is a shot taken with the 75-300 IS (hand held at full zoom from a moving
> tram in the FL everglades):
> http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/29130...
>

Thanks for posting the image Charles - it helps clarify what is possible.

Kind Regards


Mike
May 20, 2005 10:50:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike,

I started with this lens, but rapidly upgraded to the IS version for
wildlife photography. Neither are the very best for optical quality
but are good on a price/quality scale.

Before buying, look at the B&H Photovideo website. You can buy the
lenses from them much cheaper that from the UK. Shipping is about £35,
handling about £11 and VAT is payable on top of all this. Placing
order to delivery in UK is about 40 hours. Consider the 7-year
worldwide warranty on an expensive lens, though Canon UK do appear to
honour US warranties (they did on my camera).

You may find that you can obtain a better lens for you £300 when
buying from the USA.

Regards,

Felix

On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:41:44 +0100, "Mike R"
<news@mikeread.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>Hi
>
>Looking for a lens for my (still to arrive) 350d. ICD have in the package
>on of the above lenses. I noticed on a quick search that there are several
>versions of this.: DO IS USM, USM and Imag stab
>
>As a total novice - whats the difference? My budget is < £300?
>
>Is this a good lens or should I be looking at non-canon lenses
>
>Do the sigma etc work with the 350d?
>
>Any advice will be great
>
>Thanks
>
>Mike
>
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 9:31:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xU5je.37449$vi2.1494603@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Correction - Preddy is a liar. He owns no cameras or lenses, and has some
> bug up his rectum for promoting Sigma - which is the poorest of the off
> label lens brands and has severe compatibility problems with both Canon
> and
> Minolta.

GP is perhaps a generic identification for folks with a trolling impulse.
If that is so, or if that is not so, makes little difference ... enjoy GP
posts but never consider them as information.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 1:17:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

jean <try-to@find.it> wrote:
> "George Preddy" <george.preddy@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:Xns965B864E8DC82xxxxSIGMASD10xxxx@81.174.12.30...
>>
>> You'll and your Visa will be better off buying Sigma's pro series EX
>> lenses regardless of the camera system you own. They are the best
>> performers, rated better than Canon L glass most of the time at
>> about 25% of the cost.
>
> OH NO HE'S BACK!!!
>
> Don't listen to GP, buy Canon "L" lenses and you will not regret it!

Actually, some of the Sigma EX lenses really are getting better
reviews than Canon L-series lenses. The new Sigma 80-400 EX OS lens
is being reviewed as sharper than the Canon 100-400 IS L, more
flexible, and about $600 cheaper (about 60% of the cost, not 25%, as
GP would like to claim, but still significantly cheaper), at the cost
of slower autofocus. The 80-400 is on my current shopping wishlist.
The 100-400 is not.

On the other hand, for just about every other range, I own Canon
lenses. The main problem with Sigma is the quality control (or lack
of it) on their lenses. If you're lucky, you get a good one - the
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX is reportedly better than the Canon 24-70 f/2.8
L, both in sharpness and in the fact that the Sigma is macro-capable
(though it doesn't have USM), and the Sigma is about a third of the
cost of the Canon... but it make take you three tries to get one that
isn't defective, however (if your test shots come out soft or have
flare problems, try returning it), and the amount you save may not be
worth the hassle of testing and returning. I haven't heard about any
problems with the new Sigma 80-400 or 18-125 lenses yet, the way there
were with the 12-24 EX and 24-70 f/2.8 EX among others, but they
haven't been out very long.

To be fair, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L also had its share of bad lenses,
but from what I've read, the hit rate seems to be much higher.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 12:06:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <d6j020$s85$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>,
"Mike R" <news@mikeread.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>Thanks for posting the image Charles - it helps clarify what is possible.

.... with 28% downsizing? The quality of the lens has very little effect
on such a downsample.

If all you're interested in is 1000-pixel-wide output, you don't need
quality lenses at all.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 12:58:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Zed Pobre" <zed@resonant.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd8sj56.9dk.zed@resonant.org...
> jean <try-to@find.it> wrote:

>
> Actually, some of the Sigma EX lenses really are getting better
> reviews than Canon L-series lenses. The new Sigma 80-400 EX OS lens
> is being reviewed as sharper than the Canon 100-400 IS L, more
> flexible, and about $600 cheaper (about 60% of the cost, not 25%, as
> GP would like to claim, but still significantly cheaper), at the cost
> of slower autofocus. The 80-400 is on my current shopping wishlist.
> The 100-400 is not.
>
> On the other hand, for just about every other range, I own Canon
> lenses. The main problem with Sigma is the quality control (or lack
> of it) on their lenses. If you're lucky, you get a good one - the
> Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX is reportedly better than the Canon 24-70 f/2.8
> L, both in sharpness and in the fact that the Sigma is macro-capable
> (though it doesn't have USM), and the Sigma is about a third of the
> cost of the Canon... but it make take you three tries to get one that
> isn't defective, however (if your test shots come out soft or have
> flare problems, try returning it), and the amount you save may not be
> worth the hassle of testing and returning. I haven't heard about any
> problems with the new Sigma 80-400 or 18-125 lenses yet, the way there
> were with the 12-24 EX and 24-70 f/2.8 EX among others, but they
> haven't been out very long.
>
> To be fair, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L also had its share of bad lenses,
> but from what I've read, the hit rate seems to be much higher.
>
> --
> Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.

I would like to see one of those reviews you mention. When the Sigma 80-400
came out, the reviews were universally scathing, image quality was found to
be poor, AF slow, and the OS only gave 1-2 stops advantage, rather than the
2-3 of the Canon.
Also, B&H lists the Canon 100-400 at $1409, the Sigma 80-400 at $999, about
$400 less. The Sigma is significantly cheaper than it was a year ago, when
it sold for about $1200, IIRC.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 10:16:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:_TIje.1406$Xh.1309@fed1read07...
> I would like to see one of those reviews you mention. When the Sigma
> 80-400 came out, the reviews were universally scathing, image quality was
> found to be poor, AF slow, and the OS only gave 1-2 stops advantage,
> rather than the 2-3 of the Canon.

I've seen quite a few favourable reviews, Skip, and for a while I had it on
my shopping list in preference to the Canon.
But I've been put off by all the anti-Sigma postings on this NG.
So I guess I'll never know if I've missed a gem or not and will have to wait
a bit longer 'till I've earned enough for the Canon 100-400 :o (
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 10:16:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tumbleweed" <Shovels@five.paces> wrote in message
news:D 6nqcn$bkd$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:_TIje.1406$Xh.1309@fed1read07...
>> I would like to see one of those reviews you mention. When the Sigma
>> 80-400 came out, the reviews were universally scathing, image quality was
>> found to be poor, AF slow, and the OS only gave 1-2 stops advantage,
>> rather than the 2-3 of the Canon.
>
> I've seen quite a few favourable reviews, Skip, and for a while I had it
> on my shopping list in preference to the Canon.
> But I've been put off by all the anti-Sigma postings on this NG.
> So I guess I'll never know if I've missed a gem or not and will have to
> wait a bit longer 'till I've earned enough for the Canon 100-400 :o (
>
Are those user reviews, or lens tests? I seldom take user reviews
seriously, everybody wants to believe that whatever it is that they just
bought is the greatest thing since sliced bread, or they are so seriously
disappointed in a product that they will never, ever buy any product from
that manufacturer, ever again. And that goes for all makes, not just Sigma,
or anything that someone has that I don't. It includes products that I use,
too.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 1:12:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
> "Zed Pobre" <zed@resonant.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnd8sj56.9dk.zed@resonant.org...
>>
>> Actually, some of the Sigma EX lenses really are getting better
>> reviews than Canon L-series lenses. The new Sigma 80-400 EX OS lens
>> is being reviewed as sharper than the Canon 100-400 IS L, more
>> flexible, and about $600 cheaper (about 60% of the cost, not 25%, as
>> GP would like to claim, but still significantly cheaper), at the cost
>> of slower autofocus. The 80-400 is on my current shopping wishlist.
>> The 100-400 is not.
>
> I would like to see one of those reviews you mention.

Shutterbug: http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/1104sb_sigma/
Fred Miranda: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?prod...
Photography Review: http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Zoom/Sigma/PRD_14...

Also check the performance survey at Photozone, comparing it to
Canon's 100-400:

http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?...'Canon%20EF'%20OR%20brand='Sigma%20AF'%22

> When the Sigma 80-400
> came out, the reviews were universally scathing, image quality was found to
> be poor, AF slow, and the OS only gave 1-2 stops advantage, rather than the
> 2-3 of the Canon.

I haven't seen any reviews like that. Links?


> Also, B&H lists the Canon 100-400 at $1409, the Sigma 80-400 at $999, about
> $400 less. The Sigma is significantly cheaper than it was a year ago, when
> it sold for about $1200, IIRC.

Ah, the 100-400 was $1600, last I checked.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 1:12:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <slrnd8v8hp.akk.zed@resonant.org>,
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> wrote:

> Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Zed Pobre" <zed@resonant.org> wrote in message
> > news:slrnd8sj56.9dk.zed@resonant.org...
> >>
> >> Actually, some of the Sigma EX lenses really are getting better
> >> reviews than Canon L-series lenses. The new Sigma 80-400 EX OS lens
> >> is being reviewed as sharper than the Canon 100-400 IS L, more
> >> flexible, and about $600 cheaper (about 60% of the cost, not 25%, as
> >> GP would like to claim, but still significantly cheaper), at the cost
> >> of slower autofocus. The 80-400 is on my current shopping wishlist.
> >> The 100-400 is not.
> >
> > I would like to see one of those reviews you mention.
>
> Shutterbug: http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/1104sb_sigma/

"Like many zooms, this one produces slight darkening at the corners when
used at the widest apertures, as in this image made at f/5.6 at 400mm."

Whoa, what zooms have they been testing? It's going to be obvious even
in the EF-S cameras. I wouldn't pay $1000 for that.



> Fred Miranda:
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?prod...
> Photography Review:
> http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Zoom/Sigma/PRD_14...
> ws
>
> Also check the performance survey at Photozone, comparing it to
> Canon's 100-400:
>
> http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?...'Canon%
> 20EF'%20OR%20brand='Sigma%20AF'%22
>
> > When the Sigma 80-400
> > came out, the reviews were universally scathing, image quality was found to
> > be poor, AF slow, and the OS only gave 1-2 stops advantage, rather than the
> > 2-3 of the Canon.
>
> I haven't seen any reviews like that. Links?
>
>
> > Also, B&H lists the Canon 100-400 at $1409, the Sigma 80-400 at $999, about
> > $400 less. The Sigma is significantly cheaper than it was a year ago, when
> > it sold for about $1200, IIRC.
>
> Ah, the 100-400 was $1600, last I checked.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 6:17:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> "Like many zooms, this one produces slight darkening at the corners when
> used at the widest apertures, as in this image made at f/5.6 at 400mm."
>
> Whoa, what zooms have they been testing? It's going to be obvious even
> in the EF-S cameras. I wouldn't pay $1000 for that.

Actually, they said the light vignetting *wasn't* obvious except on a
bright, even background on a full frame camera shooting wide open, and
went away completely at f/8. The Canon 100-400 behaves the same way,
reportedly, and I've seen similar on the Canon 10-22 wide open.

Note that this can be corrected fairly trivially in post-processing,
at the import stage or later.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:55:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Zed Pobre" <zed@resonant.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd8v8hp.akk.zed@resonant.org...
> Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Zed Pobre" <zed@resonant.org> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd8sj56.9dk.zed@resonant.org...
>>>
>>> Actually, some of the Sigma EX lenses really are getting better
>>> reviews than Canon L-series lenses. The new Sigma 80-400 EX OS lens
>>> is being reviewed as sharper than the Canon 100-400 IS L, more
>>> flexible, and about $600 cheaper (about 60% of the cost, not 25%, as
>>> GP would like to claim, but still significantly cheaper), at the cost
>>> of slower autofocus. The 80-400 is on my current shopping wishlist.
>>> The 100-400 is not.
>>
>> I would like to see one of those reviews you mention.
>
> Shutterbug: http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/1104sb_sigma/
> Fred Miranda:
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?prod...
> Photography Review:
> http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Zoom/Sigma/PRD_14...
>
> Also check the performance survey at Photozone, comparing it to
> Canon's 100-400:
>
> http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?...'Canon%20EF'%20OR%20brand='Sigma%20AF'%22
>
>> When the Sigma 80-400
>> came out, the reviews were universally scathing, image quality was found
>> to
>> be poor, AF slow, and the OS only gave 1-2 stops advantage, rather than
>> the
>> 2-3 of the Canon.
>
> I haven't seen any reviews like that. Links?
Sorry the two I had bookmarked, the links don't work anymore, but the one
you cited from photozone says a lot.
>
>
>> Also, B&H lists the Canon 100-400 at $1409, the Sigma 80-400 at $999,
>> about
>> $400 less. The Sigma is significantly cheaper than it was a year ago,
>> when
>> it sold for about $1200, IIRC.
>
> Ah, the 100-400 was $1600, last I checked.
>
> --
> Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.

The first three are user reviews, not lens tests, the last, you'd better
read again, the Canon outperforms the Sigma in all aspects.
Sigma Wide/Wide open, good (***-), Wide/Stopped down: good(***+), Long/Wide
open: good(***-), Long/Stopped down: good,(***+) Wide: no distortion(*****),
Long: little distortion (****+), no vignetting, wide or long, warm color,
little flare(****) Optical, Good (3.3) AF speed Very Slow(*), Build Quality
very good(****)
Canon:Wide/wide open Very good(****-) Wide/Stopped down:Very good(****+),
Long/wide open: very good(****-) Long/stopped down:Very good(****+) no
distortion Wide (*****) Little distortion Long (****+) No vignetting wide or
long, slightly warm color, some flare(***+) Optical verdict 4.31 AF
speed:fast (****) Build quality Very good(****)
As you can see, by actual tests, the Canon has a considerable advantage over
the Sigma...

If you're going to compare MSRP, the Sigma loses all of its advantage. The
Canon sells for $1409 at B&H, the Sigma for $999. Most of us use B&H as a
benchmark, since their prices are fair and reliable.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 7:17:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
> The first three are user reviews, not lens tests,

With all due respect, I'm usually more interested in how a lens
performs in the field than how it does in a perfectly controlled
environment. A few percentage points difference on even a DxO test
doesn't necessarily equate to real-world performance advantage.


> the last, you'd better read again, the Canon outperforms the Sigma
> in all aspects.

Not in all, and not by much. Reformatting your quote point by point
so you can see more easily:


> Sigma Wide/Wide open, good (***-),
> Canon:Wide/wide open Very good(****-)
> (Sigma) Wide/Stopped down: good(***+),
> (Canon) Wide/Stopped down:Very good(****+),
> (Sigma) Long/Wide open: good(***-),
> (Canon) Long/wide open: very good(****-)
> (Sigma) Long/Stopped down: good,(***+)
> (Canon) Long/stopped down:Very good(****+)

Good vs very good on sharpness, which isn't bad. From other reviews,
this works out to something you'd need a loupe to see even on large
prints unless you're cropping very heavily, and will be invisible
after post-process sharpening. If you're not printing above 8x10,
this is effectively identical in the real world, with one exception:
if you're shooting very, very distant targets and having to upsample
even at 400mm, the Canon sharpness edge may be important to you. If
that's the case, though, you're probably better off giving up on the
zoom and picking up the 500mm f/4 L prime with a 1.4 teleconverter,
if you can afford the 4x jump in price.


> (Sigma) Wide: no distortion(*****),
> (Canon) no distortion Wide (*****)
> (Sigma) Long: little distortion (****+),
> (Canon) Little distortion Long (****+)
> (Sigma) no vignetting, wide or long, warm color
> (Canon) No vignetting wide or long, slightly warm color

Identical performance on distortion.


> (Sigma) little flare(****)
> (Canon) some flare(***+)

Canon loses slightly on flare.


> (Sigma) AF speed Very Slow(*)
> (Canon) AF speed:fast (****)

Canon wins solidly on AF speed, but we knew that. No HSM on the Sigma
lens, and third generation USM on current Canon 100-400 lenses. As a
side note, however, the notation of "Very Slow" here is interesting in
that they must be used to comparing different USM lenses to each other
- the Sigma lens has been reviewed elsewhere as being about the same
speed (but much noisier) than Canon's 1st-generation USM, such as is
found on the 75-300 IS USM.

> (Sigma) Build Quality very good(****)
> (Canon) Build quality Very good(****)

Identical.


> As you can see, by actual tests, the Canon has a considerable
> advantage over the Sigma...

If you consider a "Good" vs "Very Good" advantage on sharpness and
"little flare" vs "some flare" disadvantage "considerable advantage",
I suppose. Sharpness is easier to correct than flare circles, though
contrast-loss type flare can be compensated for as well.

There's another Sigma advantage that you acknowledged elsewhere: the
dust issue with the 100-400. There's an additional advantage of range
as well, which is an additional 20mm on the near end. That meshes
better with a lot of existing lenses, and may save you a number of
lens swaps.

To be fair, I'll note an additional Canon advantage: it's about half a
pound lighter. This may make a difference in handholding.


> If you're going to compare MSRP, the Sigma loses all of its advantage. The
> Canon sells for $1409 at B&H, the Sigma for $999. Most of us use B&H as a
> benchmark, since their prices are fair and reliable.

Yes, B&H is a perfectly reasonable benchmark. I remember looking the
lenses up elsewhere a couple months back and ended up with a
$1000/$1600 split, but don't remember where. I'm not sure why being
$400 cheaper still isn't considered a significant advantage, though,
that's still a 40% price increase going to Canon.

My personal thought is that if price, range, and dust are going to be
more important than focus speed and noise, Sigma has a solid lead. If
focus speed (tracking birds moving quickly towards or away from you)
and cropped quality are more important, Canon has the edge.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:01:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Zed Pobre" <zed@resonant.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd93rba.5jg.zed@resonant.org...
> Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> The first three are user reviews, not lens tests,
>
> With all due respect, I'm usually more interested in how a lens
> performs in the field than how it does in a perfectly controlled
> environment. A few percentage points difference on even a DxO test
> doesn't necessarily equate to real-world performance advantage.

User reviews are, in my opinion, always suspect, because few people will
admit to spending a grand and wasting it...
>
>
>> the last, you'd better read again, the Canon outperforms the Sigma
>> in all aspects.
>
> Not in all, and not by much. Reformatting your quote point by point
> so you can see more easily:
>
>
>> Sigma Wide/Wide open, good (***-),
>> Canon:Wide/wide open Very good(****-)
>> (Sigma) Wide/Stopped down: good(***+),
>> (Canon) Wide/Stopped down:Very good(****+),
>> (Sigma) Long/Wide open: good(***-),
>> (Canon) Long/wide open: very good(****-)
>> (Sigma) Long/Stopped down: good,(***+)
>> (Canon) Long/stopped down:Very good(****+)
>
> Good vs very good on sharpness, which isn't bad. From other reviews,
> this works out to something you'd need a loupe to see even on large
> prints unless you're cropping very heavily, and will be invisible
> after post-process sharpening. If you're not printing above 8x10,
> this is effectively identical in the real world, with one exception:
> if you're shooting very, very distant targets and having to upsample
> even at 400mm, the Canon sharpness edge may be important to you. If
> that's the case, though, you're probably better off giving up on the
> zoom and picking up the 500mm f/4 L prime with a 1.4 teleconverter,
> if you can afford the 4x jump in price.
>
>
>> (Sigma) Wide: no distortion(*****),
>> (Canon) no distortion Wide (*****)
>> (Sigma) Long: little distortion (****+),
>> (Canon) Little distortion Long (****+)
>> (Sigma) no vignetting, wide or long, warm color
>> (Canon) No vignetting wide or long, slightly warm color
>
> Identical performance on distortion.
>
>
>> (Sigma) little flare(****)
>> (Canon) some flare(***+)

Missed that one...
>
> Canon loses slightly on flare.
>
>
>> (Sigma) AF speed Very Slow(*)
>> (Canon) AF speed:fast (****)
>
> Canon wins solidly on AF speed, but we knew that. No HSM on the Sigma
> lens, and third generation USM on current Canon 100-400 lenses. As a
> side note, however, the notation of "Very Slow" here is interesting in
> that they must be used to comparing different USM lenses to each other
> - the Sigma lens has been reviewed elsewhere as being about the same
> speed (but much noisier) than Canon's 1st-generation USM, such as is
> found on the 75-300 IS USM.

That's consistent, the first gen IS is slow, compared to the 100-400...
>
>> (Sigma) Build Quality very good(****)
>> (Canon) Build quality Very good(****)
>
> Identical.
>
>
>> As you can see, by actual tests, the Canon has a considerable
>> advantage over the Sigma...
>
> If you consider a "Good" vs "Very Good" advantage on sharpness and
> "little flare" vs "some flare" disadvantage "considerable advantage",
> I suppose. Sharpness is easier to correct than flare circles, though
> contrast-loss type flare can be compensated for as well.
>
> There's another Sigma advantage that you acknowledged elsewhere: the
> dust issue with the 100-400. There's an additional advantage of range
> as well, which is an additional 20mm on the near end. That meshes
> better with a lot of existing lenses, and may save you a number of
> lens swaps.
>
> To be fair, I'll note an additional Canon advantage: it's about half a
> pound lighter. This may make a difference in handholding.

You left out the major difference, the Canon scores 4.31 on optics, the
Sigma a 3.3, a few tenths of a point wouldn't matter, but nearl a full
point? The Sigma would have to cost less than 60% of the Canon for me to
buy it, especially in view of its AF performance, too.



>
>
>> If you're going to compare MSRP, the Sigma loses all of its advantage.
>> The
>> Canon sells for $1409 at B&H, the Sigma for $999. Most of us use B&H as
>> a
>> benchmark, since their prices are fair and reliable.
>
> Yes, B&H is a perfectly reasonable benchmark. I remember looking the
> lenses up elsewhere a couple months back and ended up with a
> $1000/$1600 split, but don't remember where. I'm not sure why being
> $400 cheaper still isn't considered a significant advantage, though,
> that's still a 40% price increase going to Canon.
>
> My personal thought is that if price, range, and dust are going to be
> more important than focus speed and noise, Sigma has a solid lead. If
> focus speed (tracking birds moving quickly towards or away from you)
> and cropped quality are more important, Canon has the edge.

Race cars, planes and birds. Sharpness, too. Cropped quality, not so much,
but overall image quality, yes.
>
> --
> Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 10:17:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
> You left out the major difference, the Canon scores 4.31 on optics, the
> Sigma a 3.3, a few tenths of a point wouldn't matter, but nearl a full
> point? The Sigma would have to cost less than 60% of the Canon for me to
> buy it, especially in view of its AF performance, too.

Given that they never disclose exactly what that point scale means, it
was useless information to me. I'm guessing it's based on the number
of stars in the various other categories, and since it's one star
below in all of the sharpness tests (which have a disproportionate
aggregate effect, if that's the case, since there are so many of
them), that would account for it. As I noted before, though, the
other reviews tend to indicate that that one star difference is not
particularly significant in the real world.


>> My personal thought is that if price, range, and dust are going to be
>> more important than focus speed and noise, Sigma has a solid lead. If
>> focus speed (tracking birds moving quickly towards or away from you)
>> and cropped quality are more important, Canon has the edge.
>
> Race cars, planes and birds. Sharpness, too. Cropped quality, not so much,
> but overall image quality, yes.

I'd need to see a review showing that there was actually a visible
difference on a 16x20 print (the largest I would ever make on a 20D
anyway) before I believed that the overall image quality difference
was significant. Race cars, being larger and much more predictable,
shouldn't be a problem even for the slower autofocus. Distant
aeronautics shows might be a problem, if you shoot that kind of thing
a lot. Birds will quite possibly be a major problem, depending on
whether or not you have very steady hands. I can catch even small
birds in flight on a 75-300, which is about the same AF speed, but
it's also half the weight and not as much zoom, which makes it a lot
easier. That does bother me a lot, since I do shoot a lot of birds.
On the other hand, I wouldn't have to change lenses to catch an extra
20mm on the wide end.

This is what I mean by real-world reviews, though. These are the
kinds of questions that won't be answered by lab tests. When I'm
reading about a lens, I want to know what other photographers are
doing with it, what problems they had, what problems they didn't
have.

In the end, the only thing that matters is whether it doesn't get in
the way of the shot you want to take, at enough quality to make an
image you want to keep, or a print that sells.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
!