Sigma 70-200/f2.8 vs. 100-300/f4

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

Hello!

I am considering one of these two lenses, due in part to reviews I saw at naturephotographers.net, photographyreview.com, etc. I've had the 75-300 USM III and the 100-300 USM, and thought both were ok, but sold them to get something that will be more consistent for me.

Both Sigma lenses appear to be in the same ballpark pricewise, and they both perform well according to reviewers. But I have yet to hear anyone contrast these two lenses.

I also understand that there's a trade-off with the aperture. Applications- kids' sports activities outside and inside a gym, once a year trips where I see wildlife like bear, moose, etc., snapshots.

Any opinions?

Thanks!!

-- John Troxel (jtroxel@verdict.net), May 29, 2002

Answers

I'd strongly recommend you to consider the 70-200/4 USM L. Compare to both lenses you mentioned, it is lighter, have better built quality and you'll never have to worry about compatibility problems with future bodies. Both Sigma lenses are a bit soft wide open so it is recommended to stop them down one stop for better performance. In strike contrast, the 70-200/4 USM L is very sharp even wide open.

-- Yakim Peled (yakim.peled@orange.co.il), May 29, 2002.

The sigma 70-200 F2.8 is probably not so soft wide open to be unusable, but I'll echo the above poster and recommend the Canon 70- 200 F4L. Truly superb lens, and the only thing I can see that would improve it would be to have IS.

Why go second class with a third party, when you can enjoy an L series?

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), May 30, 2002.


I have SIGMA 70-200 f2.8EX HSM. It's very sharp. According to Japanese famous photo magazine's full test it's slightly better than EF70-200 f2.8L in terms of sharpness wide open. But this lens makes lots of flare. Then I am thinking of replacing SIGMA with Canon EF.

I also recommend EF70-200L, f2.8 or f4 depends on your budget. If you need 300mm focal rength, add x1.4 EF extender, or buy EF300mm F4L.

-- Ken Itoh (KEN@clara.oc-to.net), May 30, 2002.


Please keep in mind, that all these f2.8 zoom options weigh about 3pounds, and are about the size of a small grenade launcher (the 100- 300 f4 is somewhat larger and heavier than that). IMHO, if you absolutely need f2.8, get the Canon (price non IS version should be more reasonable now). If f4 will work, the 70-200 F4L is smaller, almost half the weight, and is very sharp.

-- Kenneth Katz (socks@bestweb.net), May 31, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ