would i notice much difference between these 2 lens'?

[Matt L]

Hi,

Just want to know if id notice much difference between these 2 lens when they are fully zoomed.

Currently have:
Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro Super DG Lens

and looking at
Sigma 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 DG Macro Lens

so what would the difference be? and would the differnce be worth it?

[foodpoison]

I would argue that the 70-300 would have better image quality, but the 28-300 would be more convenient and versatile.

[purpleclouds]

You will also be losing a little shutter speed at the long end...I'd stick with what you've got :)

[chris321]

The aperture at 300mm on the 28-300 will be smaller, meaning you'll need longer shutter speeds. If you're going to be shooting sport or similar, you might not be able to get a blur-free shot unless the sun is really bright. Generally speaking, the greater the zoom range, the more of a compromise the lens will be. I'd say go for the 70-300, it's a great lens (especially the APO version) and people have got some awesome results from it!

Chris

[Matt L]

You will also be losing a little shutter speed at the long end...I'd stick with what you've got :)

completely opposite to what i wanted then :lol: I want a quicker shutter speed but looks like ill have to stick with what i've got.

[chris321]

If you want faster shutter speeds, you're going to have to venture into serious money territory I'm afraid!

If you're shooting fast moving subjects, you need a large aperture. Unless you want to look at fast primes (which are often cheaper than their zoom equivalents), you're looking at a 70-200 f/2.8. The sigma is pretty highly rated, especially as it costs about half that of the canon! (about £600 as opposed to £1000).

You could always look into the canon 70-200 f/4, but although image quality is excellent, it won't be that much faster than your current lens, and you'll lose 100mm.

What are you shooting that you need a faster shutter speed?

Chris

[andyred]

completely opposite to what i wanted then :lol: I want a quicker shutter speed but looks like ill have to stick with what i've got.

Yes, I think to have a quicker shutter speed at the 300mm end, your probably looking a big step up in money going for a constant appature lens eg F4, F2.8 etc :thumbs:

[Matt L]

If you want faster shutter speeds, you're going to have to venture into serious money territory I'm afraid!

If you're shooting fast moving subjects, you need a large aperture. Unless you want to look at fast primes (which are often cheaper than their zoom equivalents), you're looking at a 70-200 f/2.8. The sigma is pretty highly rated, especially as it costs about half that of the canon! (about £600 as opposed to £1000).

You could always look into the canon 70-200 f/4, but although image quality is excellent, it won't be that much faster than your current lens, and you'll lose 100mm.

What are you shooting that you need a faster shutter speed?

Chris

nothing really :lol: was just looking as last time i tried to use mine @ a football match my mate was playing it it was far too blurry.

[andrewc]

for faster shutter speed look for a f4 or f2.8 lens. I'm going to be selling my Sigma 100-300 f4 soon.

the 28-300 is a good lens if you need a lot of flexibility in one lens - lightweight holiday kit, but isn't really suitable for sport unless its the brightest of summer days.

[Cheng]

Not only would the 28-300 be slower at the long end, if the subject was reasonably close then the focal length wouldn't be as long. This is due to some strange phenomenon where the greater the zoom rating, the less effective the focal length is (if the object is close). When focusing at 200mm on my 18-200, it seems a lot wider than 200mm on my 70-300 if the object is close, far away there isn't much of a difference though...