Canon 75-300 USM III vs Sigma 70-300 DG APO Macro

G

Guysie

Messages
22
Name
Guy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

Im banging my head against a brick wall trying to figure out what a better lens is between these two. I have read so many reviews there coming out my ears and am still no furthur foward.

Any comments would be welcomed on pro's and conn's on either lens.

The camera that it will be used on is a Canon 400D

HELP!!!!:bang::bonk:

ps. Or if any one has any better suggestions than either of these as a sub £150 lens to throw in to the pot that would be welcomed. The lens will be used for safari pictures.

Thanks.
 
I've got the Sigma lens and I've been very happy with it, up to about 200mm it's nice and sharp but starts to soften after that, I believe the same is true of the Canon though I've only ever used a series 1 version not the III.
If there's no big difference in price I'd go for the Canon purely because it might retain it's resale value a bit better.
Of course the Sigma also has macro capability, it's not something I use but you might.
 
Go for the Sigma, everyone says it's soft at 300mm but I don't think it's too bad for the money. Other than that it's a cracking lens.
 
I went for the Sigma aswell, It is good for the money and i'm happy with it.
It is soft after 200mm, the af is a bit noisy.

The 70-300mm IS USM Canon lens looks great but it's double the price of the Sigma.
 
I have the sigma, and it is very good for the money, but it has some bad points...

Build quality is poor
It can be soft towards 300mm
Autofocus is loud and can hunt in low light

However, that said, for £150 the image quality is fairly good and anything better will cost significantly more, with this in mind it is a good starter lens, just so long as you know that you are buying a budget lens.
 
I have the Sigma, and at 300 it really is utterly appalling, however, it's a £150 lens and for that amount you really aren't going to get much better :) I say it's appalling, but that's my opinion and i have very high standards :D You can't get much better unless you're will to spend roughly 3x as much money! Personally though, i'd find the money... ;)
 
My sigma isn't that soft at 300mm, it could be sharper but it's ok, can be had for £110 from onestopdigital.
 
I have the sigma,

Here are a couple of pics taken at quite a zoom length (poss the full 300) (they are a bit dark as I havent sorted out my screen on my laptop, but you get the idea. They have been tweaked a little in lightroom, other than that not much else.

Penguine.jpg


White_Tiger_2.jpg




Hog.jpg


And one fairly close

Giraffe_Tongue.jpg


Personally for the money its great. Ive only been using the camera (400d) for a couple of months and this was the first real outing with the lens.

Sure, its never going to be as good as a lens costing 3 times as much but if your photography skills warrent spending 500 quid on a lens then go for it. Im still learning at the moment and this lens is ideal. I have seen some cracking shots taken with this lens. I have also used the macro function on this lens and its prety good fun.
 
I started off with the Sigma 70-300 but ultimately moved to the Nikon 70-300 VR which was a much better lens and sharper too. I know you are Canon but TBH as a starter TP lens you can't go too far wrong with the Sigma in my opinion for under £150
 
I have the 75-300 usm III, and hmm, it's an odd one, because I really want a faster 200mm+ lens but I don't really use one often enough to justify L glass, so for me the 75-300 is fine. My copy is nice and sharp to around 250mm, then up to 300 it's acceptable. One thing to note though is the chromatic aberration between 250-300mm. With a3+ prints it really shows. Nothing that can't be fixed in seconds in Lightroom mind you.. Overall for what?, £85-95, I think it's a really good buy.
 
I think im gonna go for the Sigma, any suggestions where to buy apart from eBay?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top