sigma 70-300mm or 28-300mm? I just got a Canon 350D (Rebel XT) with the kit lens and would like my next lens to be a zoom telephoto.I think I've narrowed it down to between the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO and the Sigma 28-300mm 4/3.5-6.3. Does anyone have any suggestions on which one is better quality and/or more worth buying? sigma 70-300mm or 28-300mm? I just got a Canon 350D (Rebel XT) with the kit lens and would like my next lens to be a zoom telephoto.I think I've narrowed it down to between the Sigma... » Read More sigma 70-300mm or 28-300mm? I just got a Canon 350D (Rebel XT) with the kit lens and would like my next lens to be a zoom telephoto.I think I've narrowed it down to between the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO and the Sigma 28-300mm 4/3.5-6.3. Does anyone have any suggestions on which one is better quality and/or more worth buying? « Show Less
102791
Don't fool around. Go with the 28-300mm. Less lens changes and it just the perfect walk around lens. I know, I've been shooting for 35 years.
102792
You might want to look at the Canon 28-135mm lens. I shoot with a 350 D Rebel too, and was unhappy with 18-55mm lens that came with the camera. So after about 2 months of evaluating MANY lenses, I bought the 28-135mm and have NEVER looked back. I've had mine for nearly 6 months and it's a dynamic walk-around lens. It's decent macro to wide zoom and has proven to be fast enough to shoot at dusk and in the night to get full moon and fireworks shots. I am a fiend for shooting traffic late at night, this lens is GREAT for that as well. It's worth a 1st, 2nd and, 3rd look if you are in the market for great moderate priced lenses. You might want to look at the Canon 28-135mm lens. I shoot with a 350 D Rebel too, and was unhappy with 18-55mm lens that came with the camera. So after about 2 months of evaluating MANY lenses, I bought the 28-135mm and have NEVER looked back. I've had mine for nearly 6 months and it's a dynamic walk-around lens. It's decent macro to wide zoom and has proven to be fast enough to shoot at dusk and in the night to get full moon and fireworks shots. I am a fiend for shooting traffic late at night, this lens is GREAT for that as well. It's worth a 1st, 2nd and, 3rd look... » Read More You might want to look at the Canon 28-135mm lens. I shoot with a 350 D Rebel too, and was unhappy with 18-55mm lens that came with the camera. So after about 2 months of evaluating MANY lenses, I bought the 28-135mm and have NEVER looked back. I've had mine for nearly 6 months and it's a dynamic walk-around lens. It's decent macro to wide zoom and has proven to be fast enough to shoot at dusk and in the night to get full moon and fireworks shots. I am a fiend for shooting traffic late at night, this lens is GREAT for that as well. It's worth a 1st, 2nd and, 3rd look if you are in the market for great moderate priced lenses. « Show Less
183451
I shoot the same subjects and have been very pleased with the 18-250mm zoom. If you want a little more reach get the 55-300mm in place of the 18-250. With that choice I would then add the 18-55mm. I'm assuming you want to stay with Pentax brand. Neither zoom is "cheap" but then you get what you pay for. I chose the 18-250 because I hand hold the camera most of the time and here in the Pacific NW the light levels in the winter are pretty low. I doubt if I maxed out the 300mm (450mm equivalent) would I get a sharp image. Love the K20D by the way.
2133893
I bought the Canon 10-22mm because it was a little bit faster (3.5/4.5 vs 4.0/5.6) and gave me a little more range on the zoom. I tend to trust Canon glass over Sigma personally especially with the technical components. I've shot on the Sigma and the Canon and as far as picture quality goes, I give the edge to the Canon lens.
1936611
The 55-300 obviously has more bang for the buck. Go with the 55-300 for the savings if you don't plan to be on the 300mm end very much. It's best about 270mm. The 70-300mm is better than the 55-300mm on the 300mm end.
681554
If I were you, I would sell the kit lens and the 28-135mm is usm, the latter of which I had and sold because I purchased the 17-85mm is usm and then the 15-85mm is usm. If you figure out the perfect size and type of camera bag, the 15-85mm & 70-300 together give you plenty of range. Plus carrying a lens like the 85mm f/1.8 for low light, if it will fit in the bag, makes for a very useful combination.
1966950
I haven't tried the 28mm, but I can see it costs about $100 more than the Sigma. I just bought the Siggy and I love it. I have not had any focus issues and it is quite sharp wide open for my purposes (low-light indoor shots of food and people).
1337629
Image quality between the 24-70 and 28-75 is leaps and bounds. The 24-70 is just as sharp as Canons 24-70 version. Not to mention having VC. Definitely worth it if you have the money. I owned the 28-75 and it was a great lens for what is was but the 24-70 is such a step up in my opinion. Cheers
2029245
Hi Pablo, I have a similar camera (and lens set). I have the GF5 with the X series (compact) 14mm-42mm and I recently got the x series 45mm-175mm. After a ton of reading all the reviews and comments and factoring price and everything (for me) I decided this was the best 2nd lens for me. That said, it is no good UNLESS one is 20+ feet away from what you basically want to shoot. When I take a group shot I have to switch back. I will say the 45x175 is a superb lens, but if you were going to mount one and leave the other home, you would really want the 14-140 (IMO). When I chose the 45-175 I figured why get a lens that was already a range of one I had but in practical use I now see the 14mm-140mm There were a few other factors, one was the price was significantly higher (I got my 45-175 for one hundred ninety two using "like new" on warehouse deals) the other was I really wanted a "X" series lens and the 14-140 is a "G" series only. Two other factors were the 14-140 was almost 8 years older and twice as heavy. I have a GF5 and LOVE how with the 45-175 mounted I can hold it like a soda can in one hand when not using it. I am sure the 14-140 is a great lens, and with the GH2 being a much bigger and heavier camera, I am not sure the increase weight would be an issue. Next time I get another lens my quandary may be similar to your, but it would be the 100-300 vs the very useable 14-140. I already get "Wow" comments with the 45-175 mounted on my tiny red GF5 camera. I can only imagine the comments the humongous 100-300 (zoomed out) would get. I do like how the 45-175 it totally internal and am a tad fearful of the 'zooming/slide' tube feature of the 100-300. I know they have to do it, but it's a tad scary. Overall I really think if you are going to REPLACE (meaning sell or no longer have access the 14-42mm lens) you should opt for the 14-140. That way you ONLY change if you want CRAZY zoom potential! Take care!
1071778
One thing to consider is the wider wide-angle on the 300; 24mm vs. 28mm (equivalent). 4mm sounds trivial, but that is the difference between "sorta wide-angle" and truly wide-angle. To me, that makes the 300 worth the price difference, but your mileage may vary, as they say.
198487
I'm using Sigma lens on my Rebel T4i. I bought them for my Canon Rebel XT years ago. These lens have Canon mounts on them. I didn,t get enought time with this camera to see if it is as good as the older Rebel
1380193
The EF300 is a fixed focal length telephoto, the 70/300 is a zoom lens. The 300 is good for sports and wildlife. Be advised if you use a multiplier you loose the image stabilizer. Still a good entry lens.
464449
For me its the lens I hd to have and I'm very happy with it. 35mm equivalent is one of my two favorite focal lengths 85mm (new XF 56) is the other. I also like the clutch based manual focus. The 23 is the lens I use the most. Only take out the 18-55 when I need to travel lighter.
1609776
Thank you for the excellent reply PD. What do you guys think about using the 70-200 lens with a camera that does not have a full sized sensor? I have a rebel XT and I think thats almost half the size of the 1d sensor. Still a good focal length?
1787338
Any thoughts for general / home photography? I have a Digital Rebel XSI and recently bought the 70-200 mm F2.8 IS version mainly to photograph school events without the annoying flash, and take closeups of my rapidly-growing kids. I have been going back and forth between the two lenses (24-70 F2.8 vs. 24-105 F4.0 IS) but my instinct is that F2.8 is much better than F 4 even with IS. Any guidance appreciated from a professional.
518863
I have this lens, I used it for several months before upgrading to the 75-300 IS USM. If you don't want blurry pictures then you will have to spend the money on better tools. I take a lot of bird pictures and was able to track them using the non IS lens but it was very difficult and unless the pools where the competitions are held are in bright light you won't get sharp pictures. I did try using this one at our dance hall, (poor light for pictures) I eventually had to go to a 50 mm 1.4 that does great in low light. You wanting telephoto though, for the money the 75-300 IS at about $450 was the way that I decided to go and I really like what I get now. I have had my t2i for nearly two and a half years. Hope this helps you a little bit. If you want to see a few of my shots with the IS lens. My flickr page is lightninrod49.
1966952
Did you make a decision? I am currently debating the same two lenses. I am leaning towards the Canon since it seems there are quite a few quality/AF issues with the Sigma. Any advice is appreciated.
824633
I find the 28 to 70 lens to be a really great lens, sharp, easy to use, fast focus but a bit heavy when used for an event such as weddings. I would recommend looking at 24 - 70mm lens by sigma.