How does the IQ of this lens compare with the Sigma 70-300mm?
1947495
The biggest difference is that this lens is weather sealed, while the Sigma 70-300mm is not. Its range also meshes well with the stock 18-55mm kit lens. Regarding IQ, the only head to head test I found seemed to indicate IQ was similar except at the far end (270-300mm) where the Pentax had slightly better IQ. But the two lenses are close enough that if I hadn't valued the weather sealing I probably would have gotten the Sigma at half the price -- the reality is that neither is a professional grade lens and neither will give you professional-grade IQ at 300mm.
704391
Many say the 75-300 isn't a very good lens but I disagree. I own one and have excellent results with mine. I also own the t3i and it's an excellent camera for both stills and video... now that I have it I won't go to any other... why? The t3i has everything I want in a camera.
1316302
I also own a 300mm f/4L IS. I use it with a Canon 7D. The 70-300 mm f.4-5.6 L IS (note the L, which means professional quality lens) is used with a Canon Rebel T4i. The two systems give about the same quality pictures, but I have never done one-to-one comparisons where the same body is used with both lenses on the same subject with the same lighting. The consumer zoom lens (without the L) is nowhere near as good as either professional lens.
1936609
I am a novice, at best. It appears to me that the 70-300 has these unique characteristics: -Yes, the 70-300 has faster auto-focus. -The 70-300 is an FX lens that is both fully FX and DX functional. The 55-300 is a DX lens, therefore it will cause sizing limitations if used on a FX digital camera.-The 70-300 is heavier and larger.
2103068
Its really a budget decision. Both produce sharp images and good in low light, but with the sigma your packing more focal range without having to swap lenses.
24766
I own both lenses and while the 18-300 is the best walk around lens, the 50-500 is my favorite lens for wildlife and particularly birds. It obviously has 200 more mm reach which results in around 40% more magnification and it is tack sharp throughout it's range. The Sigma 50-500 stays on my camera 90% of the time.
1308482
The IQ better than 14-45 and 45-150 because this lens use of 1 x ED，1 x HR，2x E-HR so the image much better.
2071194
I have both lenses and their ib no comparison. The Sony far exceeds the Sigma lens in terms of image quality. But it costs more and is much heavier. I use it with my Sony A900 and would not move back to the Sigma. Image quality is excellent even with the 2X extender.
1380192
Partially in response to Paula J's answer below, I have had both lenses. The 70-300L is actually sharper in the center than the fixed 300L prime. The 300L prime is sharper on the edges and corners. If you want the F4 aperture at 300mm, then you have to go with the prime. If you don't need this, then newer 70-300L. It is lighter, more compact, has a better image stabilizer and gives you the versatility of a zoom.
1790371
Yes, the two lenses are worlds apart. The 70-300 is a top quality 'prosumer' lens, intended for advanced amateurs and pros on a budget; worth every penny! The 55-200 is an affordable, 'entry level' lens and an excellent value.
1316306
I have no idea. The 70-300 gives me access to short range subjects and my grandson has used it for senior pictures. The L lens is the best I believe.
119156
The sigma 70 - 300 is an excellent lens and works well with 7100 but probably not the best for bird photography; however, that is just an opinion.
759247
Even better. The 1.4 is rock solid compared to the flimsy 1.8, and slightly faster. Ten times as expensive, but may be worth it. If you're still thinking of adding a new zoom to your arsenal, look at the 24-105L, as well. It's pretty much a coin toss, as far as IQ, with the 24-70L, but it adds IS. So, it's one stop slower, but it gains about 3 stops due to the IS, so it's actually better for low-light than the "faster" lens. And longer, too.
1490177
I also have a Sigma 50-500mm (Bigma) that is highly rated, I find this lens to compare favorably and being much smaller much easier to get steady & sharp hand-hel results at 300mm. Took photos at a band concert a week ago (indoors) and was impressed that I could read the type on name tags music stand from a distance. Basically a very sharp lens for the money. I highly recommend.
528383
I have the 70-300 mm and attest that it has good optics and the build quality is excellent. Comparing e two lenses the first observation is they are equal in speed. The 70-300 mm lens will give you further reach than he EF-S lens especially when considering the multiplication factor that comes with EF lenses with a less than full frame sensor camera body. The 70-300 will work out to yield focal lengths of 120- 480 mm and correspondingly it will be of limited use close up where you would prefer a more standard length lens to shoot with but it can be a lense of choice at sporting events or photographing wildlife. Another consideration is your plans for the future. If you are thinking you may some day purchase a full frame sensor camera body then the only option would be the 70-300mm lens. Finally something to consider would be to Google reviews of each lens. There are some very detailed and exacting reviews available for camera bodies and lenses on-line. Hope these initial observations will be of assistance.
1974651
I've had the 50mm 1.8 and the kit lens, and I can definitely say this will blow both of them away! This is essentially a high-quality upgrade from the kit lens, and in my opinion gives at least as good an image result as the 50mm prime - but with the range of a zoom. The 35mm I don't have experience with, but I would still bet that the Sigma would compete just fine :)
513851
James, it's a big lens and on the heavier side. That said its awesome IQ is excellent for all around lens. Used by weddings guys as well. For hicking I would pack it in a Tarmac or loweprro backup style vertical bag as the lens/body combo will remind you that you are carying a hefty piece of gear. Do not strap it accross your shoulder attached to the body, as it will constantly weight and move when you hike. I find that on hikes and outdoor sports when I am constantly moving the 70-300 F5.6 is more practical.... But you would compromise on overall lens quality and 3 F stops speed. Hope this helps. James, it's a big lens and on the heavier side. That said its awesome IQ is excellent for all around lens. Used by weddings guys as well. For hicking I would pack it in a Tarmac or loweprro backup style vertical bag as the lens/body combo will remind you that you are carying a hefty piece of gear. Do not strap it accross your shoulder attached to the body, as it will constantly weight and move when you hike. I find that on hikes and outdoor sports when I am constantly moving the 70-300 F5.6 is more practical.... But you would compromise on overall lens quality and 3 F stops speed. Hope this... » Read More James, it's a big lens and on the heavier side. That said its awesome IQ is excellent for all around lens. Used by weddings guys as well. For hicking I would pack it in a Tarmac or loweprro backup style vertical bag as the lens/body combo will remind you that you are carying a hefty piece of gear. Do not strap it accross your shoulder attached to the body, as it will constantly weight and move when you hike. I find that on hikes and outdoor sports when I am constantly moving the 70-300 F5.6 is more practical.... But you would compromise on overall lens quality and 3 F stops speed. Hope this helps. « Show Less