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
1864063
I'm a hobbyist. I'd like to upgrade from the 28-135mm to the 24-105mm, but I'm afraid of spending this much and getting a lens that isn't a "good copy." I'm just not expert enough to know if a lens needs to be recalibrated or something. Is it best for someone like me to buy local and ask the camera store to evaluate the lens sharpness? Or buy from someone like B&H; and ask them to evaluate it before they ship it to me? I resell a lot of lenses, too, and I wouldn't want to resell it some day and have someone complain it wasn't sharp.
1069243
I own both. This is sharper and faster to focus than the 70-300. With either lens, "faster" is not a consideration. Both lenses are sharpest at f8 and require plenty of bright light. BTW, the lens hood from the 70-300 works on this version for those wondering...
2154579
IQ wise the 28-135mm is the superior lens. There is less barrel and pincushion distortion, and FAR fewer chromatic aberrations. And sharpness is more consistent across the focal range. I had the 18-135 on my T3i and then the 60D, and in order to get a sharp image, the lens had to be stopped down to at least f8 on the wide end and f11 on the tele end. And even then, at some focal lengths, the pictures were just plain soft no matter what. There was a significant amount of corner and edge blurring, especially at the wide end. And at the tele end, my oh my, the CA! Not just at the edges, either - color fringing was very noticeable well into the frame. The 28-135, on the other hand, is pretty sharp at its widest apertures throughout the range and quite good stopped down one stop narrower than its maximum opening at any given focal length. And pictures have very good corner and edge sharpness across the entire focal range. While image stabilization is superior on the 18-135mm, by the time you stop it down enough to get a sharp picture, you're still running up on using slower shutter speeds (which equals motion blurred images), using high ISOs and/or flash. The 28-135 lets you avail yourself of more light, so you can shoot at lower ISOs or increase the shutter speed a tad to compensate for its less sophisticated image stabilization. By the way, image stabilization on the 28-135 is effective. It's just not quite as effective as the 18-135. About the 18 vs 28mm at the wide end--unless you're shooting indoors in smallish rooms a lot, you probably aren't going to notice the difference. Looking at the EXIF data of 18-135mm sample images on the web, I've noticed that most of them are shot toward the tele end of the zoom. I certainly tend to zoom at least a little with nearly everything I photograph. I much prefer the 28-135. It focuses faster and more quietly, I can shoot at wider apertures for better bokeh and more light, and it produces great pictures with a minimum of distortion and CA.
134989
I am very happy with this lens. I have not tried the Sigma. I have the tamron 28-75 and the 70-200 VC both outstanding lenses - fast and sharp. Tamron is slightly more expensive and reviews always slightly higher. Sorry I could not give you more info about the Sigma
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.
1917125
I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA comes with a lens hood and pouch - for which Canon sells as accessories and expensive ones at that. I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA... » Read More I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA comes with a lens hood and pouch - for which Canon sells as accessories and expensive ones at that. « Show Less
765802
The 70-300 is a manual focus lens. I shoot with a D5100, once you focus your diopter adjustment on the viewfinder and with a little practice, you can take some really cool shots.
1922083
The 50 is probably more often referred to as a "standard" lens and works great. The 35 is slightly wider and often used for portraits of more than just one person (when you need to fit more people in the frame). Keep in mind that if you have a camera with an ASP-C sensor (or a "crop sensor"-- this is the Rebel line of Canon canons as well as the 7D, etc), the 50mm is closer to a (1.6 x 50 =) 80mm due to the smaller sensor and a 35 looks closer to a (35 x 1.6=) 56mm lens. What I would suggest before dropping a lot of money on the 35L or 50L is to see what range you use more or what looks better on your camera. Most Canon cameras come with an 18-55 or 24-105 lens. Zoom that lens to the 35mm mark and use that for a day and see how it works. Then do the same thing with the lens at the 50mm mark. If you find that 50 is too narrow or 35 is too wide, there is no sense in dropping $1000+ on a focal length you aren't likely to use.
79348
I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens. Life always seems to be about choices and trade-offs doesn't it.I hope this was helpful. I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens.... » Read More I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens. Life always seems to be about choices and trade-offs doesn't it.I hope this was helpful. « Show Less
848890
Ok, great info as usual! I'm not going to be taking many close up "macro" type shots or shots with focused forground objects w/ blurred backgrounds to start off, and I really like the 24-105 f/4 L IS lens, would that be probobly the best "walk around" lens for the XSi then? Also, can a 2.8 lens take landscape / scenic shots where the foreground and background are both in focus? I am confused about that with the f# & lenses.The night railroading shots I posted before are a main priority and I have seen some excellent night / low light posted images under the 24-105 f/4 L IS lens here on Amazon.I have a question on the 50D kit lens quality but I'll try to post that under the 50D discussions. Thanks again for all your input. Ok, great info as usual! I'm not going to be taking many close up "macro" type shots or shots with focused forground objects w/ blurred backgrounds to start off, and I really like the 24-105 f/4 L IS lens, would that be probobly the best "walk around" lens for the XSi then? Also, can a 2.8 lens take landscape / scenic shots where the foreground and background are both in focus? I am confused about that with the f# & lenses.The night railroading shots I posted before are a main priority and I have seen some excellent night / low light... » Read More Ok, great info as usual! I'm not going to be taking many close up "macro" type shots or shots with focused forground objects w/ blurred backgrounds to start off, and I really like the 24-105 f/4 L IS lens, would that be probobly the best "walk around" lens for the XSi then? Also, can a 2.8 lens take landscape / scenic shots where the foreground and background are both in focus? I am confused about that with the f# & lenses.The night railroading shots I posted before are a main priority and I have seen some excellent night / low light posted images under the 24-105 f/4 L IS lens here on Amazon.I have a question on the 50D kit lens quality but I'll try to post that under the 50D discussions. Thanks again for all your input. « Show Less
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.
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.
1641314
I purchased the Sigma 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom lens for my K-30 and am very happy with it. For a relatively inexpensive lens, it is well made and takes excellent photos. I have even taken interest in Macro photography since this lens is also designed for that purpose. I use this lens in addition to my Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5 -5.6 AL WR and a Pentax DA 50mm f/1.8 lens. Also, I am crazy about my K-30 camera and am so glad I have it.
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).
1716981
This Lens is phenomenal! I also have the 6d and together they are great. Don't waste your money on the 24-70. At first, I was not too sure about the 28-70L , but after Using it at a few events, it is proven to be an awesome lens. My copy is tack sharp and the only difference is 4mm.
523658
for my 7D I went with the 10-22mm USM IS and the 24-105mmL and I think that covers the majority of my ranges (I also got the 70-300mm USM telephoto zoom so I think I'm pretty well covered from 10-300mm ;-)