sigma 70-300mm or 28-300mm? Does anyone have any suggestions on which one is better quality and/or more worth buying?
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.
982739
If you can afford it, buy the 28/200 or the 28/300 macro lens. It is much more convenient as you do not have to change lenses when shifting from one type of shot to another. It is ideal for the amateur / semi-pro who wants excellent photos. Of course, if you are a professional, you already know that you need many more types of lenses and filters for every situation conceivable.
1542987
75-300mm IS is the older version and it has been around ways back. The 70-300mm IS is the newest version which has newer technology building in. I had both of them. the 70-300mm seems like having better auto focus on my rebel xt than the older version. I guess that justified the $200 difference.
1864061
Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are... » Read More Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. « Show Less
2030992
Not sure what the question is but the 70-300 zoom is excellent for those long range shots. I use the MF mode if I just want to look at something at a distance. I love the image stabilizers...helps me to reduce those long distance blur image.
1357472
I can't compare image quality to the 28-70, but I am happy with the quality. I would really miss the 24mm if I had the 28-70. It is solid and relatively heavy, but is does not have VR which makes it feel fairly compact.
385957
I really enjoyed my Sigma 30mm, but the 24L is something different. $1100 is worth different things to different people. I found it to be a better focal length on a crop sensor (7D) for general indoor low light shooting.
1069237
Sharper by a discernible amount. Lighter! Faster focusing. 70-300 maintains a significant advantage in close focusing though. I have both lenses. If you want to shoot bugs and flowers, 70-300 is the way to go. Birds, sports, the moon, 75-300.
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.
1966949
I almost decided in favor of Sigma, but then I realized that Sigma is made for a crop camera only. While I'm not looking to buy an FF one any time soon, when I do, it will be costly, so I wouldn't have the money to follow it up with expensive lenses, not to mention that a good prime is a good prime, which I expect to last me a long while... So that is becoming a big drawback for me...
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
1063911
I bought it brand new but I got rid of it already and bought the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS. Much better lens! Super sharp all through out the zoom range.
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.
387099
If you can afford the Canon. Get the Canon. It's a damn good lens. But if you're not trying to put down a lot of money and still want top notch quality, the Sigma is just that good. Sigma's on that level, but the Canon is hard to beat. My option was the Sony Carl Zeiss 85mm. My advice, see if you can test them both out and go from there.
1786217
Thanks for the information. I'm definately looking to unload the 28-80. I hadn't thought about third party lenses. I was always told to stick with Nikon. I'll check out the Sigma.
1966947
This is no easy call. Both lenses are said to perform similarly in terms of IQ. I've owned the EF 28mm f/1.8 and was never happy with it due to innacuracy of AF and image softness. Some folks like it quite a bit. Not my case. I wouldn't recommend this lens. I've read good reviews about the Sigma 30 mm, but I lack first hand experience. My two cents worth...
873452
Another option is getting the 50mm 1.8 for about a hundred bucks. Takes great shots and you can still buy the 28-135. I bought my 28-135 used and love having both lenses.