Well,have anyone here tried this lens? Contrast? Sharpness? AF speed? are there any lenses for comparison? Thanks

-- legnum (legnum212@email.com), March 23, 2002

Answers

Do not buy sigma, In case you missed it, DO NOT BUY SIGMA FOR CANON. the sigmas for canon made only 4 years ago such as 24f2.8 50f2.8macro 35-135 will not work with canon eye control cameras, and they will not update them. sigma also uses a cheep plastic belt for autofocusing canon af compatable lenses. in about 2 years of use (depending on your use) it will need repair, now your up to the cost of a canon. DONT BE CHEEP return the sigma and buy a canon 75-300is if you want good speed, the is will give you 2 stops of its stated aperture.

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), March 23, 2002.

I don't know where Joe gets his information on Sigma lenses, but it's certainly contrary to what I've read, heard, and experienced. Half a dozen years ago Sigma's lens quality was somewhat suspect but with the advent of the EX series the optical and build quality improvements have been notable. Also, if for some reason a Sigma lens has an incompatiblity problem with your Canon camera, Sigma is very good up doing a quick upgrade.

If you check at Photo Review, you'll note there are quite a few owners/users of the new 100-300 f/4 EX that rate it very highly. I just bought the new Sigma 180 f/3.5 EX Macro and am totally impressed at how good it is optically. And it had no problems regarding compatibility with my 1v right out of the box.

Sigma like any other lens manufacture has some dogs but I wouldn't be put off just by the Sigma name these days--it just depends upon the specific lens. Even Canon has some mediocre lenses--the 75-300 f/4.5.6 IS that I once owned is very soft out at 300mms for instance.

-- Gary Russell (gr_russell@earthlink.net), March 23, 2002.

Gary if you are wondering were my info comes from it is baised on owning the 24f2.8, 502.8 macro and the current 28-105f2.8 as well as 2 people in my local organization who have experianced similar problems, no sigma will not update the primes, although they did repair the 28-105 with another plastic focusing belt.The main point is why take the chance, obviously sigma is not making their electronics of focus mechanisms the same way that canon is. all previous canons still work with the most current bodies. The main purpose of this forum is to help people and pass along usefull advice and something as big as compatibility and quality problems certainly are big issues,especially since sigma is the only lens of the independents which has them.

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), March 23, 2002.

As far as Sigma's brand quality-- I recently bought the Sigma 105mm EX macro. It came with a zippered, padded case and a metal hood, and it was compatible with my Elan 7E. I am not an engineer, and I don't know how much validity there is to "plastic bad, metal good," but it's certainly mostly metal construction. The build, finish, and appearance are all good, and there are several thoughtful features (focus limit switch, a wide focusing ring that can disengage during AF, distance/scale markings, etc.) that I like. According to my improvised testing procedure (read: looking at prints) the optical quality is also very pleasing. My only complaint is the slow micro- motor AF, but it might as well be a manual-focus lens for me-- I pretty much always focus manually for macro work. A version with ring USM would be a much better telephoto, but not really a better macro.

Overall, I find it a very classy lens at a good price, and even though I suspect that macros tend to be some of the better specimens in anyone's lineup, I have no qualms about buying Sigma EX lenses of recent manufacture.

-- R.D. Hight (lithium099@hotmail.com), March 23, 2002.

Plastic is not a problem. Hell, they're making handguns with plastic receivers now. That should tell you modern plastics can withstand a lot of abuse and perform as well as metals.

The 100-300 Sigma is probably pretty good optically. There are a lot of third party lenses which have good performance. But I prefer using my Canon 70-200/2.8L with the Canon 1.4x extender. The resulting 98-280/4 lens is excellent in all respects and only slightly slower autofocusing than the lens without the extender.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), March 24, 2002.

I would also recommend the Sigma EX lenses with Canon EOS. I have the 20 f1.8 and in every respect it works as well as a Canon lens on my EOS 3. I have not used the 100-300, but have seen some pretty nice pictures taken with it.

I would recommend buying it from someone with a liberal return policy, and giving it a good test during the grace period, then you can always return it if not happy.

-- J.Horton (masssalt@yahoo.com), March 25, 2002.

I assume they will be renaming this forum the-save money and justify your sigma purchase forum. Pros do not use sigma. What do you think the resale on sigma is compared to canon, just check ebay. Everyone should know by now that you get what you pay for.

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), March 25, 2002.

"Pros do not use Sigma"? Joe, National Geographic photographer Jim Richardson would be surprised to hear that. Check out http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0104/feature1/zoom3.html and scroll down to see what lens he used on a great shot of the Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River.

-- Gary Russell (gr_russell@earthlink.net), March 25, 2002.

Now I can call everyone else who works for the AP and tell them to sell their Nikon, canon,and leica lenses and go out and buy sigma since a photographer from National Geographic used one once for a photo. Thanks Gary

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), March 25, 2002.

I agree with Joe, To campare Sigma to Canon is silly, people buy Sigma to save money. people buy Canon for top quality. Im sure there are some good Sigmas out there, but why not buy the best for your camera.

-- Thomas (toms@aol.com), March 25, 2002.

I just got back from the olympics and had an eye opener. I brought the sigma 28-70f2.8 and 75-300dl, my gilfriend brought the 28-135is and the 100-300f5.6L. First of all almost all of the serious photographers shot L-series canons and top end Nikons(no sigmas except a few spectators)the eye opener was when we got our slides back. my slides were not even close. less color much less sharpness, and far more distortion, I am selling both and will upgrade to canon.

-- louis brown (louisb@cnet.com), March 25, 2002.

Okay, joe, I'll take you up on that "save money and justify your Sigma purchase" crack.

I have the same amount of money to spend on photo equipment whether or not I buy Sigma. So what I have to do is compare the Sigma lens (and whatever else I buy with the savings) to the Canon (and whatever else I don't get to buy because of it). In this case, I got the Sigma lens for just over $400.00, and Adorama lists the Canon equivalent, their 100mm USM macro, for upwards of $500.00, depending on whether or not you buy gray market and whether or not you get the hood and case. And like I said, my budget is the same either way. So I'm really not comparing the Sigma to the Canon. I'm comparing the Sigma to a used Canon, or the Sigma and a pile of film to a new Canon, or the Sigma and some nice new filters to a Canon, or the Sigma and a hundred dollars of tripod gear to a Canon. Sure, I'd rather have a higher-quality lens. But I'd also rather get the shot on a second-tier lens than not get it because I ran out of film, or I couldn't afford a clamp, or flare ruined my negative because I scrimped on the accessories, or whatever.

And as for pros not using Sigma? I couldn't care less whether they do or not. They have other needs, concerns, budgets, and resources than I do, and our gear will be quite different no matter what I have to spend.

And as for getting what you pay for? If only it were that simple. Both companies have different business models, overheads, and ways of operating, so while a $4000 Canon is certainly better than an $800 Canon, "you get what you pay for" isn't the complete picture where third-party lenses are concerned.

Maybe you should think about contributing some useful (or at least interesting) content, rather than just mindlessly bashing entire product lines. If I wanted to hear ranting, I'd read usenet; I come here instead because most of the posters aren't like you.

-- R.D. Hight (lithium099@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002.

R.D. if you look at where the (crack) came from it was because of a legitimate warning about specific sigmas incompatibility with eye controll canons. All you had to do is read this from the begining. If you are part of the sigma crowd then good for you. Top level I would assume by definition are field users. In my 16 years with the associated press and 50,000 photos later I think I have learned a little something about photography. If you want to take advice you are in the right place. If you want to challenge everything I would suggest a teenage chat room.

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), March 26, 2002.

As I said previously, some third party lenses are noted to be quite good. But I would have to clarify that by saying NONE of the third party lenses available are considered the BEST within their focal length range.

I prefer to use camera manufacturer lenses. I did it when I shot Leica, I did it when I shot Nikon, I do it now that I shoot Canon. I did not buy into the Leica system to use Sigma lenses. I did not buy into the Nikon system to use Tamron lenses. I did not buy into the EOS system to use Tokina lenses. I chose Canon as a system of bodies, lenses and accessories.

That does not mean great photos cannot be taken with third party lenses. They can and they are every day. I always try to keep in mind that one of my photographic heros, Edward Weston, shot most of his masterpieces on a cheap, unbranded lens that he bought to fit his 8x10 view camera.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), March 26, 2002.

Exceptionally well put Lee.

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), March 26, 2002.

Sigma make some decent lenses. Just don't expect them to work with the successors to the Elan 7, EOS 3 and EOS 1v, maybe not even the successors to the D60 and EOS-1d. Everytime a new Canon EOS body comes out the various photo forums fill with complaints that their old Sigma lenses won't work on the new bodies.

Now you might get lucky and this time they will work, or you might never upgrade your current EOS body. Who knows.

Pesonally I've tested maybe 3 or 4 Sigma lenses and while they've generally not been junk, I've rejected them or eventually sold them in favor of the Canon counterparts.

Of course if you want a 50-500 zoom, you don't have a lot of choice!

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.

well i have a sigma EX lense (the 24-70 f2,8 to supplement my canon primes) and i'm very happy with it. very good value for money. i must say that i never expected it to compare with a canon f2,8 pro zoom - but i didn't want to pay 3 times as much for a lense that is probably 10% better in absolute terms.

from what i've heard the 100-300 from sigma is a darn good lense.

and joe, pro photographers make great photos. whether the shot was taken with a canon, sigma, tamron, or idon'tknowwhat lense is not worth discussing. we shouldn't let equipment snobbery get in the way of taking great pictures.

thats all,

carl

-- carl weller (carlweller@yahoo.com), April 05, 2002.

Carl Im glad that you are happy with your purchase, Lets hope that you don't run in to the compatability problem if and when you decide to upgade you camera. When you do run in to this problem Im sure that this forum (if you read it in its entirity) will come to mind.

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), April 05, 2002.

to be honest joe, i don't know what compatibility problem you're talking about. sigma here in germany replaces the chips in all its older lenses for free when you have a problem with the elan 7(e). i imagine they'll do the same thing when newer cameras come out.

as for me, i won't ever have a compatability problem - the lense works perfectly with my eos 3 and i don't expect that there will be a new analogue canon camera that would convince me to upgrade. the next step is digital and i'll worry about that in a few years when the gear is good enough and less expensive. when that day comes we can all forget about the resale value of a lot of our old gear.

plus i expect that they'll have made good advances in lense technology too - so i can throw the sigma away when the mood strikes me and buy a new up-to-date one.

-- carl weller (carlweller@yahoo.com), April 05, 2002.

Hi. I am also seriously thinking of buying this lens, but would need objective personal experiences (free from all those ridiculous "Don't EVER buy Sigma - buy Canon, buy Nikon, but do NOT buy Sigma" mantras the pro-wannabees keep chanting. Sometimes I wonder if the die-hard fans of Canon and Nikon ever read any reviews...) So just to get this discussion back on track: Please share your personal, objective experience from THIS PARTICULAR lens with me. (I do not need to be convinced about NIKON or CANON superiority: In addition to some reviews on this particular lens, I have studied quite a few reviews on other SIGMA EX lenses with comparisons to NIKON and CANON ones, (according to which some of them are not so good, while others are excellent, applying to ALL THREE parties).

What would I use it for? Shooting wildlife in Namibia in two months, so I'll have to make the decision quickly.

Much obliged, Macro-Marko Finland

Much obliged, Macro-Marko Finland

-- Marko Laakkonen (bimi@dlc.fi), May 08, 2002.

First of all there is enough information in this debate for you to make an informed decision. The pro wanna be is pretty funny. I can assure you that my income in the last ten years is higher than the GDP of your village in Finland.Maybe you should try a Sigma forum, or better yet go try it and tell us how wonderful your lens is. I hear that Yugo engines can be fitted to BMW's. Since your such a fan of saving money you should try this too and report back to us. JC

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), May 08, 2002.

Well, Joe's reply needs no comment: it speaks for itself and for him, too. Macro-Marko

-- Marko Laakkonen (bimi@dlc.fi), May 09, 2002.

>Well, Joe's reply needs no comment: it speaks for itself and for him, too.

Heh. Yeah. Kind of sums things up pretty completely.

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), May 09, 2002.

I had to read that response a couple of times, now I get it The BMW is the Canon and the Yugo is Sigma. Never hear it put that way before- Get the point. Marko if you already read the reviews and made up your mind why ask the question and dismiss the opinions of the responders on this pannel. I have learned alot from Joe, NK guy, Preston Merchant, Puppy Face, and others who obviously know their business. - Louis Brown

-- louis brown (louisb@cnet.com), May 09, 2002.

Well, since this seems to be more about how much one is spending and not so much what the performance is, let me give you some cold facts. This may be futile as you some of you seem to have embraced the Canon/Nikon advertising copy per se, without really bothering to think what you're actually paying for. Well, if you want to spend more money and you want a zoom in the 100-300 range, here's what to do: study the comparative test results below on Nikon, Canon, and Sigma counterparts, and if the amount of money spent equals quality to you, you should have no problem. Or then you really would rather settle for a consumer lens than a pro one. Color Foto/March 2002, test results: the best supertelezooms in the range 100-300 ever: Canon EF 4.5 - 5.6/100-300 mm USM: Overall score: 73 pts/100 Shaprness: (100-200-300): 20-18-16 Contrast: 27-25-24/30 Zentrierung: 14-16-16/20 Verzeichnung: 8-4-4/10 Vignettierung: 9-9-9/10 Price: ca. 510 euro (what's that in dollars? go figure it out)

Leica Vario-Elmar-R 4.2/105-280, overall score: test winner: 89/100 Shaprness: (105-200-280): 23-24-22 Contrast:28-29-28 Zentrierung: 20-20-19/20 Verzeichnung: 7-10-9/10 Vignettierung: 10-10-9/10 price: 4754 euro

Minolta AR 4.5-5.6 100-300 APO (D) Overall score: 72/100 pts Shaprness: (100-200-300): 16-20-18 Contrast: 25-27-26/30 Zentrierung: 13-15-14/20 Verzeichnung: 6-4-5/10 Vignettierung: 8-9-9/10 price: 519 euro

Pentax SMC-FA 4.7-5.8/100-300 Shaprness: (100-200-300): 19-18-15 Contrast: 26-26-24/30 Zentrierung: 13-17-18/10 Verzeichnung: 9-5-5/10 Vignettierung: 9-9-8/10 price: 239 euro

Sigma 4.5-6.7/100-300 DL overall score: 70/100 pts Shaprness: (100-200-300): 18-17-16 Contrast: 26-26-26/30 Zentrierung: 12-13-14/20 Verzeichnung: 6-4-5/10 Vignettierung: 8-9-9/10 price: 199 euro

Sigma EX 4/100-300 mm APO IF HSM overall score: 84 Shaprness: (100-200-300): 23-24-21 Contrast: 28-28-28/30 Zentrierung: 17-17-17/20 (build) Verzeichnung: 9-8-7/10 (distortion) Vignettierung: 9-9-9/10 (Vignetting) price: 1495 euro

Well, it seems to me that Joe's options are pretty limited: either he will fit a lowdown Canon/Nikon engine in his expensive N5, and get poor results, BUT SAVE A BIT OF MONEY IN THE PROCESS!, or then he will reconsider, and buy that darn Sigma he so detested, an get better results.

Now of course some can claim that they would never buy a 100-300 zoom in the first place. I wonder if that is because Canon doesn't make a decent one (not to mention Nikon, whose equivalent is, however, only in the 70-300 range, with both models tested in the same test: overall score: 72-74/100). Unfortunately for those who claim that the only useable lens for nature photography is that of a high price and with a Canon or Nikon price tag on it: I am sorry you are mistaken: you can even spend more money, and feel better about it, and get better results, if you choose the right Sigma EX lens. Well, I mean for a guy who brags about his income and doesn't really know a thing about Finland, (like for example the fact that it's the second most competitive country in the world, after, I regret to say, the USA, and that it is not any of your states, situated somewhere between Arkansas and India, or whatnot..., as maybe (90% of your so- called literate folks seem to think (a gut feeling based on my numerous sojourns in your country have proved, I think this is just a waste of time. But for the rest of you: think about it: Canon and Nikon have screwed you big time: you are ready to wave that flag regardless of what they launch onto the market. I call that suckers and I can that shrewd and successful marketing.

By for good, suckers Macro-Marko Kerava, Finland and Joe, maybe we should just count your pennies here, you might even get a shack in the shantytown...

-- Marko Laakkonen (bimi@dlc.fi), May 10, 2002.

Well Marko, fortunatly most people in the USA (yes that would include the states that you trashed)are smart enough not to allow their government to tax them at 80%. You may also try a 70-200L or 100-300L comparison since these are as close to you price point, Oh Im sorry, that would make your decision look,(you fill in the blank) I also think it may be time for an economics lesson, that is, one outside Finland. JC

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), May 12, 2002.

Well, for once I agree with you Joe. Finland is a tax haven, for the tax man, that is. By the way, in case it's of relevance to you, the Canon EF 2,8/70-200 L USM (1500 euro) you referred to received 78/100 pts in a test by Color Foto. (The Sigma equivalent would be the EX 2.8/70-200, with an equal 78/100 pts.)The magazine did not list the 100-300L in the April 2002 issue. However, whether one should always embrace test results as such is a bit controversial, as sometimes different tests may show at least some variation (regardless of make). Anyways, I guess it's time to bring the discussion back on a more mature track. And slashing nationalities with prejudiced stereotyping is certainly anything but fruitful for the present "dispute". So no offence, I hope. Besides, I guess the bottom guideline remains "whatever makes you happy", though by now we can supposedly all agree that there is one in every crowd, even in the case of Canon. (with the exception of some "generic" brands like Soligor, whose lenses are all of solid quality (solid sh.., that is.) Take Care y'all Marko

-- Marko Laakkonen (bimi@dlc.fi), May 13, 2002.