Canon vs. Sigma 100-300

[puckcycler]

I'm seeking opinions on the Sigma 100-300 4.5-6.7 vs. the Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 lens. Obviously, the Sigma is a little slower. I'm wondering mostly about photo quality. I think Tamron also makes a zoom at this focal length that appears to be quite a bit less expensive than the Canon. Any opinions on the Tamron would also be appreciated. FYI, I'd be using the lens with a Digital Rebel XT and shooting a broad variety of images, mostly outdoors.

[mrfourcows]

no brainer, get the canon!

[Mr. Clean]

Sigma 100-300 4.5 - 6.7? Never heard of it.

Why not the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX DG HSM?

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/15lbsd

[kevin_c]

Sigma 100-300 4.5 - 6.7? Never heard of it.

Why not the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX DG HSM?

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/15lbsd

http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=1544ff098ae5357/shopdata/product_search.shopscript?query=SG100300F45NI&pc=3

I know it's for Noink, but they must make (or have made?) one for Canon

I'd go for the Canon though - I assume the 100-300 Sigma f/4 is out of your price band?

[triumph]

Sigma 100-300 F4 is truely an excellent lens, I owned one for 18months and never regretted a minute.
In the two lens that you compare, it is likely that the canon would be preferentiale due to the fact that at 300mm, it is faster. I took a look at www.photozone.de to check out lens reviews but it would appear that neither are present here.

What is your budget, it maybe that we could suggest a lens tthat might be better known.

[ron chappel]

The sigma 100-300DL is their cheapest tele lens option-so much so that few have even heard of it let alone used one! :lol:

While it is a budget lens it's certainly not hopeless optically.Overall it's really quite usable to good in that regard.In fact it's abit sharper at it's long end than canon's 75-300 models .What it does miss out on is just about every feature that other lenses in this category can get -mostly superfast focus wider zoom range of the 70/75-300 lenses and macro ability.
You can allmost ignore that it's slower than other lenses.Seriously.It's only one third of a stop and ,contrary to lot's of silly rumours that go round ,autofocus works perfectly.
The last four pictures on this page were taken with the sigma 10-300dl -
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_6.html


All that said ,the canon EF100-300usm is a much better lens overall.Just the minor improvement in overall image quality makes a noticable difference.Add the fact that the canon has *easily* the fastest autofocus in it's class and you have a very good overall lens.Not quite L quality but very close:)

The tamron you are thinking of will be either the 75-300 or the 70-300.Both are called 'macro' but only the 70-300 has the very usefull 1:2 macro ability.This lens is really quite good-and an absolute bargain price in the USA- but it does have one real drawback .The focus is quite slow.
If this doesn't worry you then it makes an excellent choice.

There are also many other lenses you could chose from in this class but one other particular model is well worth looking at -the sigma 70-300 Apo DG
This one is near identical in image quality to the canon 100-300,is cheaper and has the usefull 1:2 macro.It's only real drawback is that it's not quite the sharpest at the long end,and the focus speed is nothing outstanding





*

[grego]

If its the Sigma 100-300 f/4, it's a no brainer. Get that one.

[liza]

I own the Sigma 100-300 that you're referring to, and it's really not a bad lens for consumer glass. The build quality isn't the best but the images are passable. I needed some extra reach and bought the lens on KEH for 65 bucks.

[Digitalwave]

You could always get the Sigma APO 70-300 DG Macro which is f/4-5.6 if speed is an issue.

[dawnron1]

I have the Canon EF 100-300 USM and really like it. It delivers nice, reasonably sharp images, especially at 100-150mm, and is a bargain for the price. I'd love to have a 100-400L but it's not financially feasable right now. Here's a sample pic with the 100-300 at 300mm/F5.6, ISO400: