Another one of those Sigma vs Canon threads

I just sold my Canon 75-300mm III - I really disliked this lens, except that I doubled my money on it in 3 months. I just bought a Sigma 75-300mm APO Super Macro 4-5.6 (for half what I sold the Canon for). I'm I going to like this lens any better then the Canon? IQ on the Canon was... well... crappy is a nice word for it. I'm hoping the IQ on the Sigma will be better, but the reviews online (that I can find) don't really do a side by side, or really talk about how the two compare. Anyone have experience with both?

I'm hoping the IQ on the Sigma will be equal to or better than my 55-250. I wanted a long EF lens so I can use my TC.

I don't thing you've gained a thing (except a few extra $), sorry to say.

Put a tc on your Sigma macro. It takes one very well and the AF (using the limiter) is pretty fast.

When it gets here, I'll run some tests on it. As long as I don't lose anything, I'm happy. I'll report back once I have used it a bit. I know both of them are the lower end of the spectrum for lenses, but I had my hopes up.

Thanks for the reply.

I'm a big fan of Sigma if you can tell my my Sig. But there isn't a lot that can compare to that 55-250 unless you spend a lot of money. There's a reason it has the name "nifty 250". At f8 and 250mm it will produce images nearly as sharp as the 70-200L at 200mm when you crop. It is a fantastic value. Using the Sigma with a TC will get you closer but I suspect you will still be a little disappointed.

i can't imagine the TC on the sigma producing any good results...just suck it up and get the best budget telephoto...aka the 55-250IS...

kfreels wrote in post #14953689
I'm a big fan of Sigma if you can tell my my Sig. But there isn't a lot that can compare to that 55-250 unless you spend a lot of money. There's a reason it has the name "nifty 250". At f8 and 250mm it will produce images nearly as sharp as the 70-200L at 200mm when you crop. It is a fantastic value. Using the Sigma with a TC will get you closer but I suspect you will still be a little disappointed.

Agreed... the 55-250 is one of the better lenses you can get

The only thing thats close..ish..is the Tamron 70-300 VC which can be had for a decent sum but its not really better...

according to photozone and this:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

the Tamron 70-300 VC is noticeably better than the Canon 55-250 IS. It also have ultra sonic focusing motor which is faster and quieter than the micro motor in the Canon lens.

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #14954103
according to photozone and this:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

the Tamron 70-300 VC is noticeably better than the Canon 55-250 IS. It also have ultra sonic focusing motor which is faster and quieter than the micro motor in the Canon lens.

you're comparing lens on different bodies!
sure, putting the Tamron on a 1DsmkIII it's gonna look better!
(not to also mention different settings)

KirkS518 wrote in post #14953538
I'm hoping the IQ on the Sigma will be equal to or better than my 55-250. I wanted a long EF lens so I can use my TC.

It may be better than the canon 75-300, but it won't be as good as the 55-250. And if you throw a TC on it, it will be even worse, and be manual focus only.

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #14954103
according to photozone and this:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

the Tamron 70-300 VC is noticeably better than the Canon 55-250 IS. It also have ultra sonic focusing motor which is faster and quieter than the micro motor in the Canon lens.

I find that the images in the 55-250 sample archive tend to look better in terms of IQ than the ones in the 70-300 VC thread, despite what review sites say.

Funny thing about reviews. They only use a single lens. The specs vary from lens to lens and body to body. You have no way of knowing where they land in the spec ranges or where the test body lands for that matter. Lens sample archives are better. But even then, you find issues since lower cost lenses draw less capable users who then post less competent sample work as compared to threads on more expensive lenses. This can lead to a false belief of inferior quality on third party lens threads.
The only real way is to get the lens, put it on your camera, and see what you get. So buy from places like Adorama who have a liberal return and exchange policy. Then you won't have to worry so much. If you get a lens that doesn't deliver the expected results, you can send it back and buy something else.

On a crop camera, the 55-250 takes advantage of the fact that the image circle doesn't need to be as large. It can focus extremely sharp on a smaller spot by moving the rear glass back further into the camera body closer to the sensor. This allows for an extremely sharp image at a much lower cost than is needed to produce the same sharpness on the larger image circle needed for a full frame camera. The down side to this is that it can't be used on a full frame camera because it protrudes too far into the body and for the same reason, you can't use a TC on it which is disappointing. It would be great if someone would make a TC for crop cameras and EF-S lenses but it just hasn't happened. But still, without a TX, on a crop camera you have the same field of view and near the same sharpness as a 400mm lens on a 35mm camera. And all for $200 (refurbished). That is simply amazing.
I have a fantastic 70-200 f2.8 EX DG OS HSM that cost me $1200 which rivals the Canon MkI in IQ but with better stabilization and a 1.4x TC as well. And yet when marching band comes up this fall, when we're out there in broad daylight and if I'm going to be shooting at f8, I'll be shooting with the 55-250 instead. It really is that good.

I guess I didn't make it clear, and I haven't updated my gear list. I already have the 55-250. I grabbed the Sigma because it was dirt cheap ($50), and I wanted something I could use my 2x TC on. I do realize the loss of IQ with the TC, I just don't like having the TC and nothing to put on it.

When it gets here, I'll do a side by side ( I have test shots from the 75-300) and see what it's like. I guess I had thought that the APO series was one of Sigma's better lines.

watt100 wrote in post #14954208
you're comparing lens on different bodies!
sure, putting the Tamron on a 1DsmkIII it's gonna look better!
(not to also mention different settings)

you are kidding right?
The full frame corners are usually worse than crop. Just read some of the reviews on photozone.de. Most lenses tend to get sharper corners on crop bodies because they "crop" out the extreme corners.

Sirrith wrote in post #14954303
I find that the images in the 55-250 sample archive tend to look better in terms of IQ than the ones in the 70-300 VC thread, despite what review sites say.

It could very well be the skills of the photographers behind the cameras rather than the image quality of the lens. I have seen quite a lot of crappy photos in the Leica m9 thread...

KirkS518 wrote in post #14955024
I guess I didn't make it clear, and I haven't updated my gear list. I already have the 55-250. I grabbed the Sigma because it was dirt cheap ($50), and I wanted something I could use my 2x TC on. I do realize the loss of IQ with the TC, I just don't like having the TC and nothing to put on it.

When it gets here, I'll do a side by side ( I have test shots from the 75-300) and see what it's like. I guess I had thought that the APO series was one of Sigma's better lines.

any attempt at modifying the TC?...i have no clue what brand you have, but there have certainly been a few posts where people said they were able to modify it...they were always hit and run posts though, and never came back to give tutorials or pictures of the process...

kfreels wrote in post #14954947
On a crop camera, the 55-250 takes advantage of the fact that the image circle doesn't need to be as large. It can focus extremely sharp on a smaller spot by moving the rear glass back further into the camera body closer to the sensor. This allows for an extremely sharp image at a much lower cost than is needed to produce the same sharpness on the larger image circle needed for a full frame camera.

I have a fantastic 70-200 f2.8 EX DG OS HSM that cost me $1200 which rivals the Canon MkI in IQ but with better stabilization and a 1.4x TC as well. And yet when marching band comes up this fall, when we're out there in broad daylight and if I'm going to be shooting at f8, I'll be shooting with the 55-250 instead. It really is that good.

yes, I too have better telephoto lens but I kept my 55-250IS - small, light and sharp

DreDaze wrote in post #14955452
any attempt at modifying the TC?...i have no clue what brand you have, but there have certainly been a few posts where people said they were able to modify it...they were always hit and run posts though, and never came back to give tutorials or pictures of the process...

No... This TC is ancient. Bought it in 1986 when I bought my EOS 620. It's a 2x Rokinon. LOL. I can only use it in MF and wide open, which is fine with me. I think when I sold the 75-300, effectively losing the capability of up to 600mm, I feel like I lost 350mm on the long end in my kit. It's purely psychological, but that's me, a psycho!

Funny thing is, 90% of my shooting the past month has been with the 18-55 @ 18mm. I've suddenly discovered the joys of wide.