Choice: Canon 90-300 or Sigma 70-300

[steve_hill4]

I currently have the Canon 400D/Rebel XTi and only the basic 18-55mm lens kit and wanting to add to it. I am trying to decide whether to go for the Sigma 70-300mm lens, (which I can get for about £100), or the Canon 90-300mm lens, (at £122). Does anyone have any opinions of either or experience? I really could go either way, but would generally expect the Canon to be of a better quality.

Canon 90-300mm
Sigma 70-300mm

I am however restricted to about £100-150 at the moment, so if anyone is going to suggest any other lenses as alternatives to both, please bear this in mind.

Thanks.

 

[Zeke]

I think you'll be dissappointed with either. They both are slow which means that you'll either HAVE to use a tripod or will have to be in strong light and the quality of the optics aren't good. Regrettably, long lenses are not very easy to skimp on. It may be worthwhile to save up before buying something so you're not out the money on something you won't be happy with.

What do you want to use it for?

If you absolutely have to have one of these, I'd go with the Sigma. The canon is based on the 75-300 which has terrible optics.

 

[steve_hill4]

I'd just like a lens with a better zoom on it. I know that sounds bad, but I can't honestly think of anything else at this point. Since I've only just started, I'm happy to drop £100 on a lens I probably will only be happy with in the short term. Long term, (as money and need changes), I'll drop some more cash and get a better set of lenses and sell any I'm not happy with.

A lot of what I am currently doing though is tripod based, so it's reassuring to know I should be okay.

Thanks again.

 

[fall3n]

I'm just getting in to things as well, but from what I've learned, unless your shooting wildlife or something like that, you should buy a nicer lens with a shorter zoom and just get physically closer to your subject.

 

[miloblithe]

I'd buy the 50mm f/1.8.

 

[Abstract]

I think you'll be dissappointed with either. They both are slow which means that you'll either HAVE to use a tripod or will have to be in strong light and the quality of the optics aren't good. Regrettably, long lenses are not very easy to skimp on.

Actually, depending on what you're shooting, I'd disagree. With long lenses for shooting birds, then I agree, but if you're talking about long zooms to 200 mm or 300 mm, most people are perfectly fine using a slower lens, and the optics are decent enough.

If you want nicer bokeh, then you pay more for it. If you want a faster lens to shoot in somewhat low light, you pay more for it. However, if you just want a small lens with a long zoom, and you're not really concentrating on any specialised area, I'd happily recommend getting one of these zooms. Not everyone wants to carry the weight of a long zoom lens with a f/2.8 or f/4 max. aperture.

And the Sigma has a pretty good rep, I heard. I'd get that one. Also, I've never heard of the Canon 90-300 mm.

 

[Zeke]

Actually, depending on what you're shooting, I'd disagree. With long lenses for shooting birds, then I agree, but if you're talking about long zooms to 200 mm or 300 mm, most people are perfectly fine using a slower lens, and the optics are decent enough.

If you want nicer bokeh, then you pay more for it. If you want a faster lens to shoot in somewhat low light, you pay more for it. However, if you just want a small lens with a long zoom, and you're not really concentrating on any specialised area, I'd happily recommend getting one of these zooms. Not everyone wants to carry the weight of a long zoom lens with a f/2.8 or f/4 max. aperture.

And the Sigma has a pretty good rep, I heard. I'd get that one. Also, I've never heard of the Canon 90-300 mm.

The Canon has the same optics as the 75-300 USM which is reportedly terrible. What I was trying to say though is that for the most part, the performance of these lenses leaves some to be desired. I have the Canon 70-300 IS (which is also slow) but because it has IS it allows me to do a lot more than I could without it. I almost always have it on too because it's slow enough that there's just usually not enough light.

 

[Abstract]

People can obviously shoot using a ~70-300 mm lens, since so many people use them. And with regards to IS, people have shot photos before IS was ever invented.

I know it's not the best lens in the world, but it's likely worth buying the 70-300 mm for £100 just to give you that capability for now. His budget isn't high, so he doesn't have many other options. Also, he already said that he doesn't mind buying something more expensive later if his needs and money situation change.

And again, I'm suggesting the Sigma 70-300 mm DG Macro lens because it's supposed to be decent.

 

[Grimace]

The 75-300mm (and thus the 90-300mm) isn't a very good lens. I'd take the 70-200 f/4 any day over it.

 

[CptnJustc]

It's true that if your budget isn't that high, there's not all that much you can do, but it's also good to mention to a guy who's still learning that that range, with a slow, poor-optics lens, isn't nearly as useful as it might seem. There aren't all that many brightly lit, low-action shots that couldn't be served better by a more modest focal length. When it's necessary, it's necessary, but I'd consider other options as well (like saving for a nice cheap prime).

But I do have to admit, my second lens when I was learning was an old version of the Sigma. It was pretty lousy. I hear it's improved a bit since then. No experience with the Canon, but I can't imagine there would be a dramatic quality difference.

 

[Buschmaster]

I would go with the Sigma. It's a very nice lens and f/4 isn't so bad. Canon handles high ISO pretty well, right? Even at 300 you'll probably get a decent shot when it's light outside. It'll be tougher for indoor shots, but a 70-300 isn't really an indoor lens even if it is fast.

Unless you have some reason to shoot a 70-300 inside quite often, you'll be alright with this lens.

Does Canon have a anti-shake like Pentax (does Olympus, too???) has? That would help even more.