sigma 70-300 dpo dg or canon ef 70-300 usm mkIII

[slick]

With all your help I have been able to decide on a camera, canon 400D. The lense for my budget is proving more difficult. I h ave narrowed it down to these two:

canon EF 70-300 USM MK III
Sigma 70-300 dpo dg

I have read reviews which contradict each other. Really starting to get confused. Are any of these really bad lenses. Any other suggestions before I decide. Found the salesmen in the camera shops not helpful at all. More interested in making a sale than finding the right lens for me. Would really appreciate some help. Just to mention, I will be using my equipment for nature photography.

Thanks again, you have all been so helpful!

[Pete W]

There is not much between them perrformance or price wise. I think the Canon has quicker focus but I think the Sigma is slightly better at 300.....

Go along to a shop and try both

[eeyore]

i'd go with the canon for the usm focusing asthe non hsm sigmas can be noisy and slow to focus - i had the canon for quite a while until i eventually replaced it with the 70-300 usm IS and found it to be a good lens for its price point.

[ollyk]

Originally Posted by eeyore

i'd go with the canon for the usm focusing asthe non hsm sigmas can be noisy and slow to focus - i had the canon for quite a while until i eventually replaced it with the 70-300 usm IS and found it to be a good lens for its price point.

Have you any examples Eeyore?

Don't forget the Sigma seems to have a very capable macro not sure about the Canon?
I was also looking at the Sigma 55 - 200, mainly because I don't think the 70 - 300 would compliment my 17 -70 (70 a bit short aparently) but also because it does seem to be a very capable and very cheap lens....

Decisions hey

[eeyore]

this is with the canon on a 300D



i would have thought that 70-300 was a perfect compliment to 17-70 but each to his own

i wouldnt put too much store in the macro capability of the sigma as none of the jack of all zooms offer true macro , imo you would be better off with a 50mm with extension tunes from a macro point of view

there is nothing inherently wrong with the sigma except the noisy focussing but imo the the canon is better.

[galanthus]

I bought the canon 400d and my first and only lens when I bought it was the canon 75-300 usm mkIII, it was a purchase I didn't regret. I've replaced this now with the canon 70-300 IS lens and several others, however, this was a great lens to start with.

[ollyk]

Originally Posted by eeyore

this is with the canon on a 300D
i would have thought that 70-300 was a perfect compliment to 17-70 but each to his own

I only suggested it wouldn't be ideal because aparently the Sigma 17-70 comes quite short of 70mm from what I have heard but I might be wrong!
I don't suppose the small gap would be missed though!

[hachidori]

Originally Posted by galanthus

I bought the canon 400d and my first and only lens when I bought it was the canon 75-300 usm mkIII, it was a purchase I didn't regret. I've replaced this now with the canon 70-300 IS lens and several others, however, this was a great lens to start with.

I also have the 75-300 and really want to replace it, as every shot is grainy, nomatter what I do! How is your 70-300 in comparison?

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by hachidori

I also have the 75-300 and really want to replace it, as every shot is grainy, nomatter what I do! How is your 70-300 in comparison?

I would be very suprised if the grainyness is due to the lense (the only proviso being that the lens is clean and fee of smears)- assuming that you havent set a high iso or similar i would suspect a sensor fault , or a metering issue

the 70-300IS is a good bit of kit but comes in at over 300 notes - my other 300mm is the canon 90-300mm usm (£179) which is nice and sharp and not the least grainy in performance

[hachidori]

Thanks! I never seem to have any problems with any of my other lenses. Perhaps I need to be less liberal with whacking up my ISO!!