Sigma lens opinion

I am an amateur photographer and am looking at Sigma 70-300mm APO DG
for Canon 350D. I do not intend to blow up the photos or worried about
absolute perfection. Will I be better off gong for the DG version only
which is half the price?

"AaronW" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
I am an amateur photographer and am looking at Sigma 70-300mm APO DG
for Canon 350D. I do not intend to blow up the photos or worried about
absolute perfection. Will I be better off gong for the DG version only
which is half the price?

Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS is better. If they make a same lens without IS,
it will not be much more expensive than the Sigma, but the Canon will
still be optically better than the Sigma. IS is expensive, but it is
very useful on tele lens. You have to pay for IS in lenses, unless you
get AS in camera from Sony or Pentax.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

Not sure what you are basing this on but I suggest you test the Sigma DG APO
70-300mm before you write it off, it is certainly one of the lenses that
Sigma has gotten right and is nice and sharp.

Pete D wrote:
"AaronW" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
I am an amateur photographer and am looking at Sigma 70-300mm APO DG
for Canon 350D. I do not intend to blow up the photos or worried about
absolute perfection. Will I be better off gong for the DG version only
which is half the price?

Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS is better. If they make a same lens without IS,
it will not be much more expensive than the Sigma, but the Canon will
still be optically better than the Sigma. IS is expensive, but it is
very useful on tele lens. You have to pay for IS in lenses, unless you
get AS in camera from Sony or Pentax.

Not sure what you are basing this on but I suggest you test the Sigma DG APO
70-300mm before you write it off, it is certainly one of the lenses that
Sigma has gotten right and is nice and sharp.

According to PhotoZone's test, the Canon's resolution is 1746/1695
(center/border) vs the Sigma's 1676/955, at 300mm.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...56is/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._456/index.htm

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

"AaronW" wrote in message
ups.com...
Pete D wrote:
"AaronW" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
I am an amateur photographer and am looking at Sigma 70-300mm APO DG
for Canon 350D. I do not intend to blow up the photos or worried about
absolute perfection. Will I be better off gong for the DG version only
which is half the price?

Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS is better. If they make a same lens without IS,
it will not be much more expensive than the Sigma, but the Canon will
still be optically better than the Sigma. IS is expensive, but it is
very useful on tele lens. You have to pay for IS in lenses, unless you
get AS in camera from Sony or Pentax.

Not sure what you are basing this on but I suggest you test the Sigma DG
APO
70-300mm before you write it off, it is certainly one of the lenses that
Sigma has gotten right and is nice and sharp.

According to PhotoZone's test, the Canon's resolution is 1746/1695
(center/border) vs the Sigma's 1676/955, at 300mm.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...56is/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._456/index.htm

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr


I meant against the NON IS Canon lens, the IS lens had better be better at
three or four times the price but the Sigma is still a good performer
although I am surprised the performance is as bad as stated at the longer
sized, I have seen some awesome photos from this lens, perhaps the quality
of the Sigma lenses still does vary a bit, it is also possible the
performance varies on different cameras as I had only seen shots from a D70
and from a Pentax DS! Cheers.

Pete D wrote:
"AaronW" wrote in message
ups.com...
Pete D wrote:
"AaronW" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
I am an amateur photographer and am looking at Sigma 70-300mm APO DG
for Canon 350D. I do not intend to blow up the photos or worried about
absolute perfection. Will I be better off gong for the DG version only
which is half the price?

Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS is better. If they make a same lens without IS,
it will not be much more expensive than the Sigma, but the Canon will
still be optically better than the Sigma. IS is expensive, but it is
very useful on tele lens. You have to pay for IS in lenses, unless you
get AS in camera from Sony or Pentax.

Not sure what you are basing this on but I suggest you test the Sigma DG
APO
70-300mm before you write it off, it is certainly one of the lenses that
Sigma has gotten right and is nice and sharp.

According to PhotoZone's test, the Canon's resolution is 1746/1695
(center/border) vs the Sigma's 1676/955, at 300mm.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...56is/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._456/index.htm

I meant against the NON IS Canon lens

Currently there is no Canon 70-300/4-5.6 non-IS.

the IS lens had better be better at three or four times the price

As I said, IS is expensive. But if they make a same lens without IS, it
would be much cheaper, close to the price of the Sigma. But the optical
performance of an otherwise same non-IS lens will be at least the same
as the IS version, possibly even better, thus also better than the
Sigma, but at a similar price.

Again, IS is very useful especially on long lens. So it is worthwhile
to pay for IS, unless you have AS in camera from Sony or Pentax.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr