Sigma lenses...?

[stevo6]

I'm looking to upgrade my lenses. Currently have the Canon EF 18-55 "kit" lens (with 300d) and a Canon 70-300 USM (fairly old).

I'm considering:

Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC
Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO DG Macro

Any thoughts? Should I bother? Should I spend more?

TIA

[simpo two]

I see that you've gone for a fast w/a zoom but a standard telephoto - any reason for that?

[Stevo6]

Er cost!

I'd love a 2.8 tele-zoom, but can't really justify the expense (c£600). It's a pity there's nothing in between...

[simpo two]

Stevo6 said:

Er cost!

So you rather answered your own question then!

[Stevo6]

Yes... but I suppose I'm wondering if it's a worthwhile upgrade from the Canon 70-300, or if I should be waiting/saving for an f/2.8...

[poah]

I have the sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM and the 30mm f1.4 HSM can't fault them. would like the 18-50 f2.8 too.

[_dobbo_]

I bought a Sigma 70-300 DO APO f4.5/5.6 blahdey blah lens when I first got my camera. I've only ever used it in anger once, and that was on a bright sunny day, and allowed me to get some great shots.

Problem is it's slow in both the fact that 5.6 doesn't give you much options in low light, and the focusing is very slow and very noisy.

In short i hate it, and it's going to be replaced with a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 as soon as I get around to buying one.

I guess it depends what sort of photography you are planning on doing, but for me the 70-300 is too much of a compromise. And it looks ugly too. Did I mention I don't like it?


For sale, one Nikon fit Sigma 70-300, only used once, as new, a lovely lens you won't regret it I promise.

[V6GTO]

I've got a Sigma 12-24 DG HSM and can't find a thing wrong with the images it gives.



Martin.

>> Edited by V6GTO on Saturday 29th October 18:53

[simpo two]

Stevo6 said:

Yes... but I suppose I'm wondering if it's a worthwhile upgrade from the Canon 70-300, or if I should be waiting/saving for an f/2.8...

I wouldn't have said that the Sigma is an upgrade from Canon. Value-wise the Sigmas make more sense and you'd have to be very fussy to notice any difference in the results, from what I hear.

I think of the 70-300 'f/average' and 70-200 f/2.8 as doing different tasks. For airshows, motor racing and general purpose stuff in daylight the 70-300 has more reach and shallow DOF, if you want it, comes as standard at those magnifications. The 70-200 is better for low-light situations such as parties, anything indoors and places where you need some reach but can't use flash. The big aperture also helps the AF get a grip in low light.

V6GTO said:

I've got a Sigma 12-24 DG HSM and can't find a thing wrong with the images it gives.

I can; it only takes photos of turquoise Nobles