Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Sigma 28-200 vs. Sigma 28-300

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    chrisheathcote
    chrisheathcote e2 Member 7240 forum postschrisheathcote vcard United Kingdom
    13 Dec 2006 - 9:58 AM

    Hope you can all help. Looking to buy additional lenses for my new toy with my Xmas money (upto about 200). I have been looking through the shops and reviews and quite like the look of of the Sigma 28-200 F3.5-5.6 to give me that extra length if needed. I mainly shoot landscapes etc, but when on holiday have the usual family pics and also thinking about some nature pics, living in the Peak District there's plenty of that.
    My Question is has anyone tried or got either the 28-200 or 28-300 F3.5-6.3 because I am unsure whether to go for the extra zoom on the 28-300 or is the quality better on the shorter zoom. Or are ther eany others better (I know there is but unfortunately I am on a budget).
    A bit long winded but I think I got there in the end.
    Thanks Chris

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    13 Dec 2006 - 9:58 AM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    Duncan_E
    Duncan_E  7199 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
    13 Dec 2006 - 12:33 PM

    I'd go for the short range one out of the two. I have a Sigma 28-300mm and the quality isn't that good, particularly at the 300mm end. In fact i dont use it anymore - i have a 400mm prime lens for telephoto stuff and a short telephoto zoom for closer stuff. To be honest, i wouldn't go for the 28-200 either.

    The bigger the zoom range, the worse the quality, and the higher the minimum f stop at the telephoto end. f/6.3 at 300mm is no fun trying to get enough shutter speed to avoid shake.

    sidaorb
    sidaorb  83857 forum posts England2 Constructive Critique Points
    13 Dec 2006 - 12:37 PM

    Chris,

    Looked at the same scenario last year and eventually opted for the 28-200mm after a few comments I'd come across on the quality of the 28-300mm.
    Used the 28-200 mm lens a few times and it always produced really good results. Now surplus to requirements as I've got myself some 'L' glass :o)

    Carl

    chrisheathcote
    chrisheathcote e2 Member 7240 forum postschrisheathcote vcard United Kingdom
    13 Dec 2006 - 1:39 PM

    Any other suggestions gratefully received

    BOB S
    BOB S  122622 forum posts
    13 Dec 2006 - 2:24 PM

    For the 28-300 see HERE for the 28-200 see HERE

    BOB

    javam
    javam e2 Member 91083 forum postsjavam vcard United Kingdom19 Constructive Critique Points
    13 Dec 2006 - 6:13 PM

    Of the two I would go for the 28-200. I had a 28-300 for my Pentax and it was ok, but it is not 300mm at the 300 end more like 250 and has already been said the smaller the multiplier the better.

    To be honest I would avoid super zooms in general though. If you mainly do landscapes I would focus on getting a good lens for the wide end and then look at the tele end when funds allow.

    What lenses do you have at the moment?

    chrisheathcote
    chrisheathcote e2 Member 7240 forum postschrisheathcote vcard United Kingdom
    14 Dec 2006 - 1:40 PM

    Still early days so I've only got an Canon 18-55 USM. Hopefully dependant on what Santa brings, getting a longer zoom and Canon 50mm F1.8

    javam
    javam e2 Member 91083 forum postsjavam vcard United Kingdom19 Constructive Critique Points
    14 Dec 2006 - 2:13 PM

    Although you just have the kit lens, I would be suprised if the Sigmas offered any improvement in quality at the wide end.

    If I was in your situation, I would probably look at the canon 90-300mm (184 on warehouse express0 or the 55-200mm (179). I would be very suprised if they were not optically superior to the sigma options.

    cambirder
    cambirder  107202 forum posts England
    14 Dec 2006 - 2:21 PM

    I would aslo go with the shorter zoom range, also check out the Tamron AF 28-200mm f3.8-5.6 XR Di ASP IF Macro.

    chrisheathcote
    chrisheathcote e2 Member 7240 forum postschrisheathcote vcard United Kingdom
    14 Dec 2006 - 6:46 PM

    Not really been looking for another wide lens, but now thinking might put money towards better short zoom and get a cheaper 55-200 eg tamron 55-200 and see how much use it gets. poss something around 28-125 range.

    Also from what your saying am I best sticking with canon lenses rather than the cheaper independants?

    javam
    javam e2 Member 91083 forum postsjavam vcard United Kingdom19 Constructive Critique Points
    14 Dec 2006 - 11:51 PM


    Quote: Also from what your saying am I best sticking with canon lenses rather than the cheaper independants?

    I would not go that far. I am just saying you are better off with a 3-4x zoom over a 7-10x.

    I have a sigma 10-20mm and a 180mm macro and they are both excellent.

    sidaorb
    sidaorb  83857 forum posts England2 Constructive Critique Points
    15 Dec 2006 - 7:46 AM

    Chris,

    If you are thinking 28-125 range then I would suggest saving up a little more and going for the Canon 28-135 IS. Stunning lens.

    Carl

    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.