Sigma SuperZoom or Canon?


CatMouse 18 115 Russian Federation
27 Nov 2004 11:38PM
Hi everebody,

We face to a "painful" choice between two lenses for film camera Canon 30V. At us in Russia they are sold under the following prices

1) Canon EF28-135mm, F3.5-5.6, Image Stabilizer, USM (256).
2) Sigma AF28-300mm, F3.5-6.3, Macro (136).

Certainly, it would be desirable to appear "cleverest" and to buy 2).
However, proceeding from the price, probably not all so is simple.
Probably, at a variant 2) there are significant optical distortions(such as CA, Barrel dist., vineting, etc.)?

Please, share impressions and help with a choice.

Many thanks,


Mr. Cat and Mrs. Mouse,

(aka Malik & Mary).
chris.maddock 20 3.7k United Kingdom
27 Nov 2004 11:47PM
There are several user reviews of the Sigma
here although they do seem to be a mixed bag.

Certainly the Canon is an excellent lens and the Image Stabilisation is very handy - however it is nearly twice the price and less than half the reach of the Sigma.

Personally I'd go for the Canon (if I didn't already have one) because I'm not convinced about these wide range "superzooms". All zooms are a compromise optically, and the greater the range surely means that the compromise is greater. However, that is only my personal view.

BTW, your price for the Canon is rather attractive - it's around 100 more here in the UK.

KRs
Chris
CatMouse 18 115 Russian Federation
28 Nov 2004 12:01AM
Thank you Chris!


Such difference in the price can means, what in Russia the "fake" is sold?



Malik & Mary.
chris.maddock 20 3.7k United Kingdom
28 Nov 2004 12:31AM
Not necessarily fake - probably a combination of different source (i.e not through Canon Europe) and different import and sales taxes.

KRs
Chris
CatMouse 18 115 Russian Federation
28 Nov 2004 1:01AM
Thank you very much Chris.

After reading the URL your provided, our conclusion is that SIGMA lenses is not so many "happy days and minutes" give us....
chris.maddock 20 3.7k United Kingdom
28 Nov 2004 1:09AM
Not all Sigma lenses, actually. Several are very good, but they tend to be the more expensive EX range rather than the more budget range.

KRs
Chris
samstan 17 127
28 Nov 2004 2:14AM
I can't comment on the Sigma, but the Canon is a cracking lens. I got mine from 7dayshop (now 299) pre added VAT days and it got through customs so I paid about 258 for it.
ahollowa 17 1.1k England
28 Nov 2004 5:31AM
I haven't got either of these lenses so can't comment directly. However I have got the Tamron 28-300 superzoom (which was twice the price you are quoting for the Sigma) and I am not happy with it. You have to stop down to F8 or F11 to stop it being over soft and I wasn't happy with the colours which seem harsh. I think that these super zooms are to much of a compromise (even the 1800 Canon 28-300L is apparently soft). The press reviews also say they are not perfect. If you have an over riding need for a 300mm and can only buy one lense then get the sigma if not go for the Canon everytime (out of the two you are thinking of there are other sigma options).

cheers

Al.
CatMouse 18 115 Russian Federation
28 Nov 2004 6:49AM
Sam, Alastair thanks for additional information.

Maybe you are right, Alastair. We will think about Canon...
Anyway, the one lense (max two lenses: wide and tele) is more preffer for us.

Malik & Mary.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.