Lenses

[zafra52]

I am considering buying a Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 DG for my Canon D30. Is it a suitable good lense? I already have an 18 - 55 and a 50 - 200 both Canon EF lenses. I want a lense I can use in most occasions without having to change lenses regularly, but of course I don't want to spend an arm and a leg. Any ideas?

[moz]

Do you mean the new 30D (8MP, 5fps), or the quite old D30 (3MP, 3fps)?

The Sigma is a superzoom (10x+) so you'll be paying for that rather than for image quality for the most part. The reviews seem unhappy with sharpness - comments at Fred Miranda for instance (that's normally a good site for lens reviews). If you like the lenses you have and are *only* after a longer zoom range, that lens will be a step up. But if you're looking at contrast, sharpness or other aspects of image quality you will probably not be very happy.

Since you have the 18-55 and the 55-200 you might be better off trading the 55-200 for a 70-300 (ish) lens from Canon or Sigma (or Tamron, etc) as there are some good choices there. I used to have a sigma 70-300 APO Macro II (Canon and Sigma each have several lenses in that range so you have to watch all the extra letters carefully). I liked that lens a lot and took some nice photos with it. I bought the Canon 70-200IS to replace it... 3x the weight, 6x the cost but a much better lens (you'd certainly hope so, given the cost).

[zafra52]

Thanks, I guess in the end you get what you pay for. I will have to save up and get a better lense. I remember reading in some web page also that Canon takes better pictures using its own lenses.

[moz]

Canon lenses at the high end are definitely better. Sigma lenses tend to need re-chipping if used with a newer model than the lens (I had to get my 18-50/2.8 done when I bought the 30D - but that was free). For cheap lenses I prefer Sigma, to be honest, I think many of their lenses are better than the Canon equivalent if Canon even make an equivalent. That 18-50... sure, the Canon one has IS but it's more than $1000 more expensive! And the 12-24 Canon don't have anything even close... a 14mm fixed lens or the 16-35.

Other people will feel differently, so you should definitely read around.

[philh]

Hi,

I have found you get what you pay for..but my experience has been that Sigma can be a cost effective way to put some good quality glass on a Canon (I also have the 30D). I have the Sigma 24-70 2.8 as a walk around and the Sigma 70-200 2.8 for telephoto. Both great lenses at a reasonable price. I have found the 70 -200 very sharp and is certainly my favourite lens (I like to take action sport and people candids). Although, the shots with the 2 times converta do soften it.

I have found that the lower f stop really makes a difference.

cheers

Phil

[zafra52]

Well, Moz, your website you provided me with was a great help and is making me think twice. Thanks guys for your help.