Posted by Dave Cordery on October 26, 2007 at 1:39 AM
If you had a choice between a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS or a Sigma 500mm f4.5 for nature photography what would you choose and why?
Dave
Posted by Rene de Heer on October 26, 2007 at 3:03 AM
The Sigma 300/2.8 IS is a superb lens and tack sharp with and without converters and ofcourse you have the added bonus of IS. This comes at a price, new around £3000 but if you are lucky you can get nice ones secondhand, i believe there was one poosted recently on this forum.
The Sigma 500/4.5 is a great lens at a great price. No image stablizier, compact and optically very good. Adding a converter can be problematic as they AF will become more erratic. You can get them second hand for approx 1600-1800 STG.
Both lenses are an excellent choice but i would say the advantage goes to the Canon.
Rene de Heer
I would take the canon everytime(and i have owned both), focus is better at every point, with and without teleconverters, as Rene points out the 500 4.5 is a bit dodgy with converters although it is ok on it's own, plus the canon is 2.8 which comes in very handy sometimes.
Cheers
Brian
Posted by Andy Astbury on October 26, 2007 at 4:00 AM
I've never had a canon 300mm so I can't comment on it's sharpness, but I would have thought the focal length might be a bit problematic for general work as it's just not long enough - though with extension tubes a 300mm 2.8 can deliver some awesome close-up performance on dragons and the like.
400mm is the shortest I would go for - the f5.6 from Canon is the best bit of glass I've handled in years..
I used to own a Sig 500mm f4.5 - and to a big extent I wish I still did as it is a stunning lens (well at least the one I had was) but sadly it had to go to offset the purchase of the 300-800 - it was tack sharp and easily hand-holdable for BiF shots especially of larger birds.
The only thing I would advise you is that the Sig 500 doesn't take tc's very well at all - aswell as the AF stopping (unless you tape the pins) I was never happy with the IQ with either Sig or Nikon converters.
I suppose it all depends what you want to photograph
Well not quite what you've asked but just to add another option to the equation, but for such a special and one off purchase such as that I'd buy neither and just save a little while longer.
I'm assuming you already have the £3K available that the Canon 300mm f2.8 costs and in that case for an extra £600 you can buy a brand new Canon 500mm f4,which IMHO would be a much better bet if wanted specifically for wildlife.
In the meantime I'd constantly check the secondhand market, when with a bit of luck, a Canon 500mm may possibly become available, and within your present budget too.
Personally if I had to make a choice between the Canon 300mm f2.8 and the Sigma 500mm I'd go for the Canon 300mm particularly if your intented use lies with a far greater subject range than just birds. However I'd much rather keep the money towards the Canon 500mm f4 even if it means waiting several months longer.
Given your quoted options the 300mm F2.8 with a 1.4x and 2x converter eventually. With this lense and a Canon 2x the results are still of quality.
That said, althought not an optin given, if you can do the 500mm then it is better again.
T
Posted by Paul Gibbs on October 26, 2007 at 5:05 AM
From personal experiance of both lenses, i'd say, it depends.
If you shoot more than birds the 300mm IS is stunning, if you are likely to be using it with a TC ALL the time (like i did) i'd get the 500mm, as i found the AF better, than the 300 with a 2x
Well I can't help you with the Canon lenses, but I will just point out two things if you've constantly got a TC on your primary lens then you have purchased the wrong lens.
My Sigma 500 is much much better sharpness wise than my 300 F2.8 nikkor with telly converters fitted either 1.7 or two times I would say with a 1.4 they are about the same, for wildlife there's no such thing as too longer lens especially for birds.
Phillip.
Posted by szekiat chan on October 26, 2007 at 6:34 AM
definitely go for the sigma i'd say. Its nearly half the price if not more (I sold one a while back at £1.2k) used against at least £2.4k for a used canon and the quality is excellent. I find with 500mm, u don't really need to use TCs much and if u do, you'd just have to stop down quite a bit since at 700mm or 1000mm, the DOF is just too shallow... At F11 and above, the sigma is perfectly useable for closeups!
Posted by Jeroen Stel on October 27, 2007 at 11:33 AM
I think if you shoot birds and wildlife the 500mm F4.5 is the lens to go for. I have had a 300mm F2.8 (Sigma) and sold it to buy a 500mm F4.5 and never had a day of regret! I used the 500mm F4.5 with a Soligor 1.7 Teleconverter and it worked very smooth on my Canon 20D. On my Mark 1 Series camera's however it did not work very smooth with converters and the only converter that worked with the Sigma 500mm F4.5 and the 1D series was an old version Tamron 1.4 but it did not go as smooth as the Soligor did on my Canon 20D.
So it all depends on what you are going to shoot and what camera you use...
If you like to shoot Macro, and close range stuff the 300mm is your lens and if you go for birds and wildlife the 500mm is superb.
The only fifference between the Canon and the Sigma in my opinion is the saturation of the lens wich is stronger with the Canon, but this can easily be fixed in PS.
Discussion
9 repliesDave
The Sigma 500/4.5 is a great lens at a great price. No image stablizier, compact and optically very good. Adding a converter can be problematic as they AF will become more erratic. You can get them second hand for approx 1600-1800 STG.
Both lenses are an excellent choice but i would say the advantage goes to the Canon.
Rene de Heer
Cheers
Brian
400mm is the shortest I would go for - the f5.6 from Canon is the best bit of glass I've handled in years..
I used to own a Sig 500mm f4.5 - and to a big extent I wish I still did as it is a stunning lens (well at least the one I had was) but sadly it had to go to offset the purchase of the 300-800 - it was tack sharp and easily hand-holdable for BiF shots especially of larger birds.
The only thing I would advise you is that the Sig 500 doesn't take tc's very well at all - aswell as the AF stopping (unless you tape the pins) I was never happy with the IQ with either Sig or Nikon converters.
I suppose it all depends what you want to photograph
I'm assuming you already have the £3K available that the Canon 300mm f2.8 costs and in that case for an extra £600 you can buy a brand new Canon 500mm f4,which IMHO would be a much better bet if wanted specifically for wildlife.
In the meantime I'd constantly check the secondhand market, when with a bit of luck, a Canon 500mm may possibly become available, and within your present budget too.
Personally if I had to make a choice between the Canon 300mm f2.8 and the Sigma 500mm I'd go for the Canon 300mm particularly if your intented use lies with a far greater subject range than just birds. However I'd much rather keep the money towards the Canon 500mm f4 even if it means waiting several months longer.
That said, althought not an optin given, if you can do the 500mm then it is better again.
T
If you shoot more than birds the 300mm IS is stunning, if you are likely to be using it with a TC ALL the time (like i did) i'd get the 500mm, as i found the AF better, than the 300 with a 2x
My Sigma 500 is much much better sharpness wise than my 300 F2.8 nikkor with telly converters fitted either 1.7 or two times I would say with a 1.4 they are about the same, for wildlife there's no such thing as too longer lens especially for birds.
Phillip.
So it all depends on what you are going to shoot and what camera you use...
If you like to shoot Macro, and close range stuff the 300mm is your lens and if you go for birds and wildlife the 500mm is superb.
The only fifference between the Canon and the Sigma in my opinion is the saturation of the lens wich is stronger with the Canon, but this can easily be fixed in PS.
Good luck with your choice!
Greetings,
Jeroen Stel