Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 DG OS ?? (1 Viewer)

Hey everyone!

Just starting my birding photography career on a rather low budget, so far I've got a Canon 40D body and am looking for a lens now...money not stretchable beyond 400pound really and right now I'm considering the Canon 70-300 IS USM or the newer Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG OS....from what I see the lowest price here for me is 330 euro for the sigma and 420 for the canon....so the 90Euro would be nice to save if there's not such a crazy difference between the two...and the sigma even has optical stabilization in it!

anyone has experience with both or at least the sigma (cause for that one there's not many reviews out there it seems)...importance of course lying on the higher areas of zoom, i.e. 250-300..... what do you think?

help would be greatly appreciated!

To be honest I wouldn't spend too much on a 70-300 as you'll find it too short for most birding situations and want something better.

Sigma's non Os (the APO version) would be a good bet as it's not too expensive. I notice the OS version doesn't have APO glass. I had the non APO version (not the new OS version) and it was very very soft over 250mm, I suspect this is the case with all cheap 70-300 zooms.

My wife has the Canon 70-300 IS and whilst it is a good lens it doesn't quite cut it for birding (unless you deal with a lot of tame or big birds). Unlike the Sigmas you can use it at 300mm though and it's still quite sharp. This lens is not that much cheaper than a Sigma 120-400............

So in a nutshell I wouldn't spend much on a 70-300, I'd get the Sigma APO 70-300 and save for a 400mm lens..........

I would agree with the previous post, the 70-300 apo is a super piece of kit, go for that, i have used this lens for a while and it is really good, get saving your pennies for a 400mm prime or 100-400is.
:t:B

Please check out the gallery of photos posted by KC Foggin (our Super Moderator extrordinaire) here: http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=243
I've noticed that most of her recent photos are taken with a Sigma 70-300. I had started with a Nikon 70-300 IS, but always found myself wanting more reach and so I moved up to a 150-500 (while lusting for a 500 f/4). However, I recently took the 70-300 out to the park and found that I was getting decent images and wasn't missing the weight of the longer lens. My discovery is that the more you shoot, the more you improve at technique / skill at approaching birds / recognition of appropriate light / recognition of impossible shots. These make longer reach a little less important.

gergrd said:

... My discovery is that the more you shoot, the more you improve at technique / skill at approaching birds / recognition of appropriate light / recognition of impossible shots. These make longer reach a little less important.

Click to expand...

Well said, Greg. Although, that 500 1:4 plus all of those newly found skills is what we all really want, isn't it... :-O

In my opinion, the canon ef-s 55-250mm is another option here. It's less expensive than your other options, albeit shorter, but that way it will make less of a dent in your budget. I think that's important because (for me, at least) I started out with a 450D and 55-250, and then started looking at budget telephotos. However, my budget magically grew until I could get the 400mm f5.6L. I realize that may not be possible for you, but if it is, I think you'll be extremely pleased with it. However, for the time being, let me again recommend the 55-250mm, since while it's short, if you can get close enough, it also has great IQ.

michael23 said:

I would agree with the previous post, the 70-300 apo is a super piece of kit, go for that, i have used this lens for a while and it is really good, get saving your pennies for a 400mm prime or 100-400is.
:t:B

Click to expand...

I agree the sigma is excellent for the very cheap price. An excellent all round natural history lens with a very good 'macro' facility. Many of my photos were taken with it. IMO rather too small for birds though.