Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Pineapple Devil, Oct 24, 2005.
tough decision. whats your opinion?
You already know what I'll say.
The Sigma is the best bang for the buck, but the Canon is a tiny bit better optically, and USM is supposed to be a bit faster than HSM, but all this comes at a premium of $300-400.
I got the IS, but i generally don't bring a tripod. For $500, you can get a damn nice tripod if your shooting allows for it
non IS is a hair sharper but the IS is suppose to have a hair better AF performance
Canon. Hands down.
FYI: The rating at Fred Miranda for the Sigma is 9.0 and the Canon is 9.8. That, combined with real experience with the Canon lens compared to Sigma, and I'll tell you it's a damn lot more than a 'tiny bit' better than the Sigma
the IS was a hell of a lot slower shooting drifting versus the non IS. but it's situation dependant of course. however if you can afford the canon then get the canon, i went from the f/4 canon to the 2.8 non IS and never looked back.
Slower? How so?
I've been looking at the same damn thing. I sold my 75-300 USM IS and wanted to get a better lens. I think it'll end up depending on how much money I'm getting for a couple shoots I did over the past couple of weeks.
www.sigma4less.com seems to have a great deal on the sigma and when you add in a UV and CP filter it still comes a couple hundred below the canon. If I had the money I'd get the Canon IS version though along with a 1.4x converter
it is slower to focus on a moving subject.