I'll say up front that I've never used the Sigma lens, but these are my
observations from looking at its specs versus the Canon lens:
Although it does offer more reach, it:
has no wide angle capability
is 36% heavier. It weighs over a pound more (4.1 vs 3.0)
is HUGE! - over twice as long as the Canon lens (13.7" vs 6.6")
uses 85mm filters, which are more expensive and rarer than the Canon's 72mm
has a minimum focus of approximately 10 feet, versus 24" for the Canon
is slower at both ends (3.5/4.0 and 5.6/6.3)
IMHO, if I'm gonna have a lens that's iffy on autofocus at the long end
anyway (at f/6.3), I'd take the smaller, lighter, faster lens and a 1.4x TC,
giving me the same reach for those few times I need more than 350. Granted,
it costs 50% more, but I think this is one of those times that you get what
you pay for. And the 35mm short end means that I add a 20-35 and have
everything covered, at least in good light.
I do own the 70-200 2.8L and a couple of TC's, and for my present kit I
probably wouldn't buy either of the longer zooms. My next long lens will be
either the 300 f/4 prime or the 100-400 IS as soon as they release the non
push-pull version ;^)
Oh, and one more VERY important thing that you should consider carefully
when deciding between the Canon and the Sigma! The Sigma is just another
black lens........
;^)
Tom P.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 10:10 AM
Subject: EOS Canon 35-350L vs Sigma 50-500?
> Hi All,
> Did anyone have a chance to compare Canon 35-350L and Sigma 50-500 lenses?
> At $1000 Sigmas seems like a good choice - cheaper and large range. Any
> comments? Thought? Also, how about 35-350L vs 70/80-200 2.8L with TCs?
> George
>
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
