Sigma 100-300 EX F4 vs Canon EF 70-300IS (non Do)

rer said:

Daniella said:

rer said:

I don't get a yellow cast with my Sigma 100-300. Colors look great
and it is nice and contrasty.

Click to expand...

it is more apparent in warmer light.. now you are in cold light or
overcast lght and your pic looks warm. of course if you shoot raw
and process, you can edit the warm out.

Click to expand...

Sorry not RAW it was shot jpg. If you have to edit yours out are
you gettint the correct white balance?

Click to expand...

i haven't used the 100-300 but i have used 70-200 and 120-300 from sigma side by side with canon's 70-200 and 300 2.8 at a night game and the sigma pics overall did have a nastier looking yellowishness to them (although perhaps some people's tastes would prefer, not mine for sure though), not extreme, but it really did seem to be there.

I have the Sigma and love it. I have had no problems with it. It is somewhat heavy. And if one is not use to the weight, it may take a little time to get use to. I can hand hold it with good results up to 300mm.

When I use the 1.4 converter, I really need some type of support. But with a converter, I still find it very sharp.

This is one of Sigmas best lens. Here are some shots with it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/homegro54/

I'll try to post some with the teleconverter when I have time.

rer said:

Daniella said:

rer said:

I don't get a yellow cast with my Sigma 100-300. Colors look great
and it is nice and contrasty.

Click to expand...

it is more apparent in warmer light.. now you are in cold light or
overcast lght and your pic looks warm. of course if you shoot raw
and process, you can edit the warm out.

Click to expand...

Sorry not RAW it was shot jpg. If you have to edit yours out are
you gettint the correct white balance?

Click to expand...

it is a lens color cast. they all have one. Canon are usualy colder, more natural looking and the Sigma often have that yellow cast. it cannot really be corrected on warm light because it is overall. some people like a warmer lens, I don't.

rer said:

rer said:

rer said:

I can't find anything about the Sigma that I don't like. Although,
I sometimes wish it were a little lighter but I've gotten used to
it.

Here is a sample crop 100% straight from the camera.

ISO 400 f4 179mm 1/1250 sec handheld



The lens is nice and sharp and I don't see a yellow cast. The
whites look white to me.

Click to expand...

your photos is warmer than what a Canon L lens produce..usualy but
you won't see the color cast in such cold lighting as much as in
warm lighting. if you shoot a 100-400 IS side by side with the
Sigma lens, you will see what I mean.

Click to expand...

I could shoot any pair of lenses side by side and see diferences.
I know your a die hard Canon fan and I have and like some Canon
lenses too. Here is a couple more shots and these are in warm
light. The bird pic I see yellow on the log it's sitting on by
that is because the log is painted yellow.





These were both shot in jpg. and yes they were processed but not
for a color cast. only USM and some contrast if needed.

rer said:

rer said:

I know Daniella got a bad copy of this lens but you can get a bad
copy of any lens (even Canon).

Click to expand...

sure you can.. seem that Sigma have a bit more problem on QC than
Canon though.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that. I own 2 Sigma Lenses and 1 Tamron and all
three are first copies and are great lenses. Bad copies do happen
but I've heard of bad Canon lenses too.

rer said:

rer said:

I would say if you need the wider end go with the 80-200 2.8L. If
you use the longer end more go with the Sigma. As long as you
don't get a bad copy (as Daniella did) you can't go wrong.

Click to expand...

no doubt my copy was pretty bad but I think the warm color cast is
there even in yours.

Click to expand...

I don't see a yellow cast in my pic. For $600 I love this lens and
it's a great deal. It works beutifully for outdoor sports. I'm
sorry you had such a bad experience with this lens. I havn't and
there are quite a few others that havn't either.

rer said:

rer said:

Ron

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

bronxbombers said:

rer said:

Daniella said:

rer said:

I don't get a yellow cast with my Sigma 100-300. Colors look great
and it is nice and contrasty.

Click to expand...

it is more apparent in warmer light.. now you are in cold light or
overcast lght and your pic looks warm. of course if you shoot raw
and process, you can edit the warm out.

Click to expand...

Sorry not RAW it was shot jpg. If you have to edit yours out are
you gettint the correct white balance?

Click to expand...

i haven't used the 100-300 but i have used 70-200 and 120-300 from
sigma side by side with canon's 70-200 and 300 2.8 at a night game
and the sigma pics overall did have a nastier looking yellowishness
to them (although perhaps some people's tastes would prefer, not
mine for sure though), not extreme, but it really did seem to be
there.

Click to expand...

it is there and it's ok in normal light but when you get warmer light that does make a difference to me. when I moved to Canon L lenses that was the first thing I noticed. curiously my Sigma 105mm macro was very cold in cast.

it is more easy to see this when you did like you did and shoot Canon and Sigma lenses together with the same light.

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

You would have to pry my Sigma 100-300 f/4 out of my dead hands. One of the best outdoor soccer lenses I have / have tried.

I've been using the 100-300 for about 8 months now (15000 shots) and it is a darned fine sports lens. It is not a birding lens. First of all its a zoom, and no birder worth their salt would use a zoom for birding. Daniella, you know that. So it didn't work for birding, get over it. It is excellent for soccer/football/baseball/softball/track&field/tennis/golf/cross country, all outside of course. It is my one lens, more than any other, that has payed for itself AND made lots of money. It is the affordable one camera solution for daytime sports, has fast AF and good color (yellow cast? I don't see no stinkin' yellow cast!). It's built like a tank, takes a 1.4x TC very well and comes with a case and lens hood.

Some pics:
wide open with 1.4tc:



wide open with 1.4tc, shot into the sun:



wide open on a late fall afternoon:



wide open on a late fall afternoon, with a 1.4tc:



Feel free to check out my sports galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/iangreyphotography/sports

All of the daytime sports, with rare exception (like the occasional night game) are shot with the 100-300 f/4. Hope this helps.

Ian

--
bughunter
Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/iangreyphotography

Gear in profile

'The will to disbelieve is the strongest deterrent to wider horizons.' -Hans Holzer
'It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got.' -Sheryl Crow

Ian,

which 1.4 tc do you use with the 100-300? did you compare then you are using to other offerings?

Thanks,

Erez

oops, sorry for typo (too bad i cannot re-edit a post once its there)
Ian,

which 1.4 tc do you use with the 100-300 and did you compare a few tc's before settling on this one?

Thanks
Erez

Erez_Katz said:

Ian,
which 1.4 tc do you use with the 100-300? did you compare then you
are using to other offerings?

Thanks,

Erez

Click to expand...

--

Hi Erez,

I use the Sigma DG version of the 1.4tc. It's great with the 100-300 during the day but it has AWFUL ghosting with my 135 L at night games. So much so, that i don't use it at night anymore. I'm planining on buying a canon 1.4tc .

Best of luck Erez,

Ian
--
bughunter
Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/iangreyphotography

Gear in profile

'The will to disbelieve is the strongest deterrent to wider horizons.' -Hans Holzer
'It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got.' -Sheryl Crow