Considering Canon 70-300 L to replace Sigma 100-300 f4

The title says it all. Currently got a Sigma 100-300 f4 EX and am giving consideration to buying the Canon 70-300L to take its place.  From what I can gather then the pros and cons of this are thus..

Pros

• Reviews of IQ and AF responsiveness on the Canon seem to be universally excellent and many seem to place it right at the top of the tree of L telephoto zooms in both regards
• 4 stop IS capability versus none at all
• Environmental sealing
• Gain 30mm on the short end
• 400g less to lug around and a smaller physical package

Cons

• Trade constant f4 for f5.6 at the long end
• Lose ability to use a TC, in any reliable sense at least (I do have a 1.4 for the Sigma but it gets used a tiny percentage of the time)
• Would need to purchase a tripod collar if I decide I need one (although it seems 3rd party versions are available at less than the ransom Canon want for their offering)

My typical applications have been birds/nature, zoos, airshows and occasional sport usage (generally daylight outdoors stuff). Currently i'm shooting with a 7D.

What specifically appeals with the 70-300? If the IQ feedback is true (although you never quite know how precisely objective information you see is) then it should improve on what i've got.  Although the AF is reliable and fairly swift most of the time with the Sigma, the 70-300 sounds almost bulletproof in most reviews. The smaller package and IS should hopefully alleviate the current penalties of almost an extra half-kilo of lens, gain back some bag space plus not having to lug a monopod about as often.  Cost shouldn't be too much of an issue, especially if the Sigma and TC are sold on.

Some people have suggested the 100-400L, although the IS is first gen, the pump zoom doesn't appeal and i've heard mixed things about them beyond the 300 mark anyway.  At least head to head tests are available for this and the 70-300L and the 70-300L seems to fair much better where the two overlap.

Given the Sigma was discontinued slightly before the 70-300L came to market then its hard to find direct comparisons of the two lenses.  I've only come across a couple of posts where people have owned both and they generally favoured the Canon unit.  So i'd be intrigued to know if anyone else has experience of both bits of glass and can pass comment?

Hi,

I have owned the following telephoto zooms, mainly for Wildife and general-telephoto-use:

1. 2004: Sigma 100-300 (replaced by 100-400).

2. 2005-2011: Canon 100-400, Canon 70-200 F4 IS

3. 2011- : Canon 70-300L. Replaced the above for weight, size and optics (sharp/contrasty).

If I was in your shoes, it would be a no brainer. I would replace the Sigma 100-300 for the Canon 70-300L, you will not regret it. Lower weight, IS and lovely optics at the loss of some f-stop. The f-stop loss can easily be compensated for by increased ISO (sensors are getting better and better).

Here is my roadmap:

Regards

Hassan

Lovely Africa Collection Phil.

I also love my 70-300L for Safaris, except that at times I wished for more reach (don't we always). Reach is compensated for crisp images that provide cropping flexibility.

Hassan

HAbba wrote:

Hi,

I have owned the following telephoto zooms, mainly for Wildife and general-telephoto-use:

1. 2004: Sigma 100-300 (replaced by 100-400).

2. 2005-2011: Canon 100-400, Canon 70-200 F4 IS

3. 2011- : Canon 70-300L. Replaced the above for weight, size and optics (sharp/contrasty).

If I was in your shoes, it would be a no brainer. I would replace the Sigma 100-300 for the Canon 70-300L, you will not regret it. Lower weight, IS and lovely optics at the loss of some f-stop. The f-stop loss can easily be compensated for by increased ISO (sensors are getting better and better).

Here is my roadmap:

Regards

Hassan

Thanks Hassan. Very useful insight, and oddly enough I think we have some crossover if shooting subject matter as i've done 1 Kenyan Safari as well as a recent trip to India.

Incidentally, how do you compare the IQ and AF performance between the Sigma and the 70-300L? Noticeable? Substantial? I've had the Sigma since 2006 (its one of the first with the updated DG coating) and its paid its way in that time. So its not that i'm replacing a lemon but rather ensuring what i'm considering is really a step forward.

Hi,

I used the older non-DG version on a 300D body in 2004. I mainly shot the lens on safari stopped down resting on a bean bag. Overall this lens is no lemon - if sigma update it with OS, I am sure it will sell very well.

With regards to af and image quality, I would say the af are somewhat similar. With the canon there is noticeable improvement in image quality. But where you get substantial improvement is in IS and size/weight, extra 30mm at the short-end.

I have spent more time shooting with the canon than the sigma - Kenya, India, Olympics and deer in UK. Overall as mentioned before go for it and I am sure you will enjoy the 70-300L.

One area that you may look into is in some situations the bokeh from both the 100-400 and 70-300 can be harsh (nisen-bokeh), I don't have enough experience with the sigma to have seen it on it. Here is a discussion thread on it:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/40306621

Don't let this put you off the lens.

Regards

Hassan

HAbba wrote:

Hi,

I used the older non-DG version on a 300D body in 2004. I mainly shot the lens on safari stopped down resting on a bean bag. Overall this lens is no lemon - if sigma update it with OS, I am sure it will sell very well.

With regards to af and image quality, I would say the af are somewhat similar. With the canon there is noticeable improvement in image quality. But where you get substantial improvement is in IS and size/weight, extra 30mm at the short-end.

I have spent more time shooting with the canon than the sigma - Kenya, India, Olympics and deer in UK. Overall as mentioned before go for it and I am sure you will enjoy the 70-300L.

One area that you may look into is in some situations the bokeh from both the 100-400 and 70-300 can be harsh (nisen-bokeh), I don't have enough experience with the sigma to have seen it on it. Here is a discussion thread on it:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/40306621

Don't let this put you off the lens.

Regards

Hassan

Thanks for all that. I've decided to take the plunge. Here's hoping it pans out.

bigfatron wrote:

Thanks for all that. I've decided to take the plunge. Here's hoping it pans out.

Good!  Let us know how it turns out. We have one used with our 7D (15-85 for wider zoom).

Best of luck, looking forward to your photos.

out of interest will you be selling your Sigma and for how much?

Hassan

here's some bird shots taken with the 70-300L 

Bird 1

Bird 2

Anhinga

Lovely shots - thanks for sharing.

Hassan

HAbba wrote:

Best of luck, looking forward to your photos.

out of interest will you be selling your Sigma and for how much?

Hassan

Once i'm happy with the 70-300L then I may well sell the Sigma (and the 1.4 TC) to cover some of the outlay.  Not 100% sure on price, I generally sell old kit via eBay. I believe about £450-£500 is about the going rate on a good day for the 100-300 f4 EX in good nick.

bigfatron wrote:

The title says it all. Currently got a Sigma 100-300 f4 EX and am giving consideration to buying the Canon 70-300L to take its place. From what I can gather then the pros and cons of this are thus..

Pros

• Reviews of IQ and AF responsiveness on the Canon seem to be universally excellent and many seem to place it right at the top of the tree of L telephoto zooms in both regards
• 4 stop IS capability versus none at all
• Environmental sealing
• Gain 30mm on the short end
• 400g less to lug around and a smaller physical package

Cons

• Trade constant f4 for f5.6 at the long end
• Lose ability to use a TC, in any reliable sense at least (I do have a 1.4 for the Sigma but it gets used a tiny percentage of the time)
• Would need to purchase a tripod collar if I decide I need one (although it seems 3rd party versions are available at less than the ransom Canon want for their offering)

My typical applications have been birds/nature, zoos, airshows and occasional sport usage (generally daylight outdoors stuff). Currently i'm shooting with a 7D.

What specifically appeals with the 70-300? If the IQ feedback is true (although you never quite know how precisely objective information you see is) then it should improve on what i've got. Although the AF is reliable and fairly swift most of the time with the Sigma, the 70-300 sounds almost bulletproof in most reviews. The smaller package and IS should hopefully alleviate the current penalties of almost an extra half-kilo of lens, gain back some bag space plus not having to lug a monopod about as often. Cost shouldn't be too much of an issue, especially if the Sigma and TC are sold on.

Some people have suggested the 100-400L, although the IS is first gen, the pump zoom doesn't appeal and i've heard mixed things about them beyond the 300 mark anyway. At least head to head tests are available for this and the 70-300L and the 70-300L seems to fair much better where the two overlap.

Given the Sigma was discontinued slightly before the 70-300L came to market then its hard to find direct comparisons of the two lenses. I've only come across a couple of posts where people have owned both and they generally favoured the Canon unit. So i'd be intrigued to know if anyone else has experience of both bits of glass and can pass comment?

Dont even think twice!  the Canon 70-300 L. is a fantastic lens, super sharp and terrific IS. My favorite lens actually.