Every Miles A Memory
Expedition Leader
I'll be interested to hear you feedback of the Canon 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L after this trip.
We've shot with it for almost 10 years now and I have a serious love hate relationship with it. I love the versatility of it and it's the lens I usually grab if I'm only bringing one lens, but I seriously hate it's weight. The push pull mechanism can get very sticky and it a dust sucker if you're in that sort of environment. It's slow at focusing, but can produce some amazing images.
Because of all of these gripes, I just ordered a Sigma 18-250 f/3.5-6.3. for a few different reasons to compare it to our Canon. I also read a ton of reviews on the Tamron 18-270, but having had a Tamron lens before and selling it quickly due to the awful noise it makes while trying, and I use the term TRYING to focus very seriously, I went towards the Sigma very easily. We have multiple Sigma lenses and they've withstood some serious abuse. They're pretty fast, quiet and you can save thousands when it comes to comparing them to their Canon equivalents.
For one, the sigma is much smaller, drawing much less attention to the shooter when using the lens as a walk-around, all-around lens. It's hard to be out in public places while traveling with the Canon 28-300 and not have someone comment on it. I'm sure with the gear and trucks you'll be drawing enough attention already, so that might not be a big deal, but that's just something to think about. I love the white lenses of Canon, but they stick out like a topless woman when shooting in public places. The Sigma is standard issue black, and much smaller diameter, so it just looks like a normal lens.
The biggest thing to compare besides the price, is the Canon weighs a whopping 1670g and the Sigma weighs a scant 470g. That's a HUGE difference when thinking about carrying for long periods of time. Hanging 3.6lbs of lens off your neck or around your shoulder gets old very fast. That 1DX isn't a runway model by any means
Both are Image Stabilized so that's a toss up and with the high ISO capabilities of that 1DX, you can always just pump the ISO up to make up for the f/6.3 at the tele-photo end.
The Canon wins with 50mm more in total reach on the Tele-Photo end, but the Sigma wins with 10mm wider at the bottom end. With the new bodies being able to crop in so tightly, I'd rather have wider than longer and you'll always be able to do some editing after the fact to crop in tighter if need be.
The Canons minimum focusing distance is 2.3ft, or 27.6 inches. The Sigma will focus much closer with a minimum focusing distance of 13.8 inches
The Sigma has a 62mm filter size compared to the Canon's 77mm size. Since the other lens you'll be carrying will the the Canon 16-35 which has that huge 82mm front ring, you'll save more weight and cost with having smaller filters to carry around for the Sigma, saving more space in the Pelican. Not to mention the Canon will take up much more space inside that case than the Sigma will.
And then there is the price. The Canon comes in at a whopping $2689 where the Sigma will only put you back $349. I actually found mine on eBay used and won the bid for only $150. We buy all our stuff used since you save so much money.
I know you still have time before you're leaving, so I thought I'd point all these differences out so you have something to think about. I don't work for Sigma and have no ties to them, I just considered that I was doing all this research for myself since I hate lugging that Canon around, that it might help ease some space and weight for your upcoming trip.
Let me know what you think and I'll be sure to post up a comparison once I get the Sigma in the mail and go out shooting with it. All this might be a waste of my time if it produces shoddy images
We've shot with it for almost 10 years now and I have a serious love hate relationship with it. I love the versatility of it and it's the lens I usually grab if I'm only bringing one lens, but I seriously hate it's weight. The push pull mechanism can get very sticky and it a dust sucker if you're in that sort of environment. It's slow at focusing, but can produce some amazing images.
Because of all of these gripes, I just ordered a Sigma 18-250 f/3.5-6.3. for a few different reasons to compare it to our Canon. I also read a ton of reviews on the Tamron 18-270, but having had a Tamron lens before and selling it quickly due to the awful noise it makes while trying, and I use the term TRYING to focus very seriously, I went towards the Sigma very easily. We have multiple Sigma lenses and they've withstood some serious abuse. They're pretty fast, quiet and you can save thousands when it comes to comparing them to their Canon equivalents.
For one, the sigma is much smaller, drawing much less attention to the shooter when using the lens as a walk-around, all-around lens. It's hard to be out in public places while traveling with the Canon 28-300 and not have someone comment on it. I'm sure with the gear and trucks you'll be drawing enough attention already, so that might not be a big deal, but that's just something to think about. I love the white lenses of Canon, but they stick out like a topless woman when shooting in public places. The Sigma is standard issue black, and much smaller diameter, so it just looks like a normal lens.
The biggest thing to compare besides the price, is the Canon weighs a whopping 1670g and the Sigma weighs a scant 470g. That's a HUGE difference when thinking about carrying for long periods of time. Hanging 3.6lbs of lens off your neck or around your shoulder gets old very fast. That 1DX isn't a runway model by any means
Both are Image Stabilized so that's a toss up and with the high ISO capabilities of that 1DX, you can always just pump the ISO up to make up for the f/6.3 at the tele-photo end.
The Canon wins with 50mm more in total reach on the Tele-Photo end, but the Sigma wins with 10mm wider at the bottom end. With the new bodies being able to crop in so tightly, I'd rather have wider than longer and you'll always be able to do some editing after the fact to crop in tighter if need be.
The Canons minimum focusing distance is 2.3ft, or 27.6 inches. The Sigma will focus much closer with a minimum focusing distance of 13.8 inches
The Sigma has a 62mm filter size compared to the Canon's 77mm size. Since the other lens you'll be carrying will the the Canon 16-35 which has that huge 82mm front ring, you'll save more weight and cost with having smaller filters to carry around for the Sigma, saving more space in the Pelican. Not to mention the Canon will take up much more space inside that case than the Sigma will.
And then there is the price. The Canon comes in at a whopping $2689 where the Sigma will only put you back $349. I actually found mine on eBay used and won the bid for only $150. We buy all our stuff used since you save so much money.
I know you still have time before you're leaving, so I thought I'd point all these differences out so you have something to think about. I don't work for Sigma and have no ties to them, I just considered that I was doing all this research for myself since I hate lugging that Canon around, that it might help ease some space and weight for your upcoming trip.
Let me know what you think and I'll be sure to post up a comparison once I get the Sigma in the mail and go out shooting with it. All this might be a waste of my time if it produces shoddy images
