I noticed a nice difference in sharpness and clarity. And the Canon lens focuses soooooo much faster than the Sigma. If you can afford the Canon, go for it.

 

-----signature-----

Oops I misread

 

-----signature-----

So very true. I still have a Sigma for the Minolta line of camera still in the box. It was only used twice and I hated it. Much louder, slower, and was darker with not as much clarity and this was 20 years ago so I would have thought they would have improved by now. :/

 

-----signature-----

The Sigma 70-300mm isn't bad. My biggest annoyance was the super slow focusing. But the Canon is so much better in every way.

For $200 you can't beat the Sigma. But the $200 lens can't touch the $500 lens. You get what you pay for.

 

-----signature-----

That is the one I had and at the 300 it was too dark and I swear I could see some fringing due to a slightly inferior glass used. Of course this was 20 years ago and made for a different camera so maybe it has improved a little since then.

As a rank amateur beginner I would say the Sigma is okay (like for a child just learning in case they decide they don't want to be a photographer afterall) due to its price.

 

-----signature-----