70-300

[crazee horse]

hi everyone, ive just sold my sigma 70-300 dg macro to help fund my next lens. the problem i had with the sigma was it was a little soft at full zoom, and had no I.S.. now ive been looking at the canon 70-300 is usm as an upgrade, but this isnt far off the price of a 70-200 L usm. is the canon 70-300 worth the money as an upgrade or should i change lens size altogether bite the bullet and go "L"? i dont have a great deal to play with probably about £400

i like to shoot mainly action and wildlife. so i want a fast focus etc, but also I.S. Question is do i really need I.S. Is I.S. really that good? i nearly always shoot handheld and not with a tripod.............

[Birdsnapper]

Try Googling PhotoZone for lens reviews. The Canon 70-300 looks good. You can also try Fred Miranda for users comments on lens.

[greypoint]

I'm currently using the 70-300 IS - bought to replace the very good but heavy Sigma 100-300 F4 I had before. At the moment I'm still in the process of evaluating it. It's certainly a big improvement on the old 75-300 IS which was somewhat soft I seem to remember. Last year I had a 70-200 F4 L and I think I'd have to go along with the opinion of others and say that is the better lens but a bit short for wildlife of course. I generally keep the 70-300 IS in mode 2 and it does work very well for panning - but IS is of less use for things like birds than it is for static subjects. AF on the 70-300 [used on a 40D] is OK but not as fast as I was getting the with the HSM of the Sigma.

[tifosikrishna]

i have a 70-200 f4l and i absolutely love the iq of the lens. my only grouse is its speed. it needs adequate light to have lower shutter speeds, hence making it difficult to use it indoors or at dawn or dusk without a tripod.

whatever extra sharpness f4l offers is again negated by slow speed and OTOH, 70-300 IS provides the extra 100mm (though not very sharp - from what i have read) and an IS coupled with light weight enhances its usefulness in practical situations.

secondly, reviews says that there is not much of a image quality difference between the two lenses.

regards
tifosi.

[greypoint]

Another thought that I've been perusing is a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 [can be picked up second hand quite easily] and 2x converter. I used this set up on a Nikon D50/D70 and it was rather good. You have a fast 70-200 with HSM motor for good AF speed and when you pop on the 2x you've got the rough equivalent of a Sigma 135-400. Check the reviews on fredmiranda.com - the Sigma is a very good lens.

[gordon g]

I use a sigma 70-200 f2.8 on my 1DsII. It's an excellent combination for general photography and fast sports where you can be close to the action. (I'm sidelined through injury for this season, but am having a lot of fun with the camera pitchside at my rugby club). It works quite well at the wide end for landscapes (although may not be wide enough on a 1.6 crop sensor), and as mentioned above, takes a 2*TC to give you a 140-200 f5.6 AF lens, still with reasonable focus speed. Colour and contrast is good, as is sharpness.
I have used mine side by side with a canon 70-200 f2.8L and there was almost negligible difference in IQ - certainly not enough to justify the price difference!

[crazee horse]

i got my canon 70-300is usm and its all i expected and more. Very pleased indeed.