70-300mm Opinions

[AndyC]

I currently have a Canon 350d with 17-55 USM lens, but now want to buy a 70-300 zoom.

I have been looking at the Sigma 70-300 APO DG MACRO which seems to meet what i need.
However I have also seen the Canon 70-300 IS USM which is twice the price but with stabilised lens and usm

In your opinion is it worth paying the extra for the canon lens. or stick with the sigma which also has macro function. Buying a seperate macro lens isnt an option at the moment due to cost.

I believe there is also a new tamron lens out(or on its way)

Thanks
Andy

 

[Grimace]

I used to have that Canon 70-300mm IS lens and thought it was great. When you get out to 300mm, the IS is really helpful in getting crisp shots. If you are using a tripod it's not an issue, but if you are doing hand held photography at the far end, get stabilization.

 

[AndyC]

Thanks
Would the macro function on the sigma lens be any good, does anyone have any comparison shots taken with macro on and off.

 

[mlrproducts]

I have the Sigma 70-300 Super II, which is the newest lens and the one you'll want to get. It is a little soft, especially at the far end. Of course, it is to be expected with such a high f/stop at a long length. Mine just started making squeeling noises 1 week out of warranty.

Other than that it is a good lens for the price. However, I would recommend saving up for the Canon 70?-200 f4/L and perhaps an extension tube if you need more depth. (However, I don't know about the Macro on that lens - but it will be much sharper on the long end).

The macro on the Sigma is good, but you have to be a good four feet away to get the photo! Also, you have to have a lot of light to do so as well.