«

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Bill" <> wrote:
> > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
> >>
> >> "-dad" <> wrote:
> >>> Which
> >>> of these two lense would you get the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Macro or
> >>> Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III. I can get either of them for around the
> >>> same prince. Which one do you all consider the better of the two
> >>> choices.
> >>
> >> The Canon has IS, the Sigma doesn't.
> >
> >
> > Sorry David, but you're mistaken.
> >
> > The 70-300 model which costs over twice as much has IS. The cheap 75-300,
> > which is priced similar to the Sigma 70-300 Macro, does not.
>
> http://photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300is/review.html
>
> That's an IS lens.
>

You're right, it is. But the OP is referring to a 75-300, not a
70-300. Your link points to a 70-300.

Mike

<> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Bill" <> wrote:
>> > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "-dad" <> wrote:
>> >>> Which
>> >>> of these two lense would you get the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Macro or
>> >>> Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III. I can get either of them for around the
>> >>> same prince. Which one do you all consider the better of the two
>> >>> choices.
>> >>
>> >> The Canon has IS, the Sigma doesn't.
>> >
>> > Sorry David, but you're mistaken.
>> >
>> > The 70-300 model which costs over twice as much has IS. The cheap
>> > 75-300,
>> > which is priced similar to the Sigma 70-300 Macro, does not.
>>
>> http://photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300is/review.html
>>
>> That's an IS lens.
>>
>
> You're right, it is. But the OP is referring to a 75-300, not a
> 70-300. Your link points to a 70-300.

You're right. I think of the 70-300 IS as a cheap lens, since the
alternative DO lens is twice the price of the 70-300. But there's even
cheaper.

So my answer is neither, since there's no way I can handhold 200mm, let
alone 300mm (and that's on FF), making IS a requirement.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
news:eim1po$rei$...
>
> "-dad" <> wrote:
>> Which
>> of these two lense would you get the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Macro or
>> Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III. I can get either of them for around the
>> same prince. Which one do you all consider the better of the two
>> choices.
>
> The Canon has IS, the Sigma doesn't.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
Actually, there is a non IS version of that Canon lens, since he doesn't
mention IS, I'm betting it lacks that feature. If it is that one, or even
if it isn't, it's not exactly one of Canon's stars. Rita is right on this
one, the Sigma might be the better buy.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
news:eim3s5$s1s$...
>
> "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>> Which
>>>> of these two lense would you get the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Macro or
>>>> Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III. I can get either of them for around the
>>>> same prince. Which one do you all consider the better of the two
>>>> choices.
>>>
>>> The Canon has IS, the Sigma doesn't.
>>
>> I think he's asking which one is better? The Sigma clearly has better
>> optics,
>
> The review at hand rates them identically in terms of optics. You may be
> thinking of the earlier model of the Canon, which was pretty iffy
> optically. The latest model is reported by the reviews to be a significant
> improvement.
>
>>but depending on his neds and intended use IS might not be a needed
>>feature.
>
> He didn't sound like a guy who's going to own and use a serious tripod.
> I'd guess he needs the IS. (Heck, my tripod's bigger than yours, but I
> wouldn't buy a non-IS telephoto.)
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>
David, the current IS model is a 70-300, not 75-300.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

"-dad" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I am planning on purchasing my first DSLR and am looking at the Canon
> Rebel XTi with the kit lense EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-22 . I have an old ef
> f/3.5-4.5 35-70mm lense and am planning on getting the 50mm f/1.8
> lense. Now my question is aimed at the the longer zoom lense. Which
> of these two lense would you get the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Macro or
> Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III. I can get either of them for around the
> same prince. Which one do you all consider the better of the two
> choices.
>
> Just abit about me:
> I cannot afford to buy much more than the above. I try to find the
> best of the lowest price and go with that.
>
> I like to take photos of almost anything from animals, bugs, rocks,
> water and flowers to sporting events and people, spontaneous shots as
> well as prestaged ones, both indoors and outdoors during the daytime
> and at night. I will even try by hand at some astrophotography thought
> my konica z3 doesnt do much here though.
>
> I am thinking the 18-55mm is a decent but not great all around lense.
>
> I am thinking the 50mm is good for lower light and indoor shot as well
> as night time sprots activities.
>
> I am thinking the 35-70mm will zoom somewhat more than the 18-55mm
> with the 1.6 multilplier making it around a 105mm zoom.
>
> And I am thinking the 70(75)-300 will be the zoom for the distance
> shots of all kinds of subjects from animals to the moon.
>
> Is my thinking all correct on the above or am I misinterpreting
> something.
>
> I would really be thankful for any positive, meaningful comments,
> thoughts, critizisms on what I am about to step into here.
>
> Thanks
>
> DAD

The base Sigma and Canon version are pretty similar.
The APO macro sigma is a notch better.
The Canon IS lens is even better. Canon has improved the optics in this new
version of the IS lens, giving much better wide open performance at 300mm.

Sometimes its better just to save and get the better lens. These 70,75-300mm
and older IS lens didn't even challenge the resolution of the 6MP digital
Rebel, it will be worse on the 10MP version.

If you want a cheap lens to hold you over until you get the good one, get
the Canon 80-200 II for a little over $100. Canon's own MTF charts show it
out performing these 70,75-300 zooms at its long in (granted is doesn't zoom
out as far) and it is nice and small.
-S

In article <eimhia$vfv$>, David J. Littleboy
<> wrote:

> <> wrote:
> > David J. Littleboy wrote:
> >> "Bill" <> wrote:
> >> > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "-dad" <> wrote:
> >> >>> Which
> >> >>> of these two lense would you get the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Macro or
> >> >>> Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III. I can get either of them for around the
> >> >>> same prince. Which one do you all consider the better of the two
> >> >>> choices.
> >> >>
> >> >> The Canon has IS, the Sigma doesn't.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry David, but you're mistaken.
> >> >
> >> > The 70-300 model which costs over twice as much has IS. The cheap
> >> > 75-300,
> >> > which is priced similar to the Sigma 70-300 Macro, does not.
> >>
> >> http://photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300is/review.html
> >>
> >> That's an IS lens.
> >>
> >
> > You're right, it is. But the OP is referring to a 75-300, not a
> > 70-300. Your link points to a 70-300.
>
> You're right. I think of the 70-300 IS as a cheap lens, since the
> alternative DO lens is twice the price of the 70-300. But there's even
> cheaper.

You're both right - the current model is a 70-300 with IS, but there
ALSO is a 75-300 with IS. I own it. Selling it soon, actually, and
buying a 100-400 L (with IS, of course) to replace it.

Ken Lucke wrote:

> You're both right - the current model is a 70-300 with IS, but there
> ALSO is a 75-300 with IS. I own it. Selling it soon, actually, and
> buying a 100-400 L (with IS, of course) to replace it.

Why? Do you really think it will be that much better?
Look at Canon's MTF charts. The 100-400 is not all that sharp.
I have 75-300 (non IS), 100-300 IS, 100-400 L IS, and
find them OK, but not great. In place of the 100-400 L
I use a 300 f/4 L IS, and even with a 1.4x TC, and find
it sharper than my 100-400 at 400. It is also lighter
and costs less.

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

In article <>, change username to rnclark
<> wrote:

> Ken Lucke wrote:
>
> > You're both right - the current model is a 70-300 with IS, but there
> > ALSO is a 75-300 with IS. I own it. Selling it soon, actually, and
> > buying a 100-400 L (with IS, of course) to replace it.
>
> Why? Do you really think it will be that much better?
> Look at Canon's MTF charts. The 100-400 is not all that sharp.

Sharp enough on the left side of the chart for me (I'm using an 1.6x
sensor camera [XTi]).

> I have 75-300 (non IS), 100-300 IS, 100-400 L IS, and
> find them OK, but not great. In place of the 100-400 L
> I use a 300 f/4 L IS, and even with a 1.4x TC, and find
> it sharper than my 100-400 at 400. It is also lighter
> and costs less.

Having taken pictures with both on the same camera, yes I _know_ it
will be better. I always rent L series lenses I am in the process of
evaluating for purchase before I buy them - saves heartache in the long
run. I've rented enough that my rental place doesn't even charge me
the normal $1000.00 deposit any more :^).

The main reasons I'm switching are the weatherproofing and the Mode 2
IS, which works better with panning shots than the original IS that's
on the older 75-300 IS USM II. Also, I really hate stacking glass, so
I try to use a teleconverter very seldom. I've never taken a good
picture with a teleconverter - yes, I know others have, it's just not
_my_ experience. I might try renting your combo, though, just to give
it a try. Which TC are you using, the older series I or the newer
series II? (my rental place only has the older series I TC's)

I have a cunning plan (as Baldrick would often say to Blackadder) - the
100-400 will stopgap me until I can pick up a couple more long prime
L's (400, 600) and the 75-300 DO, which I've found is actually as good
or better than most L series glass, IMO*. The 100-400 will retain
enough resale value that I will get my mileage out of it and still be
able to resell it on eBay for a pretty good percentage of what I will
pay for it. I can turn around and resink that into the newer lenses
when I am ready to do so (middle of next summer).



(*) yes, I've looked at the MTF charts there, too - the falloff on the
short end doesn't bother me, as I normally have the 24-105L on the
camera anyway as my "walkaround lens" to cover the lower end of that
range. At the 300 end of the range, it's pretty flat, actually
starting to improve towards 20mm (although at this time I don't need
that, when I move up to the 1Ds Mark II [or whatever is top-o-the-line
at the time by next summer] it will become more so).

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 20:17:37 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <> wrote:

>Ken Lucke wrote:
>
>> You're both right - the current model is a 70-300 with IS, but there
>> ALSO is a 75-300 with IS. I own it. Selling it soon, actually, and
>> buying a 100-400 L (with IS, of course) to replace it.
>
>Why? Do you really think it will be that much better?

I own the non-IS 75-300 (it's in a box in the closet) and also own the
70-200 L f2.8 (which is on the camera) and regularly borrow the
100-400. IMHO there's no contest - the 75-300 lenses (both IS and
non-IS) are not in the same class at all.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

Ken Lucke wrote:

> In article <>, change username to rnclark
> <> wrote:
>
>>Ken Lucke wrote:
>>
>>>You're both right - the current model is a 70-300 with IS, but there
>>>ALSO is a 75-300 with IS. I own it. Selling it soon, actually, and
>>>buying a 100-400 L (with IS, of course) to replace it.
>>
>>Why? Do you really think it will be that much better?
>>Look at Canon's MTF charts. The 100-400 is not all that sharp.
>
> Sharp enough on the left side of the chart for me (I'm using an 1.6x
> sensor camera [XTi]).

Of course your lens should outlast your camera body, and in a couple
of years when the full frame sensor is under $1,000 you may think
differently

>>I have 75-300 (non IS), 100-300 IS, 100-400 L IS, and
>>find them OK, but not great. In place of the 100-400 L
>>I use a 300 f/4 L IS, and even with a 1.4x TC, and find
>>it sharper than my 100-400 at 400. It is also lighter
>>and costs less.
>
> Having taken pictures with both on the same camera, yes I _know_ it
> will be better. I always rent L series lenses I am in the process of
> evaluating for purchase before I buy them - saves heartache in the long
> run. I've rented enough that my rental place doesn't even charge me
> the normal $1000.00 deposit any more :^).
>
> The main reasons I'm switching are the weatherproofing and the Mode 2
> IS, which works better with panning shots than the original IS that's
> on the older 75-300 IS USM II.

100-400 L IS weatherproof? It seems to pump air quite well
with zooming (and it also pumps dust). There is a Bill
Hilton thread here about a test with an XTi and a 100-400 adding dust
to the sensor.

> Also, I really hate stacking glass, so
> I try to use a teleconverter very seldom. I've never taken a good
> picture with a teleconverter - yes, I know others have, it's just not
> _my_ experience.

I can understand that. I had the same experience before switching
to fixed focal length lenses.

> I might try renting your combo, though, just to give
> it a try. Which TC are you using, the older series I or the newer
> series II? (my rental place only has the older series I TC's)

I use Kenko pro 300 TCs. This is one example of the 300 m+ 1.4x TC:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...962.b-700.html

> I have a cunning plan (as Baldrick would often say to Blackadder) - the
> 100-400 will stopgap me until I can pick up a couple more long prime
> L's (400, 600) and the 75-300 DO, which I've found is actually as good
> or better than most L series glass, IMO*. The 100-400 will retain
> enough resale value that I will get my mileage out of it and still be
> able to resell it on eBay for a pretty good percentage of what I will
> pay for it. I can turn around and resink that into the newer lenses
> when I am ready to do so (middle of next summer).

I went through a similar sequence. In my opinion, the route through
the 100-400 was a mistake. But if your really interested in a used
one, I'll might sell mine (contact me off list). Its hardly used.
These were done with then 100-400:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...baby.goat.html
(click the next button 3 time for a total of 4 images).
In my opinion, the 100-400 makes fine 8x10s (not super sharp,
but OK). The 300 f/4 L makes 16x20s. Remember, the XTi has spatial
resolution in the focal plane higher than ISO 50 slide film
(Velvia) pushing sharpness requirements to a high level.
So my advice is skip the 100-400, but if you insist, buy
used, so when you sell, you at least come close to breaking
even.

> (*) yes, I've looked at the MTF charts there, too - the falloff on the
> short end doesn't bother me, as I normally have the 24-105L on the
> camera anyway as my "walkaround lens" to cover the lower end of that
> range. At the 300 end of the range, it's pretty flat, actually
> starting to improve towards 20mm (although at this time I don't need
> that, when I move up to the 1Ds Mark II [or whatever is top-o-the-line
> at the time by next summer] it will become more so).

My 100-400 has sat unused for a couple of years once being replaced
by the 300 f/4 L IS. Even with my 500 f/4 L IS, the 300 still
travels with me (I use it on a second body often).

Roger