which lens for a canon digi rebel sigma or Canon

[stevecratchley]

Hi

I am looking at getting another lens for my digi rebel. I am looking at either Canon EF 90-300mm f4.0-5.6 USM or 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super II. I am looking at some sports and nature photography and no I can't afford any L glass lens....

have any of you guys compared these lens????? what suggestions do you have....

Thanks

Steve

[scottbergerphoto]

I can't tell you anything specific about either one of those lenses. What I can tell you is that if you want to do sports, you need a faster aperture. See if you can swing an f/2.8. The Canon 70-200 L 2.8 with or without IS is one of the best lenses around. If you plan on doing wildlife, you probably need to think 300 to 500mm focal lengths. Fast lenses and long lenses aren't cheap, but you get what you pay for. Sigma EX series lenses are highly rated by many people on this forum and are alot cheaper then L glass. I use the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX APO HSM. It's half the price of the Canon 500 f/4. You really need to check reviews on each lens.
Scott

[ron chappel]

I recall someone posted pics on this forum from that exact model sigma.They were definitely better than from the average cheap zoom-which is what the EF 90-300 is.Can anyone find the post?

[scottbergerphoto]

I recall someone posted pics on this forum from that exact model sigma.They were definitely better than from the average cheap zoom-which is what the EF 90-300 is.Can anyone find the post?

If you are referring to the ones I recently posted, the link is:
http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/birds_in_flight
Bear in mind that this was my first attempt with this lens.
Scott

[Jim Larson]

The poster is requesting info on a $150 lens, and you point him to a $1500 70-200/2.8L?

I tend to be a canon snob. But in general, all of the xx-300 lenses are mush beyond 200mm. But they get the job done until you can afford better.

[scottbergerphoto]

The poster is requesting info on a $150 lens, and you point him to a $1500 70-200/2.8L?

I tend to be a canon snob. But in general, all of the xx-300 lenses are mush beyond 200mm. But they get the job done until you can afford better.
And I used to eat chuck steak till I tasted a porterhouse!
Scott

[Canuck]

The poster is requesting info on a $150 lens, and you point him to a $1500 70-200/2.8L?

I tend to be a canon snob. But in general, all of the xx-300 lenses are mush beyond 200mm. But they get the job done until you can afford better.
And I used to eat chuck steak till I tasted a porterhouse!
Scott

Mmmm...porterhouse! Man you are making me for one.
:roll:

Ok, seriously, if you plan on going beyond the normal zoom into the 200 and beyond fast lenses get real expensive real quick. Being the $1500 Canon L glass has been mentioned, I will throw this one out for giggles. How about the Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX lens? That one is about $1900 from B&H and I have it. It is an absolutely awesome lens. On the flip side, it is not small by any stretch of the imagination! It isn't anything like the Sigma 500mm F5.6, but that is another story all of its own. At least with the 120-300 and decent light you can still take pics handheld! Been there, done that in Wales! In fact the one that is posted here on this forum was taken handheld.

[ron chappel]

The examples i saw posed were from a women and the subject was someone walking a dog + other pics.In any case if no one here has an example try searching photo.sig -click on the 'by lens' link on the left in the photo's page
Is the link 'birds in flight' really an expensive f2.8 lens? i couldn't see details anywhere