Which is the best lens for the price?

[tumble]

I'm in need of a longer zoom lens ready for my daughter's Softball season and may want to use it for some wildlife stuff in the future.
My budget is very limited and so is my photography skills (learning my way around the Drebel). For now i'd rather learn and develop my skills before buying more expensive lenses.

I've looked at these two:

Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM

or

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super II
(maybe with a Tamron 1.4x TC as well)

For a beginner which lens would suit my need best as both are under $300. Can even get the Sigma and Tamron 1.4x TC for under the $300 which is about my budget.

[WestFalcon]

Try finding a 100-300 f5.6 L lens.....I have one and its a really nice chunk of glass. Used, they go for about 300 bucks.

[randyk]

I would look at this 2 ways - what is more important, top image capability or reach? You may not be willing to spend $500 used but the Canon 70-200 f4.0 L is an outstanding lens. I used this extensively last summer for baseball and soccer and got some killer pictures. You could add a 1.4x converter later for 448mm effective reach at f5.6. That constant f4 max aperture at all focal lengths is really nice.

Another alternative, sacrificing reach for top quality is the Canon 100 f2.0. Might be harder to find used, new is $380. It is fast for low light indoor sports as a bonus plus is very fast focusing. However, you can't use the extender with this. I have used several zooms with my 10D and the flexibility is great but the primes are tremendous and work in situations where the zooms just aren't as effective.

[Canuck]

I wouldn't go near the 70-300mm Sigma lens. I had one and it was crap! I sold it for about $150 and got the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX. Granted the EX lens was $1900 but it rocks!

[Icecamp]

On a budget the 100-300 f/5.6 L is a pretty nice lens. It is the older EF lens without an ultrasonic motor but it does pretty well. You can pick one up used for about $300 or so. Its biggest drawback is that it is slow, but it is L glass at a decent price.

[ron chappel]

You'll have to decide who to believe here!
Do you want awsomely sharp image quality or 'excellent for the price'?

Personally i have the EF100-300 4.5-5.6 and it gets excellent pictures most of the time.
I had several EF75-300's in the past and it was difficult to get usefull pics.ALOT were turning out too soft (allthough a good one from that lens was quite nice)
I've seen examples from the sigma you mention (by amateur photographers) and must admit they were amazingly good!Perhaps better than the canon....?

Personally i think you are choosing wisely with these two.Toss a coin maybe?

I don't know where thse guys are finding the 100-300 5.6L for us$300!
I see them sell for $500+

[nosquare2003]

The EF100-300/5.6L have good optics but the autofocus speed is rather slow. However, I have never used other 300mm zoom stated here...so I can't make any comparison.