Canon 55-250 or Sigma 70-300 APO

[tab]

For xmas I will be getting a 450d with kit lens but I am also thinking of buying the 450d as a twin lens bundle.
I could get the 450d/kit lens with either a Canon 55-250 from Warehouse Express or with a Sigma 70-300 APO from Jessops.(also comes with 4GB SD card). prices for both bundles are very similar.
Some advice on which one to go for would be a huge help.
I like taking pictures of birds and other wildlife.
Do I go for the Canon which has IS or for the Sigma which has slightly longer focal length.
I currently use a Kodak Z812 which has IS which helps as anything above 200 ISO starts to show some noise.
I think that I should be able to get away with using 800 ISO at times with the 450d which will enable a faster shutter speed to be used so will I really need the IS.
Any advice will be welcome.

Cheers

Tab

[PhatheadWRX]

I have the Sigma and it produces some great images from 70-200, but it does get softer closer to 300mm. I really wish it had IS though.

From what I have seen here the 55-250 produces a very good image too.
There are a number of threads here comparing these two lenses

[KarlosDaJackal]

For birds its easily the Sigma.

Why? Well for birds you want all the FL you can get, and even though another 50mm is not much its better to have it then to not have it. IS is great indoors in low light with still objects. Birds are not still objects so IS is no good to you, at 250mm to 300mm you will want a shutter speed of 1/320 to defeat camera shake, but you probably need 1/400 to get a sharp image of a small bird as those guys move pretty fast. So if your subject demands a shutter of 1/400 IS will do nothing beneficial but force you to wait a second while it spins up between shots.

More light more shutter is what you need, so start at ISO1600 and work backwards from there. A sharp noisy shot is better than a blurry noise free shot.

The sigma has a rep for being bad at 300mm but I think its pretty decent there

ISO1600 - 300mm - f/8 - 1/2500
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3043/3020093064_ebf07c62c7_b.jpg

forgot to mention that shot is not sharpened, so its a bit soft due to the cameras AA filter

[jwcdds]

I can't comment on the Sig70-300. The IS on the 55-250 is pretty darn impressive. For the price, the 55-250 can't be beat. But along with it, be prepared for the plastic construction. The front element rotates during focusing but I doubt you'll be using CPL's while birding.

[lonelyjew]

I have the 55-250 and, though I haven't used the Sigma I'd say get the Canon. The Sigma is supposed to be very good for the price but the Canon is an outstanding lens for it's relatively small cost. The IS unit is amazing, my first night with it I made a shot in my dimly lit house at 1/10s and 250mm and it came out!

[benee]

I can't comment on the Sig70-300. The IS on the 55-250 is pretty darn impressive. For the price, the 55-250 can't be beat. But along with it, be prepared for the plastic construction. The front element rotates during focusing but I doubt you'll be using CPL's while birding.


I had the Sigma, and it was a pretty good lens. It was virtually unusable above 280mm, though. If you stopped it down to F11 or so at 300mm, it was almost acceptable, but stopping down that much at 300mm it was hard to get a reasonable shutter speed!

I would definitely go for the 55-250. The IS in this range will probably make a big difference, since the Sigma isn't that good above 280, you're really not losing much range at all.

[KarlosDaJackal]

I had the Sigma, and it was a pretty good lens. It was virtually unusable above 280mm, though. If you stopped it down to F11 or so at 300mm, it was almost acceptable, but stopping down that much at 300mm it was hard to get a reasonable shutter speed!

I would definitely go for the 55-250. The IS in this range will probably make a big difference, since the Sigma isn't that good above 280, you're really not losing much range at all.

What is it with people and the sigma at 300mm?

300mm - f/6.3 - 1/250 (handheld)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/3019232929_701a024415_b.jpg

300mm - f/6.3 - 1/250 (handheld)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3293/3019236183_2ef7b657fb_b.jpg





.
.
.
My last word on this topic, this bird shot of a couple of starlings was at 1/400 which clearly was not fast enough, so although everyone is talking about birds, IS won't help at all. All IS does is allow you to use a slower shutter speed.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/2781331797_e618cc0d52.jpg

[number six]

My Sigma 70-300 APO is just as sharp at 300 as at 200.

-js

[jwcdds]

My last word on this topic, this bird shot of a couple of starlings was at 1/400 which clearly was not fast enough, so although everyone is talking about birds, IS won't help at all. All IS does is allow you to use a slower shutter speed.


I don't see a problem here. Sure, IS doesn't prevent motion blur from the subject, but sometimes... a bird can just sit idly on a branch, or perched somewhere calmly and IS can help. You seem to imply IS is completely worthless (regardless of the situation). Certain IS can help with in flight panning as well, so IMO, IS is better to have than not have. Whether the situation calls for its usage, that's to be determined.

[KarlosDaJackal]

I don't see a problem here. Sure, IS doesn't prevent motion blur from the subject, but sometimes... a bird can just sit idly on a branch, or perched somewhere calmly and IS can help. You seem to imply IS is completely worthless (regardless of the situation). Certain IS can help with in flight panning as well, so IMO, IS is better to have than not have. Whether the situation calls for its usage, that's to be determined.

Can you not read? My statements about IS so far are
1. Birds are not still objects so IS is no good to you
2. this bird shot of a couple of starlings was at 1/400 which clearly was not fast enough, so although everyone is talking about birds, IS won't help

So I'm talking about the specifics of what the OP wants to use the lens for and how IS is not a help in that situation. Get on the case of people who are saying its great you can take a 250mm shot at 1/10, sure that's great but the OP is after birds/wildlife, so yes on the days when its really dark, there is no breeze and all the birds/wildlife stand still for the whole second it takes for the IS unit to spin up it might help :lol:

Birds when perched and small animals tend to move their eyes and faces around very fast and almost all the time without rest and you will need 1/400 and faster to capture them blur free. That 1/400 covers camera shake so in this situation IS does not help.

Now if the OP wanted to shoot inanimate objects indoors with no flash the canon would clearly win thanks to the IS. But if you add a flash its back to level pegging. I also use a film body so the EF-s lens is no good for that so it looses out to the 70-300+flash in that situation also. Also while speaking of shooting inanimate objects indoors, the Sigma 70-300 can do 1:2 macro, so with a flash its actually clearly ahead in that area also.

Both lenses are really good, and i'm sure that whichever gets picked will do really well, so yea IS can help in certain situations but not all the time. So if we are going to talk in general about the lenses rather than focus on what the OP is going to use it for then..... A hood is useful most of the time and comes with the sigma, but you have to buy separately with the canon. Macro can be fun when your stuck indoors with you telephoto, the sigma does 1:2 macro the canon would need someone to buy some extension tubes to do that. When your not using your telephoto its handy to put it in a lens case to protect it and keep it clean, you get one with the sigma, the canon would need someone to buy it one. The sigma has distance and magnification markings on the barrel, the canon does not.

So the way I see it the Sigma does the job he wants and is a complete package. The canon throws out everything but the kitchen sink to include IS which has the same benefits/limitations of a €20 monopod or a €30 portable tripod.

[jrscls]

I have used both and would definitely go with the 55-250 IS.

[jwcdds]

Can you not read?

IMO, you seem a bit too hostile/aggressive. You're seemingly on the defensive when no one is picking a fight with you. OP asks about 2 lenses. You have your view about the Sig 70-300. Others (including myself) have their views about the 55-250is, believing that the is can come in handy under certain situations. And you come back swinging. What's going on? What's your beef against the 55-250is? Have you used it personally before? Did the is fail you?

I think if you've tried the 55-250is and found the lens lacking, then it'd be better for all of us that you share this experience so we'd understand why the 70-300 would be superior.

In support of Jackal, the faster your shutter speed, the better off you'll be. If you can nail the shots at 1/500s consistently, under decent/optimal lighting, then surely the sigma will give you 45mm more reach.

[wimg]

IMO, you seem a bit too hostile/aggressive. You're seemingly on the defensive when no one is picking a fight with you. OP asks about 2 lenses. You have your view about the Sig 70-300. Others (including myself) have their views about the 55-250is, believing that the is can come in handy under certain situations. And you come back swinging. What's going on? What's your beef against the 55-250is? Have you used it personally before? Did the is fail you?

I think if you've tried the 55-250is and found the lens lacking, then it'd be better for all of us that you share this experience so we'd understand why the 70-300 would be superior.

In support of Jackal, the faster your shutter speed, the better off you'll be. If you can nail the shots at 1/500s consistently, under decent/optimal lighting, then surely the sigma will give you 45mm more reach.
Actually, 50 mm :D. But even that is only 20% more (than 250, of 250), and IMO neither here nor there :D.

Kind regards, Wim ;)

[luigis]

I found the optical quality of the 55-250 superior to the Siggy 70-300. This includes birding, moon shots, people, flying ducks, static ducks, stabilized ducks and other objects.

Luigi

[wimg]

Hi Luigi,
I found the optical quality of the 55-250 superior to the Siggy 70-300. This includes birding, moon shots, people, flying ducks, static ducks, stabilized ducks and other objects.

Luigi
Any specific techniques, and if so, which ones? :lol:

Kind regards, Wim ;)

P.S.: What about quacking ducks? :D

[jwcdds]

Actually, 50 mm :D.
Kind regards, Wim ;)

Hahaha :lol: You, sir, are correct. I have this 55-255 in my head now because someone on POTN has it in their sig as "55-255". I blame whoever's sig it is for screwing me up.

[spur]

I have both the Canon 55-250mm IS and the Sigma 70-300mm APO. The Canon gives better images across the board. Birds, wildlife and anything else has better color and contrast with the 55-250. If you want to compare focus speed the Canon is pretty good in most light, while the Sigma you could time it with a sun dial. It is very slow which would not be very good for those birds that need the high shutter speed.

[eb314]

I had both, chose to keep the Canon. Here is a head to head I did of the two lenses.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=600510

I've taken many more sample pics with each lens, but not bothered to post them because the results have been the same as they were in my test.

Any oh yeah, those pictures were all taken with the XSi, so it'll be exactly your setup.

[DreDaze]

i vote for the 55-250 IS...it is a pretty good little lens,


1. Birds are not still objects so IS is no good to you
2. this bird shot of a couple of starlings was at 1/400 which clearly was not fast enough, so although everyone is talking about birds, IS won't help


I disagree on the broad generalization, and for 2 IS wouldn't have helped in that situation, however there are other situations where it would have and to show that it is possible to shoot birds at less than 1/400...the first was with my 70-300IS, i'd say the IS helped @ 300mm...and if these little guys can stay still for a 1/50 shot to come out, i think there may be hope for all birds
second is with my 28-135, don't know if i really needed the IS, but still shows a shutter of 1/125
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3081/3080684093_9cb0ef21b8_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3176/3081524838_904e156177_b.jpg

i don't know why flickr cuts out the exif, and still don't know how to make the picture a link so here's link to exif
http://flickr.com/photos/algregoire/3080684093/meta/
http://flickr.com/photos/algregoire/3081524838/meta/in/photostream

[El Duderino]

I sold my Sigma 70-300 for a Canon 55-250. I really wanted IS and it's made a huge difference (I shoot mostly landscapes or still objects). It's a bit sharper too.

[benee]

Nice Shot of the Squirrel! Is this a 100% crop? If not, I'd be curious to see it at 100%.

I know that I did not get similar results to this with the Sigma at 300mm. (And yes, I did shoot with a fast enough shutter speed, etc...). It may be that you have a very good copy of the lens.

In either case, one thing the Sigma does have going for it is its macro ability. I was fairly happy with its close-focusing ability. Still, the IS of the Canon wins out for me.



What is it with people and the sigma at 300mm?

300mm - f/6.3 - 1/250 (handheld)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/3019232929_701a024415_b.jpg

300mm - f/6.3 - 1/250 (handheld)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3293/3019236183_2ef7b657fb_b.jpg





.
.
.
My last word on this topic, this bird shot of a couple of starlings was at 1/400 which clearly was not fast enough, so although everyone is talking about birds, IS won't help at all. All IS does is allow you to use a slower shutter speed.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/2781331797_e618cc0d52.jpg

[KarlosDaJackal]

Nice Shot of the Squirrel! Is this a 100% crop? If not, I'd be curious to see it at 100%.

I know that I did not get similar results to this with the Sigma at 300mm. (And yes, I did shoot with a fast enough shutter speed, etc...). It may be that you have a very good copy of the lens.

In either case, one thing the Sigma does have going for it is its macro ability. I was fairly happy with its close-focusing ability. Still, the IS of the Canon wins out for me.

The squirrel is the entire image resized from (2592 x 3888 ) to (683 x 1024) with no additional processing other than a RAW conversion in DPP.

[MIKEDUBIE]

sigmas great

[tab]

Thanks to everyone who has posted some advice.
I can see peoples views on IS or not and really appreciate that KarlosDaJackal has taken the time to post some pics to back up his views on the Sigma.(love the squirrel ) I don,t have IS on my lenses for my old Canon A1 film camera(never see the light of day anymore) and never really had a problem with camera shake because i would always use a fast shuttter speed.
At the moment I am leaning towards the Sigma after seeing Karlos pics.I still have a couple of more weeks before I make my decision so would like people to carry on and add their thoughts on which to buy.
By the way I think this site is one of the best for advice because people often post their pics to help make the right choice.

[spur]

Here is a squirrel taken with the Canon 55-250mm IS on a Digital Rebel (300D). The shot is at 250mm at f/5.6 and no editing, this is the jpg straight from the camera it is resized by flicker.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2093/2438547951_5cd36a0a3b_b.jpg

To see the full size image with EXIF go to http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2093/2438547951_41292a8035_o.jpg

The 55-250 can also do birds and other wildlife. http://www.flickr.com/photos/spur/sets/72157604714738929/

[DreDaze]

Thanks to everyone who has posted some advice.
I can see peoples views on IS or not and really appreciate that KarlosDaJackal has taken the time to post some pics to back up his views on the Sigma.(love the squirrel ) I don,t have IS on my lenses for my old Canon A1 film camera(never see the light of day anymore) and never really had a problem with camera shake because i would always use a fast shuttter speed.
At the moment I am leaning towards the Sigma after seeing Karlos pics.I still have a couple of more weeks before I make my decision so would like people to carry on and add their thoughts on which to buy.
By the way I think this site is one of the best for advice because people often post their pics to help make the right choice.

if you like looking at the pics check out the two archives
55-250IS http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=459569

70-300APO http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=266596

to me the 55-250 images just pop way more....i think the 70-300 used to be the budget telephoto to choose...but times have changed with the 55-250IS being around

[KarlosDaJackal]

Here is a squirrel taken with the Canon 55-250mm IS on a Digital Rebel (300D). The shot is at 250mm at f/5.6 and no editing, this is the jpg straight from the camera it is resized by flicker.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2093/2438547951_5cd36a0a3b_b.jpg

To see the full size image with EXIF go to http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2093/2438547951_41292a8035_o.jpg

The 55-250 can also do birds and other wildlife. http://www.flickr.com/photos/spur/sets/72157604714738929/

Its a nice shot but I prefer the bokeh (totally subjective) of the Sigma. But lets face it either one of these lenses will do a great job.

[number six]

I have some squirrel shots with the Sigma too. I'll have to go look for 'em.

Non-squirrel shots handheld in poor light, wide open at 300 mm:


324453


324454

[Amamba]

I like 55-250 IS, I don't have anything to say about Sigma. Even if the IQ is the same (seems more people here prefer Canon's) the 55 is more versatile. First, it has IS, even if you only use it sporadically it's an advantage. Second, at 55 it's a decent portrait lens. But you probably won't go wrong with either.

[eb314]

The Canon is better wide open than the Sigma (at least in my comparison test - linked above on this page)

When I closed them both down to f/9, they were about even in sharpness. Still, I couldn't find a reason to keep the Sigma over the Canon. The sharpness was only comparable on the tripod w/ mirror lockup at f/8+. Otherwise, the Canon was sharper in every instance, both outdoor and indoor light.

[el aye]

I have the Canon 55-250 and I don't think you will be disappointed with the lens. I can't comment on the Sigma, though.

[tab]

Cheers for all the advice. I think I need to see and feel both these lenses on a 450d to see which feels the best. From the photos that people have loaded there don't seem too much of a difference between the 2 and as some have said either will be a good purchase. Thanks to everyone who has taken time to post their thoughts.

[dsldub]

I have the Sigma, and I'm not impressed at all with it, to the point I barely use it anymore. So my vote goes for the Canon, even if I have not tried it, but I'm sure it will be better than the Sigma, due to the IS.

[KarlosDaJackal]

I have the Sigma, and I'm not impressed at all with it, to the point I barely use it anymore. So my vote goes for the Canon, even if I have not tried it, but I'm sure it will be better than the Sigma, due to the IS.

Why?

[dsldub]

Why?
The focusing hunts a lot, and I find it to be useless unless it's a bright sunny day out. On overcast days, it's a 50/50 chance to get a good picture. I took it once with me (left the other lens on the car) on a overcast day, and a good 80% of the (my kid on a wooded park) pictures I took were useless (out of focus/soft).

[KarlosDaJackal]

The focusing hunts a lot, and I find it to be useless unless it's a bright sunny day out. On overcast days, it's a 50/50 chance to get a good picture. I took it once with me (left the other lens on the car) on a overcast day, and a good 80% of the (my kid on a wooded park) pictures I took were useless (out of focus/soft).

So how come it works for the rest of us on overcast days? Any chance you used to slow shutter/iso for the conditions. I used it on a very overcast morning with nothing but a slow roll ISO200 film in the camera and it did and exceptional job.

This is straight out of the camera, developed and scanned by my local camera store. They where instructed to adjust nothing. Of course no exif available but I believe it was 300mm, 1/200, f/5.6 of course it was ISO200 (the film was kodak colour plus iso200)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3028/3027446676_ae7903af3b_b.jpg

And later on in the day with a bit more light but still overcast and used in the shadows on the 400d
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3226/3021827999_c8a4664e4b_b.jpg

The roll of film had 24 exposures on it and 23 of them where usable, all shot in manual mode. The one that was not usable was the first shot, as the shutter stuck, after a quick punch the shutter unstuck for the rest of the roll :D

[curiousgeorge]

Judging from the shots above, the Canon pictures look better than the Sigma's. As is often the case, it's hard to put your finger on exactly what, but the Sigma shots seem to be missing something, probably a mixture of sharpness colour and contrast.

And yes, of course IS can be useful for wildlife. Not all wildlife subjects are non-stationary.

[KarlosDaJackal]

Judging from the shots above, the Canon pictures look better than the Sigma's. As is often the case, it's hard to put your finger on exactly what, but the Sigma shots seem to be missing something, probably a mixture of sharpness colour and contrast.

And yes, of course IS can be useful for wildlife. Not all wildlife subjects are non-stationary.

Only 1 shot from the canon has been posted. If you read the posts for the other pictures they where taken with neither of the lenses being discussed :rolleyes:

I would have said the Canon picture was lacking something compared to the many examples the Sigma users will happily post. I wonder why it is that the canon 55-250 users are reluctant to put there pictures up in support of there arguments.

[curiousgeorge]

Only 1 shot from the canon has been posted. If you read the posts for the other pictures they where taken with neither of the lenses being discussed :rolleyes:

I would have said the Canon picture was lacking something compared to the many examples the Sigma users will happily post. I wonder why it is that the canon 55-250 users are reluctant to put there pictures up in support of there arguments.
I'm really sorry, I should have said I prefer the Canon picture.

Why does it bother you so much when people express a preference you disagree with? Why do you get so confrontational whenever a debate over lenses comes up, when everyone else is able to remain civil and polite? Why do you have such an attitude (eg post #10)? You need to chill out a bit, it's just a lens, it's not a personal attack on your mother.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[spur]

Only 1 shot from the canon has been posted. If you read the posts for the other pictures they where taken with neither of the lenses being discussed :rolleyes:

I would have said the Canon picture was lacking something compared to the many examples the Sigma users will happily post. I wonder why it is that the canon 55-250 users are reluctant to put there pictures up in support of there arguments.

I posted the one Canon image that is as sharp unprocessed as the Sigma processed images. I also posted a link to the full size image so the people that wanted to could see what they could get straight from their camera. Also for the people that are interested and can read the post there is a link to a folder with more images of birds and other wildlife.

What the Canon image I posted is lacking is the over sharpening of the images "happily" posted by the Sigma. I give the OP images that come from the camera and aren't dependent on my processing skills.

As I stated in an earlier post I have both lenses and in all situations the Canon has better IQ and is much faster focusing.

[ceegee]

OK, here are a couple of wildlife/bird shots taken with the Canon 55-250. It's probably my most-used lens and IMHO gives great value for the price.

[ceegee]

... and a couple more. The IS was very useful for both these images.

[DreDaze]

... and a couple more. The IS was very useful for both these images.


they are nice images...however i don't think the IS really helped on the 1/1000 shot...that shutter is fast enough to deal with camera shake

[bauerman]

Not sure if it has been mentioned to this point or not in the thread - but with the Sigma you get a very usable (1:2) macro mode as well. Bonus.

[KarlosDaJackal]

I'm really sorry, I should have said I prefer the Canon picture.

Why does it bother you so much when people express a preference you disagree with? Why do you get so confrontational whenever a debate over lenses comes up, when everyone else is able to remain civil and polite? Why do you have such an attitude (eg post #10)? You need to chill out a bit, it's just a lens, it's not a personal attack on your mother.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I'm not disagreeing with anyone's preference. Your opinion was the pictures from the canon where better. I was being civil in pointed out that only 1 picture was posted.

In post 10 I disagree with the guy implying I said IS was useless for all shots, which is not what I said, excuse me for setting the guy straight :rolleyes:

I posted the one Canon image that is as sharp unprocessed as the Sigma processed images. I also posted a link to the full size image so the people that wanted to could see what they could get straight from their camera. Also for the people that are interested and can read the post there is a link to a folder with more images of birds and other wildlife.

What the Canon image I posted is lacking is the over sharpening of the images "happily" posted by the Sigma. I give the OP images that come from the camera and aren't dependent on my processing skills.

As I stated in an earlier post I have both lenses and in all situations the Canon has better IQ and is much faster focusing.

FYI the images I posted are unsharpened, so I don't think you can say the Canon is sharper out of the camera. Lets face it though digital cameras have AA filters, some cameras are more aggressive than others, so sharpening is required not optional.

Some people don't get that so I also posted a film shot which does not require sharpening. Here is another one straight of the negative at 300mm. I think the sigma is plenty sharp enough.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3047/3027447058_713a3a9f72_b.jpg

I don't expect anyone to post a film shot with the 55-250 :lol: (because they can't)

[DreDaze]

I was being civil in pointed out that only 1 picture was posted.



i did post a link to the image archive for both lenses...and there are over 1,000 posts on the canon one there...so it is possible to see the samples in that link

as far as the two lenses if you ask me it's not necessarily the sharpness that seperates them, but the contrast...the sigma seems to be lacking

[tab]

cheers guys for continuing with this thread. I like the advice from Bauerman about the Sigma having a 1:2 macro. Do any of you guys have pics of macro shots taken with these lenses.(I also like to take the occasional close up).
I think it is great that you are all willing to input your thoughts on which lens is the best which I am sure will help me in making the right choice.
just counting the days when I will need to make my decision.

[KarlosDaJackal]

cheers guys for continuing with this thread. I like the advice from Bauerman about the Sigma having a 1:2 macro. Do any of you guys have pics of macro shots taken with these lenses.(I also like to take the occasional close up).
I think it is great that you are all willing to input your thoughts on which lens is the best which I am sure will help me in making the right choice.
just counting the days when I will need to make my decision.

Ok regarding the sigma 70-300 APO, this was taken at f/20 :shock: and 86mm (from the other side of the room, don't believe anyone who says you can't use the sigma or the canon indoors. Of course you can you just need to use a flash ;)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3247/3092835967_26f2f9aabe_b.jpg

You asked for Macro also, well this one is not post process, I got the rosco gel sample pack and had a red one on my flash. The background is an A4 piece of paper. The vacuum valve is pretty darn small. Its about 50mm or 2 inchs tall.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3064/3077380561_ffb9085b7f_b.jpg