70-300 Upgrade Question

Hey Guys, I have been reading alot, and still can't find an answer.

I currently have a Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 "Macro" lens. I have had this lens since I got my Rebel 2000 10 years ago. I have the opportunity to upgrade to the Canon 70-300 IS (non-L) for a decent price ($450) and wanted to know if this was worthwhile or if I should save up for something else. I use this lens for a lot of things, but it is really anytime I know the range will work, and I might need more than 135mm.

Will I see a noticeable improvement, or is it not worth this step. I am not likely to be able to afford any of the L telephoto lenses anytime soon (this would be a 2-4 year purchase at least).

I have T2i, and shoot some nature/wildlife, some sports, and anything else that comes my way.

Yes you will see noticable improvement. An even better choice IMHO is the Tamron 70-300mm VC which can be bought for $449 and you will get a $100 rebate which makes it $349. Can get it right now at B&H, Adorama, Amazon, etc.

One way of judging a lens such as the Canon 70-300mm IS is to consider the images that it creates,such as these:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I'd pick the tamron over the canon 70-300. The tamron is cheaper with better IQ from what I've seen. Plus it has a non rotating front element unlike the canon.

Sirrith wrote in post #14411920
I'd pick the tamron over the canon 70-300. The tamron is cheaper with better IQ from what I've seen. Plus it has a non rotating front element unlike the canon.

Plus Full Time Manual gocusing, true USM and a 6 year warranty!

If an L lens like the 70-200/4 IS or 2.8 IS II is the long term goal, I would just pick up a used 55-250 for now and sell the sigma and save for the end goal.

If you don't ever see yourself spending that kind of money, I would pick the Tamron 70-300 VC.

I dont want to hijack your thread here but have a question I went to Amazon and looked up the Tamaron 70-300 and see they have a 70-300 macro listed for $200. Now this is going to be a NOOB question but what is the difference?

Littlejon Dsgn wrote in post #14412030
I dont want to hijack your thread here but have a question I went to Amazon and looked up the Tamaron 70-300 and see they have a 70-300 macro listed for $200. Now this is going to be a NOOB question but what is the difference?

4 Stops Vibration Compensation and Ultrasonic Silent Drive (USD) focusing and a much better IQ with the VC model.

FEChariot wrote in post #14412080
4 Stops Vibration Compensation and Ultrasonic Silent Drive (USD) focusing and a much better IQ with the VC model.

Great thank you for clearing that up for me.

Littlejon Dsgn wrote in post #14412030
I dont want to hijack your thread here but have a question I went to Amazon and looked up the Tamaron 70-300 and see they have a 70-300 macro listed for $200. Now this is going to be a NOOB question but what is the difference?

Totally different lenses, from build, features, size and image quality.

GregoryF wrote in post #14412154
Totally different lenses, from build, features, size and image quality.

I figured so, but as a noob when I see 70-300 on two different lens from the same company with $200 difference makes you scratch your head.

if i were in your shoes i'd get a 55-250IS instead...the difference between it and the 70-300IS are hardly noticeable...the price difference is substantial...you can use the money saved on upgrading other parts of your kit....

I have the canon 70-300 IS... It has not been attached to a camera one time since I got the 70-200 2.8 IS... I don't know if I got a bad copy or what... but mine sucks and I rank it right there with my crappy kit lenses....

I'm half tempted to go take some pictures with it just to remind myself why I will never use it again. I feel bad even selling it - for the feeling of ripping someone off.

Me personally, I'd wait until I could afford one of the 70-200 L lenses...

lizzle wrote in post #14412357
I have the canon 70-300 IS... It has not been attached to a camera one time since I got the 70-200 2.8 IS... I don't know if I got a bad copy or what... but mine sucks and I rank it right there with my crappy kit lenses....

I'm half tempted to go take some pictures with it just to remind myself why I will never use it again. I feel bad even selling it - for the feeling of ripping someone off.

Me personally, I'd wait until I could afford one of the 70-200 L lenses...

well if you dont need the 2.8 and would rather have the range, it makes sense. 70-200 may look good for you, but on a FF it's not as long. The extra 50% FL helps. two completely different categories.