Happy with Canon's 75-300mm non IS?

No reviews of the new Sigma 80-400mm OS lense yet?

Should I be happy with the 300mm end of Canon's 75-300mm III USM
(non IS)?

http://www1.airpics.co​m/showimg.php?imgid=47​859

Or can I expect an improvement at the 400mm end of the new
Sigma?

The obvious choice would be Canon's 100-400mm IS lense but
until I can get one for around £600 it remains prohibitive.

fox1 wrote:
No reviews of the new Sigma 80-400mm OS lense yet?

Should I be happy with the 300mm end of Canon's 75-300mm III USM
(non IS)?

http://www1.airpics.co​m/showimg.php?imgid=47​859

Or can I expect an improvement at the 400mm end of the new
Sigma?

The obvious choice would be Canon's 100-400mm IS lense but
until I can get one for around £600 it remains prohibitive.

The Sigma 80-400 is still £1000 cf £1200 for the 100-400 Canon IS. Just put my money into the Canon which is my replacement for the Canon 75-300 IS.

chris.bailey wrote:

fox1 wrote:
No reviews of the new Sigma 80-400mm OS lense yet?

Should I be happy with the 300mm end of Canon's 75-300mm III USM
(non IS)?

http://www1.airpics.co​m/showimg.php?imgid=47​859

Or can I expect an improvement at the 400mm end of the new
Sigma?

The obvious choice would be Canon's 100-400mm IS lense but
until I can get one for around £600 it remains prohibitive.

The Sigma 80-400 is still £1000 cf £1200 for the 100-400 Canon IS. Just put my money into the Canon which is my replacement for the Canon 75-300 IS.

I'm still hoping to get either the Sigma or Canon in the US... I don't suppose either would be prohibitive there...just wish I could get some
feedback on the Sigma.

fox1 wrote:

chris.bailey wrote:

fox1 wrote:
No reviews of the new Sigma 80-400mm OS lense yet?

Should I be happy with the 300mm end of Canon's 75-300mm III USM
(non IS)?

http://www1.airpics.co​m/showimg.php?imgid=47​859

Or can I expect an improvement at the 400mm end of the new
Sigma?

The obvious choice would be Canon's 100-400mm IS lense but
until I can get one for around £600 it remains prohibitive.

The Sigma 80-400 is still £1000 cf £1200 for the 100-400 Canon IS. Just put my money into the Canon which is my replacement for the Canon 75-300 IS.

I'm still hoping to get either the Sigma or Canon in the US... I don't suppose either would be prohibitive there...just wish I could get some
feedback on the Sigma.

with the exchange rate, getting cheaper by the day!

[/QUOTE] with the exchange rate, getting cheaper by the day![/QUOTE]

Nearly sub-£700 for the Canon.?

Where can I even see what the price is for the 80-400. Don't see it on Sigma's web site

morenoar wrote:
Where can I even see what the price is for the 80-400. Don't see it on Sigma's web site

http://www.warehouseex​press.co.uk have it quoted as £999.99 but thats sterling

chris.bailey wrote:

morenoar wrote:
Where can I even see what the price is for the 80-400. Don't see it on Sigma's web site

http://www.warehouseex​press.co.uk have it quoted as £999.99 but thats sterling

Not in stock here but at the price listed...Canon's 100-400mm is
competitive...

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ails&Q=&sku=263​440&is=REG

Have you considered the 70-200/4L with a 1.4x Teleconverter?

That is a sweet and slightly less expensive combination.

Which would turn the 70-200 into a 100-340mm? forgetting the
1.6 factor? Forgive my maths...

fox1 wrote:
Which would turn the 70-200 into a 100-340mm? forgetting the
1.6 factor? Forgive my maths...

More like 98-280.

Many, including myself, would claim that the 70-200/4L with a 1.4TC is superior (optically) to any of the xx-300 cheap zooms.

If you want to spend big bucks, then the 100-400/5.6L-IS is a good candidate. It does, afterall, have a longer reach. If the sigma is "close" in price, then I would stick with Canon.

Another (expensive) option is a 300/4L-IS with 1.4 TC.

My biases: I had the 75-300. Upgraded to 70-200/4L. Found it to be excellent. I am not yet limited on the long end, but I am eyeing both the 1.4TC and 300/4L-IS to extend my reach further. Since I already have the 70-200/4L, I feel the 100-400/5.6L-IS would be a bit redundant and the 300 prime would be "better"

Your milage may vary.