Oh d*mn.had a nice reply written and the windows lost it!
The summary is:
The 55-200 could indeed be a good one.....I've found the 80-200 II to be significantly better than the 75-300 for example,the 55-200 may have similar qualities?
The ones i've tried i rate:
sigma 100-300 DL (the cheapest model).Not too bad really.Definitely abit soft but with digital corection for that and the slight blue tint i got some nice pics.
http://www.photo.net …b/folder?folder_id=367694
EF75-300
I've had several of these
They tend to be low in contrast and colour,soft -especially at 300mm-and slow to focus(regardless of USM).Drives me nuts that i can't usually get sharp pics @300mm without using stupidly high shutter speeds.
http://www.photo.net …b/folder?folder_id=368574
EF80-200 II
Definitely better than the 75-300 in sharpness and contrast.Very small,light,fast focussing (even without USM)
EF100-300
I've heard that these are a little better than the 75-300 and now that i have one i can say it is MUCH better in every way!
Very similar at the short end but definitely sharper at the long end.Fast focus,better build,better contrast gentler out of focus blur(but not ness. better-the strong blur 0f the 75-300 can be quite good).
Also i can get sharp shots at much lower shutter speeds than the 75-300.
I bought mine 2nd hand-i seem to recall the new price is quite high?
One possible good tip-don't be afraid to buy 2nd hand when trying out lenses.It's a very good way to trade up to better ones later on without losing much!
)
