Birthday present

I have a 350D. Wife wants to get me a good lens. I've been told of one to buy, but is $600+ after shipping and tax. Can anybody give me any suggestions? I like macro, nature, urban and cars (parked and speeding away).
looking at;
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Autofocus Lens - this is the $600 one
Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS - anybody have anything to say on this one

The honest thing is this, $600 for a lens is not a problem by any means. But my wife will not end there, she will buy other things here and there for me and it's hard to ask her to drop $600 on one thing (guilt).

Any help is appreciated. Thank you.

Last year she bought me a brand new truck for my birthday. A few months ago I bought her the boat she wanted. I don't want to "go big" this year. I'd like to keep it simple. We sold our old house, waiting on our new one to be finished - renting a townhouse right now. Don't really want to tie up anymore finances - so I'm trying to be careful.

The difference between those lenses is like night and day. The Sigma is simply garbage. I don't mean to sound harsh, but the given lenses are just in different leagues.

makphoto wrote in post #2738141
I have a 350D. Wife wants to get me a good lens. I've been told of one to buy, but is $600+ after shipping and tax. Can anybody give me any suggestions? I like macro, nature, urban and cars (parked and speeding away).
looking at;
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Autofocus Lens - this is the $600 one
Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS - anybody have anything to say on this one

The honest thing is this, $600 for a lens is not a problem by any means. But my wife will not end there, she will buy other things here and there for me and it's hard to ask her to drop $600 on one thing (guilt).

Any help is appreciated. Thank you.

Last year she bought me a brand new truck for my birthday. A few months ago I bought her the boat she wanted. I don't want to "go big" this year. I'd like to keep it simple. We sold our old house, waiting on our new one to be finished - renting a townhouse right now. Don't really want to tie up anymore finances - so I'm trying to be careful.

Wait until you can have it all. The 70-200mm 2.8 IS. It's heaven.

Benandbobbi wrote in post #2738200
Wait until you can have it all. The 70-200mm 2.8 IS. It's heaven.

and the 70-200 f/4?

ghms421 wrote in post #2738177
The difference between those lenses is like night and day. The Sigma is simply garbage. I don't mean to sound harsh, but the given lenses are just in different leagues.

figured as much. I'd rather spend the $600 for something good rather than try junk for $200...... that's all i'm worried about.

I wouldn't say that the sigma is garbage...

But I'd definitely go with the f/4 L

70-200 f/4L is a big bang-for-the-buck lens. Really great image quality and build for not much money. I'd say definitely go for it.

nyy wrote in post #2738343
I wouldn't say that the sigma is garbage...

I personally don't know either way. But if my wife is going to spend the money, I want to make sure it is going to be worth it and something that she sees me getting use out of.

I'm so new to this stuff, I have to stop and ask because I don't have the experience. For everything that Sigma does, it sounds like a great deal. But to find another lens that would do all that is nearly $700. You have to stop and ask yourself "why would there be $500 difference between the 2 lenses?" - and that's where I'm at.

TYhe sigma is very much a capable lens, but compared to the Canon its a no brainer. The $500 difference comes from the much better optics, build quality and speed of the Canon.

If you still want to see some shots taken with the Sigma you can look through my gallery, the majority are with the sigma.

why do we always have to hear about the 2.8 i s when someone asks about the 70-200 f/4L .get the 70-200 you will love it

I got the 70-200 f4 and it's great. It's the least expensive L lens and worth the money.

Ospi wrote in post #2738493
TYhe sigma is very much a capable lens, but compared to the Canon its a no brainer. The $500 difference comes from the much better optics, build quality and speed of the Canon.

If you still want to see some shots taken with the Sigma you can look through my gallery, the majority are with the sigma.

Note that the lens described in the link is not the well-regarded-for-the-money APO version that sells for around $200, but, instead, the non-APO version. http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …EG&addedTroughT​ype=search This lens is considerably better than the Sigma in the OP link.

stevek71 wrote in post #2738511
why do we always have to hear about the 2.8 i s when someone asks about the 70-200 f/4L .get the 70-200 you will love it

Seems like alot of people after buying the f/4 are always wishing they bought the f/2.8...............mo​st do end up selling the f/4 for the f/2.8.
A huge difference in what Light you can shoot in.

the.digital.guy wrote in post #2738670
Seems like alot of people after buying the f/4 are always wishing they bought the f/2.8...............mo​st do end up selling the f/4 for the f/2.8.
A huge difference in what Light you can shoot in.

i know the differance but nothing in his post said anything about low light situations

runninmann wrote in post #2738584
Note that the lens described in the link is not the well-regarded-for-the-money APO version that sells for around $200, but, instead, the non-APO version. http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …EG&addedTroughT​ype=search This lens is considerably better than the Sigma in the OP link.

Right you are, though isnt the APO also only bout $200?