Do Sigma or Tamron produce IS lenses

I'm new to the dSLR game. Now I have my 20D (yippee), I am interested in IS lenses. But Canon's are a bit expensive and I wondered if any third party people had done this ?

If so, any pointers to reviews etc ?

Thanks

Alan

Sigma has 80-400 OS, but it's expensive too, and Canon's 100-400 is better, I believe.

Alan-

At present Canon L glass is rated as the undisputed best is their class.

Canon realizes that and charges accordingly. You will hear people whine and complain and make all kinds of outrageous claims that "so-and-so" brand is just as good. This is simply not true !

L glass in the hands of a COMPETENT photographer, will produce a better image every time.

When you hear "Canon L lenses are too expensive", the truth is the person can't afford to buy it, which doesn't make it too expensive !!

I did a Bird shoot this weekend and the guy there had aa Sigma 80 to 400. It is a nice lens but it is big. He took a shot of an eagle and it was a little fuzzy. Now it is new to him so you really can't go by that, but some of his other shots were sharp. B & H have it for just under $900 were as the 100 to 400 L is at $1509 is $609 difference. NOw I opted to go to the 70 to 200 F4 L and my pictures are sharp with it but I do not have the reach.

I know a phoyographer who gets awsome results with the Sigma 50 to 500mm lens and just bought the 100 to 400 L for the IS and poste shots from both and the Sigma is every bit as good as the Canon L but the jury's out on the 80 to 400 IS Sigma.

If you want to see some great shots with both Lenses the Canon 100 to 400 and the Sigma 50 to 500 go to this site.

http://www.pbase.com/m​reilly01/bronx_zoo

PIcture on page 1 & 2 are the 50 to 500 and Page 3 the Canon 100 to 400 L

I wish I had taken these pics.

Unless it is 100% crop, there is no way to judge or compare sharpness. I find my 100-400L sharp but I also find that my 10D often misses focus.

define expensive. Certainly L lenses will cost quite a bit more, and L lenses with IS will cost more than their L counterparts that don't have IS (70-200 2.8 L vs. 70-200 2.8 L IS). There are a few non-L lenses that have IS. One popular one is the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS, which runs about $400 from b&h. It is no L, but it is a good walk around lens. There is also the new ef-s 17-85 IS (not sure of the price, but should be around the same as 28-135), not sure if there are other non-L lenses out there with IS.

I think you would have a hard time finding a lens for less than $400 with stabilization. More moving parts + whatever is needed for IS = cost more to produce.

Alan, Sigma has one lens with stabilization that they call OS, the 80-400. Two things, it is very expensive for what it is and it has AF as slow as treacle flowing up hill. If you want IS, then it is Canon and give this Sigma a wide berth. IMHO, Sigma only make one really decent lens, the 120-300 2.8 and that is also expensive.

I have a shelf full of Sigma lenses belonging to my wife. She has suggested throwing them in the trash, but I have told her that they are worth something. She has a full set from the 15-30 right up to the 50-500 and I don't rate any of them (sorry Sigma fans).

Thanks for that.

As I am just starting in dSLR, this is all new and all info gratefully received.

I have 2 lenses - the 18-55 plastic one and a Sigma 18-125 DC. This seems to me to give acceptable pictures (better than the 18-55 anyway) - but I don't have anything else to compare it with. At the moment, I will live with that (budget is running dry anyway) and look at a canon IS lens when I can afford one.

I'd like to try that 50-500 sometime - thats an 800 zoom on a 20d....

Alan