A bit confused to say the least...

[zafra52]

I am a bit confused with the various lenses available. I already have a
Sigma 70 -300 DG APO Macro and I was considering the Canon 70 - 300 IS USM because of the IS, but then I was advised that the Canon 70-200 L would be a better choice despite not having the IS ( the price difference seems to be negligeable). So I went on to Fred Miranda and other lens reviews pages and the more I read; the more confused I got. The Canon L range lenses seem rather large artefacts to carry around, and the 70 -200 L IS f/4 is more expensive with the IS and produces sharper pictures, but is it worth the difference once you put it through Photoshop? On the other hand, how does the Sigma 70 -300 DG APO Macro that I already got compare to the Canon 70 - 300 IS USM? Of course, the problems are size and price versus convinience, portability and picture quality.

[ozimax]

I can't comment on the Sigma and on the 70-300 IS, but until recently I owned the brilliant 70-200 F4 (non IS) lens. Being an "L" series lens, it is built like a tank, it's sharpness is legendary and colour reproduction is fantastic. However, if you need 300mm in length then that may be a better option.

I sold the F4 and purchased an F2.8 IS version for several reasons, not the least being weather sealing as I do a lot of photography in or near salt water. (I do believe that the F4 IS variant is also weather sealed, but it is also quite expensive.)

If the truth be known, they're all very good lenses. You wallet's contents will most probably determine which you can get, but all will do the job. I have taken some excellent (I think...) images with a freebie el cheapo Tamron 70-300 lens, so it's more a case of photographic skill and patience than lens selection.

I wish you well in your choice of lens.

Ozi.[/i]

[zafra52]

Thanks Ozi. I love the pictures you took with your new lens. I guess I am not a professional and I still have a long way to go so I find difficult to justify that kind of money for a lens like yours. The best I could do if I save a bit more it is the 70-200 L IS f/4 but it is not the kind of lens that could pass unnoticed so that is why the 70-300 IS USM looks a bit more appealing to carry and to my wallet (specially at Poon's bargain price - if it is the same lens), but I am afraid of ending up with something just a little better to what I already have. Dilemma!

[petal666]

Go to a shop and have a play with the 70-200f/4. It really isn't that big. Then get hold of the Canon 70-300 and I can pretty much guarantee you will put it straight back down and grab the 70-200 again. It is such a good lens.