However, the second has IS which I don't think I need when I'm shooting in the direction of the sunlight at 1/1000 to 1/2000 of a second shutter speed. I have a Sigma 70-300 and am I'm tired of it. Do you think either of these would be better strictly because they're Canon and not Sigma. Please let me hear your thoughts. I could save over $200 by buying the first. I've even heard rumor the first is better in quality over the second. Is there anything else I'd be losing/gaining by getting the first over the second cause I really wanna save that money if it's not too big of a difference.
The public: They always know better, even though they often know nothing
Jderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1747 posts, RR: 33 Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2883 times:
i would say go for the IS....its a real good lens but it is at its best when you stop it down to f8 or so...so in doing that you'll get a relatively slower shutter speed so the IS is very handy...
don't know about a difference in quality between the non-IS and IS versions....
Xiphias From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 75 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2854 times:
Yes, IS definitely. Have the same lens and it's great. And it's not always going to be sunny. Or if you want to make slower shutter pics you still can. Also nice that it stays stable at the end of the day when your arms are sore.
Good luck in your desicion.
-XiP
Xiph"i*as, n. [L., a swordfish, a sword-shaped comet, fr. Gr. xifi`as, fr. xi`fos a sword.]
Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 35 Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2853 times:
Is there really going to be much difference in quality between your Sigma 70-300 and EF 75-300? I'm not convinced there would be.
If you can afford the IS version of the 75-300 (which admittedly is a cracking lens - Check out Gary Watt and Justin Wood's shots) you can also afford the 70-200 F4 L. It's a wonderful, wonderful lens. What you lose in IS you gain in the fact that image quality is terrific, even wide open. That means you can shoot in poor conditions and still achieve a perfectly usable shutter speed.
I've been using one for six months, and I wouldn't change it for the world.
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2813 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2841 times:
Mr James Sulman speaks the truth yet again! Follow his advice and go for the 70-200F4L. I own both and put it this way. One gets taken out most times i go shooting, one of them hasnt been touched for 6 months.
Get the 70-200F4L! L glass is infectious though, i warn you now!
Chris
5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2837 times:
Perhaps it would help if you told us what you don't like about the Sigma - with the others, I wouldn't consider the Canon 75-300 a significant improvement in terms of image quality.
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2836 times:
OD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1919 posts, RR: 36 Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2834 times:
I have the IS version and I'm very happy with it. Never had any problems with quality. I usually use it up to 200mm and not lower than f/7.1. But is it any different than the non-IS? I don't know.
Dlx737200 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1850 posts, RR: 23 Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2818 times:
Well I was more or less looking for someone to compare the quality of these two lenses. I would like the Canon 70-200L but most of my spots I shoot from require 300mm and I'd really miss that 100mm that I'd lose with that lens. What about getting a converter for the 70-200L. Would that screw up the quality of the L glass?
I just figured a Canon lens would more or less be better quality than a Sigma lens. My sigma lens needs repair right now but other than that, the only problem I'd say it gives me is it gets a little soft at 300mm but I think thats standard anyway.
The public: They always know better, even though they often know nothing
Dlx737200 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1850 posts, RR: 23 Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2816 times:
Scratch that. Canon 70-200L is even out of my price range at the moment. I can't go any higher than $400. Thanks anyway. PLEEEEEEEASE, I need for feedback on these two lenses, perferably the first if anyone's used it. Whichever lens I get, I'll use it until I can afford the 100-400L a couple years down the road.
The public: They always know better, even though they often know nothing
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2812 times:
I'd get the Sigma fixed and save your money for a good replacement. In the consumer range of lenses, overall there is little difference between Sigma and Canon (though there are particularly good and bad items in both ranges). At this level, Sigma probably offers better value for money than Canon.
Klgaviation From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 243 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2767 times:
Guys,
I'm actually considering those two as well!
I think I may go with the cheap-y first and eventually go to the gold.
Chris
There is a fine line between a picture and a photo. The latter seems to be disappearing.
Andrewuber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 44 Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2737 times:
Get IS - you won't regret it. I take it everywhere with me. Once you can afford L - upgrade. That's what I plan to do!
AdamWright From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2711 times:
I own the IS version of the 75-300. And IS is a dream come true. I won't ever go back to a lens without it.. currently in the process of upgrading to the 100-400 IS L
BREmer From Germany, joined May 2004, 540 posts, RR: 18 Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2697 times:
I made up my mind about the very same thing just a couple of weeks ago as well. I finally decided to go for a used 75-300 III USM without the IS. The money I saved goes into my funding for an L lens.
For now I'm pretty satisfied with the lens. Of course the IS performs a bit better especially in low light conditions, so if you are looking for a lens to guide you along for many years, go with the IS. If you just want a lens to get you started take the one without IS, and save the money since you're likely gonna upgrade to an L lens anyways sooner or later.
Wagz From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 504 posts, RR: 18 Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2671 times:
I just got a 300D and a 75-300 USM to go with it (non-IS). I'm on a budget, and as much as I'd like to have the IS capability, I don't think the extra $200 or more is worth it. In bright daylight conditions you'll be shooting with high enough shutter speeds where it won't matter. It might be very handy at dawn/dusk though. I recently tried some sunset shots and some are blurry, but others are just fine (2 of which were recently accepted here). If you have a steady hand you shouldn't have too many problems. It should at least make those good dusk shots even sweeter knowing it was such a challenge to get them.
I think Big Foot is blurry, Its not the photographers fault. Theres a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1850 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 75 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1919 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2004, 540 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
