Telephoto Help

[stingray]

Probably the billionth topic on which telephoto lens on here... hope I won't bore you too much.
I've just last night shot a concert with my EOS10 and 35-80mm canon lens and though some of the shots will turn out great because I was able to get fairly close, some will involve a bit of cropping, not so good when you've used 3200 film (looking forward to seeing the results of that!).

I have therefore decided to buy a telephoto lens to increase versatility, as I do like to get close to things.
After a couple of days previous when I was in the city perusing camera stores, once evenn being misundertood and almost selling my camera back to the place I bought it from, I managed to narrow it down to a couple of lenses.

The Canon EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6... with or without USM

or

The sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6

The Canon seems to come in a USM and non-USM model with about 100 AUS dollars separating them. I don't use autofocus very often, if at all, so this motor perhaps would be a waste of money?
The sigma on the other hand is available in a whole lot of different configurations according to B&H; my current source of information.
Just wondering on people's experiences on these two, and recommendations for something better or different perhaps? I want it to last me as long as possible. Cheers, Will

 

[KevinR]

I'm not sure the prices your looking at, but if there is anyway to wait and buy either the sigma or tokina 70-200 2.8 lens, you won't be disappointed.

 

[stingray]

but it's only 200 as apposed to 300? presumably that's a fair amount of zoom i would be losing. perhaps it is misleading for me to tell you about the concert i shot last night... that is not my usual subject matter nor conditions. it was a special one off. most of my photography will be either well lit or in full daylight... especially with the telephoto. if i wanted something really fast for extreme sports photography or something else i might do i'd just get a prime.

Sigma i think is around 250-300 AUS dollars.. whereas the canon is 300 for non-USM 400 for USM. cheers...

 

[stingray]

no-=one else can add to this?

 

[DocFrankenstein]

If you're totally sure you're going to have plenty of light for f/5.6 all the time, then sigma 70-300 is not too bad.


But with sigma 70-200 you'll be able to shoot at 200, then crop as if it was 300 and still get better quality. Tokina 70-200 sucks.

If you have the money get the 100-400 L or these sigmas:
http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;...252E3+APO+DG+for+Canon+AF+=28SG170500F5DCA=29
http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;...EX+APO+DG+HSM+for+Canon+AF+=28SG50500F4DCA=29
You won't regret it.

 

[stingray]

what about canon lenses? is it worth the extra? the 90-300 (think that's what it is) looks a pretty good lens, and the build quality's also important to me... it'll have to last as i'm not planning on going pro any time soon.


edit:
by the way the sigmas you osted were heaps to far out of my price range... 700 and 900... if i was going to spend anywahere near that i would save a little more and get an L seies..

 

[DocFrankenstein]

I don't know much difference between those consumer lenses. All of them have bad build and feel very plasticky.

They also don't let in a lot of light.

 

[thebeginning]

canon's newest consumer super-zoom, the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM is the best in that range. it's about 500-600 bucks, but worth the extra. if you shoot in tons of light, stopping down the sigma you mentioned to f8 or f11 should increase its optical quality to an acceptable level.

 

[stingray]

that's 1100 australian dollars, looks VERY nice but it's out of my price range at the moment. my real concern is sharpness because as far as i'm concerned, it's fairly sunny in melbourne where I live and i won't be doing action shots with that lens (no sports photography or anything).
i'm a student with a very very limited income, and as much as i'd like to spend a lot on a lens, i just don't have the money to spend... on anything! thanks for the advice so far.