in my case it very seldom goes into action. but i'd rather have the range just in case i need it. i just can't justify the cost of a 70-300 vr.
I know what you mean but actually I probably can. Yesterday was Emma's 1st sports day at Elementary school. My Sigma 17-70mm just couldn't get close enough. May is two years behind her so I'm looking at a lot of sports days and other comparable events in the future!
Parents tend to spend a lot of time in the audience!
On top of that I see other stuff here all the time that I'd love to photograph but can't - white herons on the rice fields....small blue kingfishers over the river - actually, often really neat stuff that you simply can't get close to. So in a way the case is already made for a 70-300mm lens, it's just a question of which one.
Yesterday - after the sports day when I realized I needed it - I was pretty blown away by the price of the Sigma relative to the reviews it was getting. The pictures in this thread already prove that IMO.
Today - with a bit more digging I read a thread on DPReview about the Canon - not the DO lens - the ordinary one. People were VERY pleased with it. In the thread was a link to a full blown review which reckoned that the Canon was one of their very best deals. The glass used, and latest IS technology making it virtually an L lens (reason why it isn't just the plastic housing and fact that the front element rotates)
Now I'm screwed. As it stands, if I buy the Sigma I'll probably always regret I didn't get the Canon.......so unless I hear/see other things that might alter my thinking it's gonna be the Canon, although I'll have to save a little for it!
It was
THIS review that screwed me!
Consider that the shots of the moon shown here were taken with NO tripod. That IS is really awesome - supposedly 3 speed stops better than what you are actually shooting in terms of anti-shake effect, plus a mode for fast panning for sports shots.
It's not bad at macro either, although unlike the Sigma it isn't actually sold as a macro lens.
