----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rob Brigham" > > I think all of these are pretty weak over 200mm - the Sigma you have is > actually the best of the bunch. The 80-320 and Sigma 100-300 are far > worse at 300. They are going to show up a lot worse on digital anyway > due to the extra 'enlargement' required due to the crop factor making > any lack of sharpness more apparent and necessitating much more stable > support (the latter would apply equally to any 300 too). > > I can vouch for the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX being much better, but for mucho > more money... >
Yes, I can vouch for that lens too. Miles better. I have it in EOS mount. Or could it be the camera that's better ;-) :-o I'd like to have something which gives reasonable performance at the 300mm end but is more in keeping with the size of the istD so I have a nice carryaround package. 24-90 and 70-300. I had been pretty pleased with the Sigma apo macro super on a film camera and the macro feature (at 300mm) with close-up lens is pretty good too. On the istD, it's just so awful I may as well not use the last 100mm of the zoom! Wendy -- wendy beard ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
