Originally Posted by Scott Merryfield
If those 2 Sigma's have good optics (and Sigma is known for good teles), then either choice should be nice for those of us on tighter budgets. I wonder though whether Sigma's IS has improved much in the last couple years. Last I read/heard, the IS on their OS lenses doesn't really come close to Nikon and Canon -- and I think that was before Nikon (and Canon?) made improvements to their IS tech. But having HSM -- their version of Canon USM (or Nikon AF-S) -- can certainly make a real diff. That was part of the reason why I originally went w/ their 70-200 f/2.8 instead of Nikon's older 80-200 f/2.8 for my D70 body.
_Man_
If those 2 Sigma's have good optics (and Sigma is known for good teles), then either choice should be nice for those of us on tighter budgets. I wonder though whether Sigma's IS has improved much in the last couple years. Last I read/heard, the IS on their OS lenses doesn't really come close to Nikon and Canon -- and I think that was before Nikon (and Canon?) made improvements to their IS tech. But having HSM -- their version of Canon USM (or Nikon AF-S) -- can certainly make a real diff. That was part of the reason why I originally went w/ their 70-200 f/2.8 instead of Nikon's older 80-200 f/2.8 for my D70 body.
_Man_