Background: I am a complete newbie to SLRs. I have recently seen how nice pictures turn out with a 'decent' SLR, so I made the plunge and bought this... http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11290508&cm_mmc=BCEmail_330-_-FOCUS-_-3-_-CanonRebel
That part is already done (so there is no point in telling me what a mistake I've made!).
I have a friend who has a Sigma 28-300 lens that seems to be what I'd like (for taking pictures of wakeboarding from the boat, kids sporting events, etc). It's a little under $300. No image stabilization, however.
There is a Canon 55-250 lens for $269 with IS... http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5327/lens-test-canon-55-250mm-f4-56-ef-s-is.html
So, I guess the main questions is: how important do you feel IS is for a rank amateur? Would the extra range of the Sigma be a better idea than the Canon with the IS?
I very much appreciate any input you might have!
(Message edited by newchicago on August 15, 2008)