Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

I've alway used Canon lenses and have been shooting with a Canon EF 70-200

f/2.8 for years. The lens is old and I've noticed lately the IQ is not what

it used to be. I'd love to replace it with a new one--IS but the budget just

isn't there right now. I have an opportunity to buy a used but immaculate

Sigma for $500. How much differnce in IQ is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO IF HSM

and the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8? Any advice? My primary use of this lens is

sports photography at night--mainly Football and Baseball.

 

Thanks

Gary - I've used my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for both weddings and sports and it handles great. Focusing is quick - just wish the lens had a bit more background blur to it. For the prce you can't beat it, it really is a great lens.

Lens IQ shouldn't have any noticeable IQ change with age, unless there are fungus, excessive dust and scraches built up. IMHO, I would just have it clean, lub and adjust. Note to self, a good excuse for wife on stuff I no longer needs :-)

I have a Sigma and find it to be a great lens. Check out:<P>

 

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5383096">PHOTO</a>

<P>This was hand held on an overcast day focused a little too close, I was focusing on the feeder. I find the background blur to be quite pleasing.

I am with Tommy Lee. I would send it to be serviced. The cost will be lower than a new lens.

 

The Canon 70-200/2.8 is supposed to be an excellent lens. The USM on the Canon is faster than Sigma's HSM.

How much difference in IQ?<p>

 

Look <a href="http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/70200exl" >HERE</a> for side by side comparison.<p>

 

But I suggest you get your old lens serviced first, Cause its a great lens.

The non IS version should have the same or better IQ than the IS version.

 

If you look at the link I posted above, the sigma has warmer looking image in the test comparison, but about the same in sharpness.

 

But you'll notice that the sigma is physically smaller and probably lighter, a plus in my book.

As others have said stick with your superior Canon 70-200.

 

 

It would take a lot of fungus and huge amounts of dust to reduce your image quality. Unless the lens is in truly dirty condition a $75-100 USD cleaning would do nothing to help. How have you witnessed the decreased quality? Are you pixel peeping from a 6 to 10 MP DSLR and comparing to previous slides or negatives? Are you using 800 to 1600 ISO settings or film?

I have the same Canon lens. It is ten years old. Been through five years of newspaper sports and newsa, dragged through Florida swamps, and a lot of weddings and is still producing great pictures. I dropped it on a cement walk at a wedding and has been banged around in a camera bag stuffed with too much junk and never missed a beat. It still looks good. The AF works like it did when I bought it. Its like my old Nissan I will drive it til it falls apart. It's one tough lens. It autofocuses with a Canon 2X ext. If I didn't have one I'd buy yours. I suggest you get it fixed. I have had a couple of Sigma lenses that are long gone.

Hello

 

I did have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO IF HSM that I purchased two years ago for $650.00 dollars off ebay and I just sold it i to ebay for $550. I used the lens to shoot Ice Hockey photos. I just purchased a new canon 70-200 at the price of $1,700. dollars and I must say it is better but for the normal person the Sigma is a great lens and I would not spend the money for the canon.