Sigma 70-200

[lowfatgraphics]

anyone know how the Sigma 70-200 2.8 Ex /Apo/HSN compares to the Canon 70-200 2.8 L ? Any feed back would be

great! I found a good price on the Sigma for $400. Just thinking if it's worth it.

[tridakfoto]

Wow, took me a bit to get in here but apparently the interface is being overhauled for photo.net! Nice.

 

Anyway back to the OP. I purchased the NEW Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II version and the Canon f/2.8L equivalent to compare just to give the Sigma a chance and see if it could live up to "some" of its good reviews.

 

I just returned the Sigma to B&H last week. Kept the Canon of course. I know the version you are looking at is different in some aspects and I have never used it so I cannot say for sure if it is good or bad and whether the Canon would be your best choice but chances are ... Canon will outperform all other 70-200mm's out there (Third party at least).

 

If it were myself and I wanted to save a few bucks but needed that focal length I'd check out the New Tamron now. I know it does not have the best reviews either but I have owned two of Tamron's highly acclaimed lenses and I would guess their new 70-200 would produce some nice images as well. It may be noisy and somewhat slow with its AF but I'd rather have that then soft images with the Sigma all the time.

 

If you need a lens for action and such, I'd have to say Canon may be your best bet. Otherwise look at Tamron or a used Canon also.

 

Just my two cents. I have sample images from the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L compared to the newer Sigma if you'd like to see some. They range from handheld to being on my tripod and all apertures.

 

Not a huge fan of Sigma now at least with that lens.

[joseph_eustaquio]

Maybe look at the Canon 70-200 F4 lens instead? Save $500 - $700 and get that same "L" quality and sharpness just lose a few F-stops. I love the F4 lens. Fantastic and a better alternative to the Sigma and Tamron setup. The Canon AF is the fastest. Period. I feel that it is a better lens than the Sigma, but for $400? WOW, Where are you getting that!

 

Best price I've seen was $700.

[milton-chris]

Well, I do love my siggie 70-200, purchased new 18 months ago. However, having messed around with the Canon 2.8 IS recently, that is what I'll be upgrading to at some point this year. Absolutely nothing wrong with my siggie; just can notice the difference with my shakey hands using the IS.

[willhl]

I've had a few issues with front/back focus on my sigma, had it calibrate to my 300D and just recently to my 30D. It

is still not quite as good as I'd like but maybe my expectations are too high. I did however use it for a shoot recently

(just after calibration) and really liked the results:<br>

 

-<a href="http://www.willsphotography.com.au/showgirls/5937.jpg">One</a><br>

-<a href="http://www.willsphotography.com.au/showgirls/5958.jpg">Two</a><br>

-<a href="http://www.willsphotography.com.au/showgirls/6059.jpg">Three</a><br>

[bob_osullivan]

I"ve had both lenses. The sigma is a tad softer at F2.8 from F4 up it's comparable on sharpness. The AF speed is very fast and again almost as fast as Canon. If you had to chose between a new Sigma for $800 and a new Canon for $1000 I'd say go for the Canon. But at $400 for the sigma, I think I'd have to say give it a chance. It's a real good lens for that price, provided there's nothing wrong with it.