alternative for 70-200mm canon lens

[dan_l_vv]

<p>Hi there,<br>

Can someone please give me some advise i actualy want to purchase a 70-200mm Canon IS F2.8 etc. but in my financial state i cant afford it at this stage, will a sigma 70-300mm lens do. i have done some research on the sigma lens but the picture quality doesn't look that good.<br>

Please please help</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is an excellent lens with great IQ. Very sharp!<br />Others here and elsewhere say the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS is also very good (I don't have one and have not used one). This one will only fit the APS-C bodies.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>The Canon lens range offers you plenty of excellent alternatives to the 70~200/2.8IS at lower prices: the 70~200/2.8 non-IS if you don't midn sacrificing IS; the outstanding 70~200/4IS (I have one) if you can live with f/4 rather than f/2.8; the very good (and very good value) 70~200/4 non-IS if both; and the two alternatives suggested by Mark, both of which are f/5.6 at the long end but which do take you out beyond 200mm. Plenty to think about there before you start considering an off-brand lens that you don't sound happy with.</p>

[anov]

<p>Sigma and Tamron makes decent 70-200mm f/2.8 too<br>

Check these:<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_n15/">http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_n15/</a><br>

and<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/">http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/</a><br>

The Canon 70-300mm IS, while good, is not in the same league as a fast 70-200mm f/2.8.</p>

[glenroy]

<p>I used the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX. it is very good and a fair bit less than the Canon, but only marginally behind in image quality.</p>

<p>OR you ould look at the Canon non IS version.</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>What will be your use for this lens? If primairly sports, a slower 70-300 may not focus fast enough. If for general photography a 70-200 f4 L IS is smaller, lighter, and easier to carry around. If you are willing to use a tripod or monopod, a non-IS lens will be a lot cheaper.</p>

<p>Canon lenses will hold their value well.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>"will a sigma 70-300mm lens do"</p>

<p>Do for what? If your shooting static scenes in bright daylight almost any of the above will do. If you need fast focus The Canons do a real good job. </p>

[kari v]

<p>Sigma 70-300 is so far from EF 70-200/2.8 IS that it's not even funny. You should be able to guess this from the price alone. Now that Canon has 55-250 IS I wouldn't consider those cheap crappy 70(5)-300 lenses of any make, Canon included.</p>

<p>EF 70-300 IS USM is different animal though. But it's still slow. Do you need more f2.8 or IS? Can't have both at reasonable price on Canon body.</p>

[denton_hoyer]

<p>Hi Daniel,<br>

Your concerned about picture quality, low f stop and zoom. Well, for weddings the 135f2 is an excellent competitor for the 70-200 and many times I prefer it. No zoom of course and no IS. Price is about $900. Works well under low light typical of many weddings without flash.<br>

Denton</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I have had my 70-200 L non IS for about 5 years now, and just discovered that I have to be carrying a tripod or monopod all the time? </p>

[nathangardner]

<p>get the 70-200mm f/4 non IS...a lot cheaper. You don't have to get the most expensive version you know.</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>Sigma 70-200 2.8 is excellent too.</p>

[dan_l_vv]

<p>Well the lens will be used mainly for Wedding photography.<br>

thanx so much for all your responses i have decided to choose between the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM and Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM couldn't quite grip the difference. i will be getting quotes thru today. i am a bit scared of taking the risk with a sigma.</p>

[rodney_morgan]

<p>The best solution is to wait. With lenses you always want to make upgrades, I bought the Canon 70-300 and then sold it the next year to buy the canon 70-200 2.8 is. So enless you really need it I would wait till you had enough money.</p>