Sigma 70-200mm OS vs. Canon 70-200mm non-IS

[jmorian]

<p>I have been waiting a long time to purchase a 70-200mm lens for my Rebel XSi. I already have a 55-250mm lens but I mostly shoot my daughter's soccer and basketball games and it just doesn't cut it when it gets dark. I also like a telephoto for things like graduations and awards ceremonies that are often in dimly lit environments. My dilemma is this: I can't afford to spend that $2500 that I would love to on the IS version of the Canon 70-200. I have read alot about the Sigma 70-200mm OS and it depending on what you read it gets pretty good reviews. It is not, of course, a Canon L lens. I found a used Canon non-is version on for $300 less than the Sigma (currently going for $1400). Given what I usually shoot, do you think I will regret not getting IS down the road if my shooting needs change? I always shoot handheld as I have access to move around the fields and courts and I just prefer it. As always, I appreciate everyone's input!</p>

[philip_wilson]

I have two Canon 70-200s, the F4IS and the F2.8 non IS. For many years I was quite happy with the F2.8 lens and I

only added the F4 lens as a walk around lens because the F2.8 lens is so heavy. I don't shoot basketball but I do

shoot soccer, ice hockey and ski racing. In all my time with the F2.8 non IS lens I have never missed IS. I suggest you

test them both. I suspect that you will find the Canon lens the better buy. The F2.8 non ISis actually sharper than the

Canon F2.8 IS Mk I so it is probably sharper than the Sigma - especially at F2.8. In addition you will probably find the

AF faster and more accurate on the Canon than on the Sigma. Finally the Canon will probably hold it's value bettter I

have owned mine for qtte a few years but they sell for more now (on eBay) than I paid.

[randallfarhy]

<p>I agree with Philip here. For shooting action you will need to maintain a higher shutter speed anyhow, and since IS won't help with subject movement, only camera shake-you arn't likely to miss it. I have the 70-200 F2.8L IS and only use the IS in low light for handheld candid work, or when I'm panning a moving subject for effect as one of the settings allows for vertical axis stabilisation and a slower shutter is generally used for this technique. I honestly feel you will be better off with the Non IS 70-200 F2.8, it is an excellent lens and will hold it's value over time, if the weight is not an issue.</p>

<p>An alternative, and favorite among many (rightfully so) is the 70-200F4 IS- in this case, the IS lens is sharper than the Non IS F4 counterpart. It's lighter, smaller and is easier to handle than the 2.8's. I've never owned a Sigma lens, so I can't offer a comment on their build or overall quality. The few I've handled just didn't make me want to rush out and purchase them.</p>

[philip_wilson]

To add to Randall's comment on the 70-200 F4 LIS I bought this lens 2-3 years ago to add to my 70-200 F2.8 non IS.

I bought it because I found that I often left the F2.8 lens behind when traveling light or in the mountains as it is a big

beast (about 1.5 Kg). The F4 IS is much lighter and quite a bit smaller (especially without the tripod mounting ring).

the image quality of the F4 lens is remarkable and so close to a prime (except for the slower aperture) that you can

leave primes at home in many circumstances. For outdoor use this lens is good enough to use for sports and I have

shot ski racing and soccer with mine. For indoor sports it will depend on the light and the shutter speeds you need. My

F4 lens is too slow to shot I've hockey - it can be done but the f2.8 lens is much better. However, hockey rinks are

quite dark (typically LV 8 to 9) and you need fast shutter speeds (at least 1/400). Basketball might be fine with the F4

lens.