alex_solich

It seems to me that Sheldon's pics made with sigma are slightly OOF, i had the same results when I bought my sigma, it had a slight frontfocus, so it needed a recalibration by a service, now there is only slight difference between 2.8 and 4 appertures, and the pics now much more contrasty and are tack sharp. So I will not say a word about sigma watching this comparison. In my opinion if you need a lens with 2.8 apperture than go for sigma if you need IS go for canon, if you need a lightweight lens go for F4/L, optically these lens are the same... In everydays shootout you won't see the difference between these lens.... I had a 2.8 Canon but I changed it for sigma, as I had a really good selling oppurtunity, and for the price of the canon I have a lens performing as well as the canon equivalent and a 580EX Flash. So go for it if you need a 2.8 Bazooka, it is a no brainer.

It seems to me that Sheldon's pics made with sigma are slightly OOF, i had the same results when I bought my sigma, it had a slight frontfocus, so it needed a recalibration by a service, now there is only slight difference between 2.8 and 4 appertures, and the pics now much more contrasty and are tack sharp. So I will not say a word about sigma watching this comparison.

In my opinion if you need a lens with 2.8 apperture than go for sigma if you need IS go for canon, if you need a lightweight lens go for F4/L, optically these lens are the same... In everydays shootout you won't see the difference between these lens.... I had a 2.8 Canon but I changed it for sigma, as I had a really good selling oppurtunity, and for the price of the canon I have a lens performing as well as the canon equivalent and a 580EX Flash.

So go for it if you need a 2.8 Bazooka, it is a no brainer.