70-200 2.8 - beat to death but I have to ask again ...

[mjryan67]

First off many apologies for asking a question that has been covered here so many times, but I am a little thick headed, espically when spending large amounts of money.

I am getting ready to purchase a 70-200 2.8 lens next week and had pretty much decided to spend the extra bucks for the Canon L, but I have read alot of good things about the Sigma 2.8 70-200. So if anyone has experience with both lenses I would appreciate some feedback.

My main concern is that I will be in the middle of a wedding and the Sigma will crash on me with the dreaded er 99. I shoot a 10D and would be interested in getting some info from someone who maybe used this combo for this wedding season and what their observations are after several months of use.

The bottom line here is about $300, the going rate for L lenses on e-bay, used is $900 - $ 950 and the Sigma is about $600 new, the extra $300 could buy me another flash or the bg - ed3 and other goodies.

I don't have L glass envy but I do want good images and reliability ........ what to do ????

Thanks,

MJR

[lightandlife]

I have not used Sigma, but you can't go wrong with Canon 70-200mm L. But get the IS version.

[mjryan67]

Light,

I have IS on the 28-135 and have experimented with it but have yet to really use it and find any clear advantages and for a $500.00 price delta I need to see some advantages. So help me out and tell me why IS ?

Thanks,

MJR

[pwagner]

The IS featue is most useful at longer focal lengths. With the 70-200 range, you'll definitely find it useful when your at 200. Also, the IS works just fine with teleconverters... so if you turn that lens into a 140-400, the IS will be practically required for handheld shots.

[lightandlife]

Thanks, Wagner.

Ryan, even without a teleconverter, 1.6x factor of 10D means 70-200mm is about 100-320mm. So you definitely want IS, although I do not have one with IS.

Besides Canon's 70-200mm L is the best lens in its class. Its sharpness, I hear, is equal to a more expensive brand (not Nikon). 28-70mm L was not as good as its competitors, I hear, and that is the reason why Canon produced its replacement recently.

[cubfan]

You might consider the Canon 80-200 2.8 L lens.....This one can be found used. It is a Canon and was replaced by the 70-200 F2.8 USM. It's not a USm but it is an L lens and I have one. I find it superbly sharp and focusing speed is no problem. In fact it is sharper than the lens that replaced it....check photodo to verify my claim. You should be able to get this thens for the same as the sigma and its sharper and has better resale value. Stay with Canon lenses even if you pay more. I have had Tamrons,sigmas and tokinas. They have low resale value and some day you'll want to sell them. Used Canon L lenses sell very easily at top dollar!!

[photography By Evangelos]

Very true the 80-200 F2.8 Canon "L" is sharper than the 70-200 F2.8 "L". I had one and replaced it with the new 70-200 IS model. Go for the Canon you will never ever regret buying the canon. Sigma's can be hit or miss and do you have the time to keep sending it for repair? There is a post with some one reporting the aperture blades are stuck on his Sigma 70-200 lens. If you are in doubt with Sigma quality then the canon is the only choice.

[tikkeltokkel]

28-70mm L was not as good as its competitors, I hear, and that is the reason why Canon produced its replacement recently.

I have read on a few sites/forums that the Canon 24-70/2.8 isn't as sharp as the 28-70/2.8 More conflicting stories that make purchasing smart, hard. P.S. i only the other day noticed that the 24-70 has a barrel that extends ... i hate that in a lens.

[mjordan]

I bought the 24-70 2.8L a month or so ago and love it. I also have the 70-200 4.0L and though I have not done side by side specific tests with them, I believe the images I get with the 24-70 are sharper than my 70-200. And I think the 70-200 is sharp. I am putting in an order tonight for the 70-200 2.8L IS because I need the extra fstop and I'm hoping the IS will work for me as well as it has for others that like it.

If the 28-70 is considered sharper than the 24-70, then it must be a very sharp lens.

Mike

[UniSonBBS]

To me, I tried out a 50-500mm EX from Sigma yesterday. It seemed VERY nice compaired to my current lenses. But I myself havent tried a L series. But if you dont have an L series, you may enjoy a Sigma EX model.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I am very pleased with my Sigma 70-200mm. I must say having never used an IS lens,. that I disagree with some of the comments saying you will need it. I use a Sigma 50-500 more thamn any other lens I own. It is not a fast lens like the 70-200mm (it is f/6.3 @ 500mm) and yet I do not seem to need IS to get very sharp images with that. So when I have f/2.8 @ 200mm,.. IS seems a bit of a luxory when you consider it would cost me another $900.00 over the cost of the Sigma 70-200mm.

[Carbon]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml

Here is a side-by-side of the 28-70 and the 24-70.

Seems like the 24 is significantly better than the two 28-70s they compared it to.