Canon 70-200 or Sigma 70-200?

[GlitterPhotography]

So I have come to the conclusion that I need a lot more gear, even to be a 2nd photog to build my portfolio. I am going to be building my gear over the next year but right now I need a telephoto and wanted some advice. I only have $500-$700 for a telephoto so I am looking at either the Canon 70-200 f/4 for ~$525 used or the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ~$650 used. I know everyone is going to say, get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS but I don’t have $1700 for 1 lens. I wish I did. I am already probably going to get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and that costs ~$1000, so I don’t have that big of a budget for the telephoto. Let me know what you think. I know the Canon is very slow at f/4.0 but the Sigma is a f/2.8. Yet I have heard that the Sigma is very soft at 2.8. If I got the Canon I would have to use a flash with it indoors, but I figure outside it might be great. Let me know what I should go with, Canon or Sigma. Thanks.

[Crashless]

Have you looked at the Tokina 80-200 f/2.8? I have one and absolutely love it. Here's a couple of shots with it. You can click through and hit 'details' to see exif info. You should be able to pick one up new in your price range. It feels really well built, and it comes with a tripod collar.

http://www.vinceanido.com/gallery/d/2079-2/IMG_0149.JPG (http://www.vinceanido.com/blog/v/Photography/Sports/Basketball/IMG_0149.JPG.html)
http://www.vinceanido.com/gallery/d/2263-2/IMG_0632.JPG (http://www.vinceanido.com/blog/v/Photography/PlayaVistaEvents/SummerConcerts/IMG_0632.JPG.html)

and one at f2.8 on film:
http://www.vinceanido.com/gallery/d/1016-2/focus1.jpg (http://www.vinceanido.com/blog/v/Photography/Favorites/focus1.jpg.html)

[song4themoon]

Out of those two the Sigma.. lets more light in!

[GlitterPhotography]

I'm just worried about the sigma being unusable at f/2.8 and only using it at f/4.0 and above, and in that case i would just use the canon, which is also lighter and very sharp. Is the Sigma usable at f/2.8? Does anyone use it and do weddings or use the Canon f/4.0 and do weddings? Thanks

[song4themoon]

Why would it be unusable??

[GlitterPhotography]

Because it is too soft for good pics. Do people use the Sigma at f/2.8 and get some great photos without flash indoor?

[bpuppy]

I bought the Sigma and took it back because it was soft until f/4 ... it's fine after that ... but I want it sharp through the range. I got the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 NON-IS version ... I figure I'll maybe get the IS one later.

I love the Canon ... sharp, great colour and contrast. When I put it on I IMMEDIATELY see the difference.

This is wide open, max zoom ... look at her hair on the edges ... TACK sharp.

http://static.flickr.com/49/167336429_8c732c9ddf.jpg

Worth the money.

[jorj7]

I've had the Canon 70-200 f/4, f/2.8, and f/2.8 IS as well as the Sigma f/2.8.
They all are very good lenses, and each have advantages. Between the Sigma
and Canon f/2.8 they were very close in optical performance. My Sigma
was sharper at 100-135mm and my Canon was sharper at 70 and 200mm at
f/2.8. The Sigma was "warmer", and the Canon was more neutral. The
4L is cheaper, lighter and very good for outdoor photography, but if you're
going to shot in low light the 2.8s are better.

[tim]

I'd say save up for the IS - until then make do with the 17-55 F2.8, or get a fast prime like the 135 F2 (no idea the cost ) or 100mm F2.8.

[song4themoon]

I do agree with Tim.. I am in the same situation but have decided to work with my 50mm and 85 mm and just step closer until I saved up enough for the IS.... (could already be there if Tim hadnt cost me so much money..lol... just joking Tim, ya know that, right?) Getting close to buying it though!!! :)

[jamiewexler]

The 135/2 is a magical lens (one of Canon's sharpest)...if you can stretch your budget to the $750-$800 that they command on the used market. The 200 f2.8L is also very good for around $600 used. Finally, the older "Magic Drainpipe" 80-200 f2.8L ($750 used) is a top lens. The latter was my first L, and always cranked out amazing images.

The problem is the shutter speeds you need with longer lenses. As good as the 80-200 was, I coul really only use it outdoors b/c of the SS's I needed to handhold it. IS on a lens of this length is worth an aperture or two IMHO.

So the lens I'd buy if my budget was only $600 is the 70-300 IS. Just make sure to get one of the recent production ones (w/o the vert issues). My associate photographer has th older 75-300 IS, and gets some good stuff from it.