70-200 - sigma or canon?

[phylet]

really quick question please - should i go for the canon 70-200 F4 or the sigma 70-200 F2.8?

im extremly diverse in my shooting, only thing i wont really have a go at is team sports.

cheers

[momentz]

Unless you can afford the 2.8 IS, go for the Sigma :) You won't regret buying the 2.8.

[coreypolis]

i'd get the canon non IS 2.8 used instead of the sigma new

[phylet]

i cant really find a used 2.8 in the UK otherwise thats exactly what id get!

[momentz]

i'd get the canon non IS 2.8 used instead of the sigma new

Good luck finding a used canon for the price of a brand new sigma. They hold their value very very well. In the time it takes you to find one you'd save enough for a new IS model :lol:

[coreypolis]

Good luck finding a used canon for the price of a brand new sigma. They hold their value very very well. In the time it takes you to find one you'd save enough for a new IS model :lol:

i bought one for 750, and have seen many more between 800-900. For the little more I'd rather have the slightly better optics, faster AF, weather sealing, and not have to worry about compatibility issues

[phylet]

750, dollars or? im working in pounds here, and im looking at 400 for the F4, 530 for the sigma and 700 for the 2.8 canon, can anyone point out a used canon 2.8?

[fiorito]

I picked up a Sigma 70-200 2.8 for a steal of a deal on Ebay, it has very minor scratch on the front element, zero effect on final picture. If you search hard enough you can get a good used one for under $500 US. By far one of my favorite lenses, only thing about it is the weight, but you'll get that with any 2.8 in this range.

Hope this helps!

Dan

[coreypolis]

sorry, yes that us$

check www.fredmiranda.com buy/sell section. If you don't see one, post a wanted ad, and you'll get someone who will have one available. thats where I got mine originally

[steved110]

If you don't mind the weight, the f/2.8 is probably the way to go. I have the canon f/4 and love it - optically it is a real gem, and it is light and handy enough to carry around all day and shoot without support with excellent results. I decided I didn't need, and couldn't afford f/2.8 and have no regrets - it would be silly for me to save up for ages and get a fast lens I don't need, so I chose the slower lens and have been delighted.

[René Damkot]

Other option might be a used 80-200L. Probabely roughly the same price as a used 70-200 f/4 L

[Trung_EP3CTR]

I'm in the same position too. I can easily afford the Canon F4 but I'll be shooting motorsport and maybe indoor sports. Considering we don't get much sunlight in UK. I think F2.8 would really help us more.
Now it's between Sigma EX F2.8 and Canon L F2.8.
I've read some where that some people have focusing problem with the Sigma which puts me off.:confused:
The Canon L F2.8 is however almost £200 more than the Sigma.

[frydryce]

i have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG and i LOVE it! the pictures come out amazing and the bokeh is very nice. here's a quick pic that i took last week at a dodger game, no flash.

http://static.flickr.com/83/205553988_543a5b6c36.jpg

i picked mine up for about $700 from B&H when they had a sale

[Raymate]

I was in the same boat and for now I just went Canon f4, it's a great lens. The 2.8 would be better for sure but I have found just upping the iso works for me at this time. Once I have the funds then it's the Canon f2.8, I spent a lot of time looking at the Sigma and my friend has the Sigma but I think it will be Canon for me as I like the idea os the IS... but I must say the f4 Canon is great and not as heavy to lug around which is a big bonus for me when I have my laptop in the camera bag as well :)

[rcpilot_971]

I had a Sigma 70-200 2.8 for about 2 years I just rented a canon 70-200 2.8 and I just sold my sigma the canon is so much better to focus and faster also to focus now Im looking for a 70-200 2.8 IS