Sigma 70-200 F 2.8 "OS"

[photography By Evangelos]

I want one! If they made it that is. Would you want one as well? I am sure if the optics were as good a the current model they would sell tons of these lenses. What do you think? Let's let sigma know we want them to make this for us here at the Forum :D LOL! Who knows they may very well be making one?

[ChrisNardone]

Interesting thought. If it were cheap enough, I'd go for one. :?

[CyberDyneSystems]

They'd need it to sell at $950.00... no more! :)

When Sigma's creap over the 1K$ barrier.. they have a harder time justifying it as an alternative to the the name brands.

[scottbergerphoto]

They'd need it to sell at $950.00... no more! :)

When Sigma's creap over the 1K$ barrier.. they have a harder time justifying it as an alternative to the the name brands.
Aren't you forgetting the Sigma 500mm 4.5 EX APO HSM? At $3500 it's half the price of the Canon f/4.
Scott

[CyberDyneSystems]

I agree Scott,. but you and I are two of the nine people who own this lens! :mrgreen:

Just my humbel opninion where the zooms are concerned... the 80-400 OS is priced so close to the 100-400mm IS that I think it will really hurt Sigma,. if they had dropped the price to $900.00 or even $875.00 I think it would be another "selling like hotcakes" deal.

There 70-200mm f/2.8 and even the 100-300mm f/4 which really has no competition are priced spot on at $650.00 or so.

[photography By Evangelos]

I think they would sell lots if they made this lens. I am sure they could sell it for around $1,000 and they would sell lots of them. I am not sure how much is the 80-400 Sigma "OS"? If it price is all most as much as the Canon 100-400 IS then it is not a value and they will not sell well. People are just not willing to pay the same for a Sigma as they would pay for a Canon lens.

[TeraGram93013]

I think they would sell lots if they made this lens. I am sure they could sell it for around $1,000 and they would sell lots of them. I am not sure how much is the 80-400 Sigma "OS"? If it price is all most as much as the Canon 100-400 IS then it is not a value and they will not sell well. People are just not willing to pay the same for a Sigma as they would pay for a Canon lens.

Sigma = $1,199 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home;jsessionid=Ald5vAW9s3!192621144?ci=22&sb=ps&p n=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=SearchBar&A=search &Q=*&shs=sigma+80-400)

Canon = $1,389 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=22&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O= SearchBar&A=search&Q=*&shs=canon+100-400&image.x=2&image.y=13)

[photography By Evangelos]

WOW for just $200 I would get the Canon and not the Sigma. I like Sigma and all but I also like to save and to me there is not alot of savings over the canon. Why I am not sure. I was thinking the lens was selling for $999 then it would be a good value but not at the current price. :shock:

[scottbergerphoto]

I think it's safe to say that anytime the difference in price between the Canon and the Sigma is about $250 or less, most would buy the Canon glass. The Canon 100-400 IS L is my favorite " I got ya!" (portrait from a distance) lens. Once you practice with it, it's fine for handholding. The Sigma EX line really helped me on the long end, where I just could'nt bring myself to spend $7,000 on a lens.
Scott

[Canuck]

They'd need it to sell at $950.00... no more! :)

When Sigma's creap over the 1K$ barrier.. they have a harder time justifying it as an alternative to the the name brands.
Aren't you forgetting the Sigma 500mm 4.5 EX APO HSM? At $3500 it's half the price of the Canon f/4.
Scott

You forgot the beast, the 120-300 F2.8 EX, at about $1900. That is in its own world and Canon can't touch it, though. The 70-200 F2.8L is about the best that Canon offers. I looked at that, but wanted the extra reach so I went Sigma and it has not let me down like some of the other consumer ones I had like the 70-300 that I sold, or the 28-80 that is collecting dust. It will be used later to prove how bad it really is vs the Canon 16-35 f2.8L and I know there is a $1300 price difference, but it will make the point really well, I am thinking.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hi,

You know what I find strange ?
Why would people opt for the Canon in a $ 200,00 difference.
I compare lenses by Quality not by brand.

I must however admit I never used a 100-400L myself but my thoughts were that if the Sigma was so close in price to the Canon it MUST be better otherwise why bother......

The 70-200 OS would be nice but not for $ 950,00 just add a bit more and you get the 80-400OS, I would however rather see a HSM in the next generation, that's really the ONLY thing I don't like about the 80-400OS, on the other hand it focusses fast enough.

Greetings,
Frank

[BrettD]

Regarding the 80-400 OS vs 100-400 IS :

My opinion may be biased as I own the 100-400, but with less than $200 between them, I think most would go for the Canon based on solid resale value and reputation alone. But in this case the Sigma misses out on HSM, while the Canon has USM. So I think Sigma will need to drop it's price to sell these in bulk.

Brett D

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

I agree on resell value however when the Sigma is tested as topquality I don't see that problem appearing :D.

I would love to see A REAL test of quality of both lenses, offcourse a price drop is wonderful but not necessary for a top lens offcourse.

Greetings,
Frank

[photography By Evangelos]

We still need an alternative to IS and no one has it but Sigma. So I think that they can make this lens for a lot less than the current Canon IS model. They would sell boatloads of this lens. Also Canuck I got the Sigma 120-300 for my canon and did not like it at all. I had A/F problems with 2 of them from B&H and just got the Canon 300MM F2.8 L. :D


Angelo