Today is the Day! Last chance to sway my opinion.

[Avarond]

Money is in the bank and its time to buy the 70-200 Lens.

It came down to the Canon f/4 and the Sigma EX f/2.8

Unless anybody has anything to add im going with the Canon, for the following reasons:

A. Cost. UV filters and Polarizers are much cheaper for 67 mm even though this might mess me up if I get another L lens in the more common 77mm. Still would have to buy an extra UV filter though. ( I also am factoring in the $80 tripod mount)

B. Sharpness. From what I could gather the f/4 is super sharp, sharper than the Sigma and the Canon 2.8.

C. Quality. Ive heard or rather havent heard of any problems with the f/4 where as Ive heard of some of the Sigma's having autofocus problems.

D. Autofocus speed. Ive read that the Canon autofocus speed is faster (how much faster?) than the Sigma also.

The extra stop would be nice, but I can alway change the ISO I suppose, Cant afford the Canon 2.8 non IS version either (buying a house this year too)

But unless Im horribly wrong on some of these points (which I may well be) or if there is something I havent heard about yet then im going to order the f/4.

Last chance to sway me towards the Sigma, otherwise the white lens will be on its way here this afternoon.

Thanks for all the help!

[kraterz]

See my reply on this thread:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25529

I was in the same situation last year and got the Canon. It is great even at f/4 but the Sickma I tried had to stop down to f/4-5.6 for the same sharpness. I decided .. what's the point in getting an f/2.8 "pro" zoom if I can't shoot at f/2.8 and get top notch sharpness?

[kraterz]

BTW I tested it with a film camera. May not be so different on a DSLR. With a full frame "sensor" and slow film, it makes a hell of a difference.

[Avarond]

Go for the Canon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
See my reply on this thread:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25529

I was in the same situation last year and got the Canon. It is great even at f/4 but the Sickma I tried had to stop down to f/4-5.6 for the same sharpness. I decided .. what's the point in getting an f/2.8 "pro" zoom if I can't shoot at f/2.8 and get top notch sharpness?

Thanks for the info Kraterz, more justification into getting the Canon, just wished I could buy the 2.8 version. Maybe I'll get the f/4 and then start saving for a 100-400 IS, hmm yea that sounds good.

Now where is B&H's number.

[RbnDave]

I feel I must defend my "Sikma" 70-200 f2.8. I've had this lens for five months now and so far I love it. It is very sharp and contrasty. Also, I find I use f2.8 very often. If I would have bought the canon I would have missed a bunch of indoor portrait shots without the extra f-stop. If you aren't planning on using the lens indoors, go with the canon, but if you need something for low light I'd opt for the Sigma.

And another point... I own one 77mm circular polarizer. It works on my wide angle, my 70-200, and it will work on my 24-70 L when I finally get around to buying it.

Here are some Sikma examples:

http://www.pbase.com/image/23829966
http://www.pbase.com/image/25927453
http://www.pbase.com/image/23411735
http://www.pbase.com/image/25558336
http://www.pbase.com/image/23249398
http://www.pbase.com/image/23974858

Here are some with a 2x converter:
http://www.pbase.com/image/24139082
http://www.pbase.com/image/25928473

Four pictures I wouldn't have got if the lens didn't go f2.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/23399814
http://www.pbase.com/image/24035390
http://www.pbase.com/image/23400186
http://www.pbase.com/image/24035312

[Wickedfn4u]

I have to agree with Dave, I have had my sigma for about 4 months and love it. I would have missed and did when I did not have my 2.8, indoor basketball and soccer shots of my kids. I had a 28-135 before that I tried to use but could not get the speed to stop the action. The color and sharpness is great.

I have not had a problem with the focus (well not the Lens or cameras fault) if I use the center and servo on the action shots it tracks and shoots fine.

Both of the lenses I bought before I tried them or really looked into what and how I was going to be shooting were 3.5 or 4's. One did not even get out of the box when it arrived. I ended up selling it on ebay.

Tom

[Whaler]

The Canon is a pretty "putty" color, need I say more. What's the Nike slogan? Just. . . . . .

[kahfluie]

While I hope to one day have Canon glass... I currently have the Sigma 70-200mm and love it. I used it at a concert last weekend and it worked flawlessly... giving me sharp photos with gorgeous colors. Post processing was at a very minimum.... I'd say... if you don't need the 2.8 and are happy with f4... go for the Canon. However, remember... the tripod ring will cost you over an extra hundred bucks. In my estimation, the sigma is a great deal for the $613 you'd pay at Delta International.

Whichever you decide... I'm sure you 'll be happy, so... take great pics and be sure to show us what you new lens can do!