Sports & Sigma 70-200 2.8 or Canon 70-200IS 2.8

[BaumannPhotography]

So I Love shooting sports and want to do the next step. I am looking at these lenses:

Canon 70-200 IS 2.8

Sigma 70-200 2.8

I do lots of indoor and low light sports and I think that either of these would be good for shooting sports, although I think the canon may be better, only thing is the price difference of these lenses.

Any one have thoughts or experiences with either of these lenese?

Thanks

Adam

[timbernet]

You can't exactly compare those two models - a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 to a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 NON-IS is easier.

The IS is not going to help you in sports. IS is good for taking long exposures handheld - not fast exposures in low-light environments.

Tough call - a lot of people have the Sigma and love, others don't like it so much... I am looking at getting a 70-200 Canon F/2.8 - but there is a slight chance that I will get the Sigma...

[Thornfield]

Go for the canon 2.8 non IS and at least you will have a white lens :)
Seriously though, I can't stop raving about my 2.8 non IS. As was said earlier the IS won't help you with sports.

[grego]

The IS will actually help in sports. With that being said, it won't stop motion blur, but it will prevent handshake.

And where does it help? Even at higher shutter speeds, you can still have handshake. It won't look significant, but it will help toward making your photo softer, because your target is not fully locked.

It's the ultimate 70-200 focal length out there. With that said, it won't make you a better photographer than if you used the Non IS version of the 70-200 2.8(Canon's and Sigma's model).

The Canon versions are slightly better. Now is it worth the difference in the price tag? That's for you to decide. The Sigma is no slouch. I've owned it before I bought my 70-200 2.8 IS.

[liza]

For indoor sports, I'd get an 85mm f/1.8. I tend to shoot more in poorly lit high school gyms and found the Sigma to be lacking in terms of autofocus speed. I know others have had better luck with it, but that has been my experience. In comparison with my fast primes, there's no contest. I do use the Sigma for field sports, though, and found it to be adequate. The image quality is quite good.

[Tareq]

depends on sports, sometimes you need 70-200, sometimes you need longer, and sometimes you don't need 70-200 and another lens can do the job as 85 1.8.
but from you two 70-200 i will go for CAnon 70-200(IS), i know that all will tell you that IS won't stop motion ok, but in slow shutter speed you can get better results if you have some shaking, and at least you can have IS if you do another shooting out of sports, so don't keep that IS just for sports, i do all my shots with IS on wether it is sports or not.

[Big Hands]

If you are going to shoot many different sports, the 70-200 probably should be in your bag (and probably the first lens to get). If you will mainly shoot only one sport, then there may be a better choice for that particular sport.

That said, I have shot somewhere betwen 30,000 to 40,000 sports shots with my 70-200 non-IS and have no plans to ditch it in favor of the IS model.

It's excellent wide open, so that is where I shoot over 90% of the time.

If you're really unsure, you could buy a used copy to try out. If it doesn't suit you, sell it for what you paid and then get the one you then feel you need.

Regards,
Jeff

[BaumannPhotography]

Thanks for all the reply's, lots of great info here.

[Mr. Clean]

If you can afford the 2.8 IS then get it for the love of Pete! I have the Sigma 70-200 and I'm very happy with the results even wide open. But IS is IS.