70-200 2.8L?

[ethan1219]

can any of you tell me about your experiences with this lens before i drop 1200 dollars and can any of you tell me where you would go to buy one...?
thanks...

[Kintama]

I recently bought the sigma 70-200 2.8 because they (canon & sigma) are very similar in optical quality, and because it was half the price.

I thought if if I spent 600 more to get the canon lens, then I'd say why not spend another 500 for the IS version?

Then I thought that IS version is like having the sigma 2.8 with a $1100 tripod , except that I'd get better shots with a tripod than I would hand holding.

I'd never spend $1100 on a tripod so why would I spend that much on IS? The sigma looked like the best bang for the buck to me. (worth noting: I don't do action photography where IS would be needed instead of tripod.)

The only dispointment is the nerd in me wanted the cool IS toy :-)

James

[TLMelanson]

ethan1219 wrote:
can any of you tell me about your experiences with this lens before i drop 1200 dollars and can any of you tell me where you would go to buy one...?
thanks...
I have the Canon with IS and love it.

But, if cost was a consideration, and I didn't need the IS feature, I would definitely go with the Sigma.

This appears to be an excellent lens. I've seen pics taken with it and they looked great. The Photodo ratings (3.9 for the Sigma vs 4.1 for the Canon)equal a distinction without a difference.

You are not marrying the lens, you are using it.
Unless you need the IS feature I'd recommend the Sigma.
Tom

[TLMelanson]

ethan1219 wrote:
and can any of you tell me where you would go to buy one...?
thanks...
If you are in the USA, I'd recommend Delta International. You'll get excellent service and a great price. If "gray market" worries you (it doesn't me) then, B&H or any number of others can provide you with the lens at a good price.
Tom

[Glen S]

Hi Ethan, Do you plan on a lot of low-light shooting? If not go for the 70-200/4L. It's an excellent alternative to the $1200 price. I had the 4L and have just recently ordered the 2.8 non IS version because I do early morning photography(low light) -- I'm concerned about the extra weight of the 2.8 because the 4L was so light and had a terrific feel and balance to it. -- I personally don't like the color in the photos i've seen where the Sigma 70-200 was used (my preference only) Later on I will most likely purchase the IS version. Believe me, you will love this lens---no matter which version. -- Call Canoga Cameras and ask for Gregg (a must) and tell him that Glen Shepherd sent you. I've ordered grey market twice and from the same place with very bad results. Also, the Mack warranty isn't worth the paper it's printed on ( Fact). No, i'm not affiliated with Canoga. Their service is fantastic and all your emails or attented to very quickly. There was a thread last week in the Canon talk forum of DP discussing the great deals that Canoga was giving on the 70-200 (all versions). -- - -- If you have more questions about this lens then email me. I should have the 2.8 by Friday. Good luck.

[lazoj]

I second the f4. If you do not need the 2.8, the f4 is an awesome lens, nice size, great price ( with current rebate ).

I have had it for about three weeks, I really love how sharp it is, great color and easy to handhold.