Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM vs Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM

[blinking8s]

Id like to see a comparison, ran a search and nothing came up on the forum...might have had a funky query to run or something...

can anyone post example pics beteen the two? any details of AF speed differences. The price difference is pretty drastic...build quality ect?

I have a feeling the canon would be worth the money for sports...fast AF and smooth flow is ultimately desired...I just dont usually see that from a Sigma lens...even if the img quality is up to par

[blinking8s]

found this
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22421

but is that the same lens? or is the model I am asking about newer?

[Tom W]

That is the lens. Its a very good lens - one of Sigma's best and very competitive with the Canon (but no IS).

[blinking8s]

I handle the canon 70-200 f4 L with no IS fine...I guess I can mange to hold good and still and pan smooth..IS sure would be nice, but i just dont see it as a must at this stage in my photography...The sigma would justify me getting a monopod for sure....but Id still love to see some sports photos from the sigma and hear some tales about the AF differences

[Tom W]

It generally depends on your purpose - the extra stop on the Sigma might be an advantage over the f/4 of your present 70-200 (though you're NOT going to get any better image quality when used at equivalent stops). And, the IS of the Canon would be an advantage where even the extra stop isn't enough to help you with low light. But IS won't stop the motion of your subject - it'll only supress the effects of the photographer's motion.

If you're thinking about an upgrade, consider a few things. Do you find yourself wishing you had an extra stop of light (e.g., f/4 isn't quite enough to get your shutter speed up where you need it)?
Then a 2.8 would be a good choice.
Do you find that you are getting adequate shutter speed for the subject (low movement) but camera shake is hampering your ability to get a crisp image? Then either a good monopod or tripod is a good solution. Unless you are in places where you're restricted in the use of tripods - then IS is your best tool.
Weigh your usage against what is available. There's the Canon 70-200 f/4 which you have. There's both a Canon and a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. And, there's a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 with IS. All are good lenses with today's cameras. (The Canons have the advantage of being much more likely to be compatible with future cameras).

[DocFrankenstein]

AF is much slower on the sigma. Also the seals on 2.8 IS L make me want it really hard.

[Tom W]

AF is much slower on the sigma. Also the seals on 2.8 IS L make me want it really hard.

Triple rebates are your friend. :) :evil:

[eric1]

i've been deliberating on this for a while. i had the f4, and i used the sigma. would not trade my f4 for the sigma ( he offered). i'm just going to bite the bullet, and buy the IS. just my opinion. i like to handhold, and use the monopod. the new IS works great on the mono with my 300f4.

[blinking8s]

Ill be shooting A LOT of indoor sports this semester...I dont even bother taking the f4, simple not enough light...it was great till my photography took a random turn towards sports that I never saw coming.

[photoshooter]

blink i just got the sigma 2.8 go to my website www.superchargedphotos.com (http://www.superchargedphotos.com) go to ft wayne rumble that is every pic i took with a sigma 500 flash and 2.8 lens that race was the first time ever usen that lens for anything its a big down load but should be able to help you

[pcasciola]

Mixed reviews at FM along with many comments about the Sigma being softer wide open than the Canon (non-IS) turned me away from this lens for indoor sports. Not to mention I went to a basketball game last week and all I saw were Canon 70-200 f/2.8's and 300 f/2.8's being used, no Sigmas (unless they were spray painted white).

What about the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS? That's even lighter than the Sigma and is supposed to be slightly sharper than the IS version, and only about $300 more than the Sigma.

[tpinchback]

If you are shooting sports, I would defintly speend the extra cash to get the canon verson. I have used both and find the image quialty around the same, but the auto focus being faster made me go with the L. and you will not have to worry about error 99s down the road with the canon verson.
http://img101.exs.cx/img101/3356/dunkweb5zc.jpg
70-200L 2.8 ISO 1600

[ron chappel]

here's a link to a proper,controlled test

http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56.html

The only things that concern me slightly are possible focus inacuracies and lens to lens variation
otherwise it's the best one i've ever seen on the net ,well done guys !(and it's about time-this is SUCH a common question)

[blinking8s]

thanks for the feedback everyone