any comparisons of the sigma 70-200 2.8 vs. Canon F4

[Camo 757]

Did a search, if anyone could point me in the right direction?

[condyk]

Too busy to point ... but I had both and I certainly prefered the Sigma. The Canon is great if you can make do with f4 and you may get it a tad cheaper. The SIgma is worth the extra but it also weighs more.

[xuxu1]

You might want to consider the Canon EF70-200 L IS USM.

Ya... i know... it cost´s a lot more.

It´s always the same... You get what you pay for. :cool:

ED

[AjP]

70-200 2.8 L IS (superb lense!!!!!) I'm saving now for this baby

[xuxu1]

70-200 2.8 L IS (superb lense!!!!!) I'm saving now for this baby

Me too !!! :lol:

ED

[Croasdail]

I looked at both - and have the Sigma. I predominately shoot sports at local univerisities under pretty good conditions. My Sigma's stablemate is a Canon 300 2.8 ...... L, and I would say the keeper ratio is about equal for both. That probably says more about my modest abilty then the lenses ability - but I can not see a noticable difference at 11x14 print - which is the target for most my work. Either lens will get you where you need to go unless low light is a consideration - and even I now don't shoot anything under f2.0 indoors for sports. Good luck with it! Cheers.

[tim]

http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56-page1.html

[Croasdail]

look here to.... it's not mine but the guy has done a good job.

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/70200s