Need lens purchase help...please....

[StellaBlue]

I REALLY want to buy a zoom, like 70-200, f/2.8. I'd prefer Canon but would consider Sigma, Tamron, etc. Some used Canons on eBay go for around $800--better than $1,200 or more new, but still a lot 'o bucks. I probably don't really need the speed, just want it. My question is, are the other brands really just as good, sharp-wise? I'd hate to spend $600 for an off brand for soft pix in the end. My camera is a 300D.

I'm experiencing severe analysis paralysis.

Stellablue

[condyk]

It's pointless comparing brands. Consider only competing lenses across the brands, in a context of your budget. What is the lens for?

If you don't need the speed of a f2.8 then get the Canon 70-200mm f4 L. If you still want the speed and don't mind extra weight/size then get the Sigma 70-200mm and save some money. If you want to spend more then get the Canon version, but you're throwing good money away if you think youj'll get better image quality. If you get the Canon IS version, then fair enough, but it's a lot of money and only worth it if you need IS.

You can check pbase.com for sample images of most lens/camera combo's.

[scott stokes]

I agree with condyk.I have the sigma and love it.scott

[the.digital.guy]

It's pointless comparing brands. Consider only competing lenses across the brands, in a context of your budget. What is the lens for?

If you don't need the speed of a f2.8 then get the Canon 70-200mm f4 L. If you still want the speed and don't mind extra weight/size then get the Sigma 70-200mm and save some money. If you want to spend more then get the Canon version, but you're throwing good money away if you think youj'll get better image quality. If you get the Canon IS version, then fair enough, but it's a lot of money and only worth it if you need IS.

Have you tried the Canon Lenes?
In my mind; they are far Superior!!!!!
It's all depends on your budget,
Apparently; you do NOT have the money for the Canon Lenes!
Not a cut!

[condyk]

Silly, silly boy :p Life's not that serious is it? Please, get a grip ... oh, I notice you have 2 already :lol:

Not only tried L, including most of yours, but also owned the one I recommended above. I really like several of the 'L' lenses and will be buying at least one more fairly soon, unless Sigma, Tokina or Tamron release something as good or better for less money.

You're obviously a guy with more money than sense, so I'll PM you my address and you can send some of your L's over here to education me in what I'm missing. I'll pick up any import duty ... no problem. I really do need your help urgently.

PS My CF cards are much better than yours :p

[ttmatsu]

I'd agree with condyk on getting the Canon 70-200 f4 if you don't need the f2.8. With the f2.8, there is a very good chance that you will be happy with the results from the Sigma. But according to the percentage of people that have the Canon 70-200 f2.8 (non IS) that recommend the lens, you will be happy with the results from the Canon with no qualification (Fred Miranda review site). If price is your #1 consideration and you have to have f2.8, then get the Sigma. If you want to be part of the 100% that recommend the Canon, then get the Canon. The one weak point with the Sigma is chip compatibility. Cases in point are the 24-70 f2.8 EX and 18-50 f2.8 EX. The Sigma you purchase could last your lifetime and be compatible with every future and current body you purchase. It could also require rechipping with the very next body you purchase and if you are really unlucky, Sigma will come out with model II of the lens and state that your model is no longer current and can not be rechipped (happened to me years ago when I changed Nikon film bodies).

Having had my prior experience with Sigma chip compatibility issues, I decided to take the safe route and spend the extra $300 and got the Canon. If the chip issue doesn't bother you enough to spend $300 over the Sigma, the image quality difference between the Canon and Sigma is so slight that you should save the $300 toward another quality lens. But you should probably just save $250 over the Sigma and get the Canon f4 version.

[StellaBlue]

Such thoughtful replies....thank you everyone. Perhaps I can make a decision soon so I can get out there and take more pix. I do like the idea of getting two lenses instead of one with the tradeoffs. Much to think about....

[LightRules]

All of the 70-200 f2.8s (Canon, Sigma) and 70-200 f4 (Canon) are exceptional lenses. I've shot with all of them and would suggest that if you're not getting the 70-200IS, then get the 70-200EX. The Sigma is not only very good optically but has excellent build, large grippy focus and zoom rings, silent and fast AF (HSM), the best hood of this bunch, and all for a remarkable price. If you later on opt for a TC to add some reach, go with a 1.4xTC and stop down at least 1 stop, preferably 2 stops and you'll get some excellent images still. Best wishes on your choice; again, they are all excellent glass.

[xuxu1]

...... I probably don't really need the speed, just want it. Stellablue
Well the 70-200L surely is a wonderful lens... but somebody else on this thread was speaking about "sense". :o

Why in the world would you want to spend so much money? It´s a pure waste of money if you don´t need the speed. Consider going for the Canon 70-200 f4 or the Sigma and save lot´s of $$$!

ED

[grego]

Such thoughtful replies....thank you everyone. Perhaps I can make a decision soon so I can get out there and take more pix. I do like the idea of getting two lenses instead of one with the tradeoffs. Much to think about....

You can't go wrong with the Sigma. That 2.8 comes to be very useful if you do a lot of photography. The 70-200 can be a work horse lens.

[StellaBlue]

I see what you're saying, Ed...this is why I'm still stuck in analysis and all the while, great photos are passing me by! I don't "need" the speed as in, I'm not a nighttime sports photographer. However, I have photographed wildlife in low light, and fast is just better than slow, so the f/2.8 is calling me. But I haven't given up on the Sigma plan.

Thanks for your input....I suppose I needed a reality check.

Stella

[RikWriter]

How much heavier is the Sigma 70-200 2.8 than the Canon non-IS version? How does it compare to the IS version?