Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS any good?

I am looking for a 70-200 2.8 my first thought is to get the great Canon 2.8 non IS. But for the same amount of money I can get the Sigma with OS. I have owned two Sigma's with OS recently and loved them. One was the 17-70 and 17-50. I know this 2.8 OS is not in the same league as the Canon MKII but I am really interested in it compared tot eh NON IS Canon.

Anyone give me their thoughts on the Sigma? Would love to hear from owners of this lens

Mike

I'm also interested in this comparison.

You've already owned a couple of Sigma's and love them so far- so what makes you think that the 70-200 OS will be any different ?
I don't have a Canon 70-200 IS/non-is/mk1/mk2 to compare it to- and never have had. I do have the 70-200 Sigma OS-and so far, love it like my other Sigma's. Depending upon how you would use it- is it fair to compare an optically stabilized lens to a non-optically stabilized.. Just sayin...

IMO, like I currently do now, I would buy the Sigma and not even look back. The EX series seems to be quite good lenses, especially for the money.. Like most people, having two lenses of the same range does not make financial sense to me. Maybe that will be different after I win the lottery.


Odd thing is: Has anyone seen any of these Sigma's on sale in the sales forums?

I love mine.

I've been meaning to post some images in the sample thread, but got sidetracked with work. I don't use it much (mostly for wedding ceremonies), but I've been very happy with its performance so far.

It is a good lens as long as you don't shoot fast pace sports (basketball, football, running, cycling races, and etc) with many fast moving subjects. Otherwise, the AF speed and accuracy will suffer.

TooManyShots wrote in post #12579799
It is a good lens as long as you don't shoot fast pace sports (basketball, football, running, cycling races, and etc) with many fast moving subjects. Otherwise, the AF speed and accuracy will suffer.

I heard it had the fastest AF out of all ths Sigma 70-200mm's . Why would it suffer shooting sports ? I know my Sigma 100-300mm f/4 and 50-150mm doesn't suffer in speed or accuracy shooting those activites . So are you saying the Af is not as good , based on your usage .

Should be just fine for baseball which is probably what Tanglefoot47 [Mike] is primarily looking for.

I have the following link useful in my search for 70-200:

http://www.juzaphoto.c​om/eng/articles.htm

TooManyShots wrote in post #12579799
It is a good lens as long as you don't shoot fast pace sports (basketball, football, running, cycling races, and etc) with many fast moving subjects. Otherwise, the AF speed and accuracy will suffer.

This is based on what?

Based on reviews its AF is just as good as the Canon 70-200 IS II.
Based on my personal experience its AF is fantastic and can capture fairly fast moving subjects just as well as my current 70-200 IS II can.

Do you have personal experience to base your statement on? Because if not then all other evidence available that I am aware of is entirely in opposition to your statement.

I just purchased the OS version about 2 weeks ago and I am very pleased as of now. I owned version 1 of the Sigy with out the macro which served me very well in all capacities from hockey, box lacrosse, baseball. It focused very fast in all lighting situation. My use with the new version is limited but as far as focusing and IQ I believe it to be even better at this time.

Brady

CountryBoy wrote in post #12579862
I heard it had the fastest AF out of all ths Sigma 70-200mm's . Why would it suffer shooting sports ? I know my Sigma 100-300mm f/4 and 50-150mm doesn't suffer in speed or accuracy shooting those activites . So are you saying the Af is not as good , based on your usage .

You heard...but you should TRY it... Let's put it this way. I didn't want to spend an extra $1k for a 70-200 lens. Since Sigma didn't work out for me, I now have a Canon markII version.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1043499

arentol wrote in post #12579963
This is based on what?

Based on reviews its AF is just as good as the Canon 70-200 IS II.
Based on my personal experience its AF is fantastic and can capture fairly fast moving subjects just as well as my current 70-200 IS II can.

Do you have personal experience to base your statement on? Because if not then all other evidence available that I am aware of is entirely in opposition to your statement.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1043499

wayne.robbins wrote in post #12579602
You've already owned a couple of Sigma's and love them so far- so what makes you think that the 70-200 OS will be any different ?
I don't have a Canon 70-200 IS/non-is/mk1/mk2 to compare it to- and never have had. I do have the 70-200 Sigma OS-and so far, love it like my other Sigma's. Depending upon how you would use it- is it fair to compare an optically stabilized lens to a non-optically stabilized.. Just sayin...

IMO, like I currently do now, I would buy the Sigma and not even look back. The EX series seems to be quite good lenses, especially for the money.. Like most people, having two lenses of the same range does not make financial sense to me. Maybe that will be different after I win the lottery.


Odd thing is: Has anyone seen any of these Sigma's on sale in the sales forums?

This is correct and out of all the Sigma lenses these two are the best. I have had to send many of them back especially the 70-200's that I have tried over the years. The reason I even mentioned this is maybe Sigma has finally wised up? I did have a 100-300 f/4 a few years ago and that was one great lens.

Silverfox1 wrote in post #12579900
Should be just fine for baseball which is probably what Tanglefoot47 [Mike] is primarily looking for.

That is right Mr silver LOL and winter football

TooManyShots wrote in post #12580451
You heard...but you should TRY it... Let's put it this way. I didn't want to spend an extra $1k for a 70-200 lens. Since Sigma didn't work out for me, I now have a Canon markII version.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1043499

No I don't need it . But if I did , I would trust the person who told about me about it .