Apples vs Oranges, or Canon 70-200 2.8 IS MK1 vs Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

I've been seeing a fair number of the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS Mk 1's for sale here,

The secondhand canon prices are comparable to a new Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

For those of you familiar with both of these lenses...

Between these two particular lenses, would there be any features / quality of one over the other?

I would primarily use the lens for shooting peformances (singers, bands) in concert halls, clubs, etc...

thanks!

Ive heard they are both good lenses, but according to most comparisons and reviews online, The canon MKI (and MKII for that matter) are much sharper. The only thing that the Sigma has over the Canon lens is OS, which may be useful to you depending on what you shoot.

prustyaditya wrote in post #14808200
Ive heard they are both good lenses, but according to most comparisons and reviews online, The canon MKI (and MKII for that matter) are much sharper. The only thing that the Sigma has over the Canon lens is OS, which may be useful to you depending on what you shoot.

You're reading the wrong reviews. Those are for the old versions of the sigma. And even then, I've used both the older HSM II version of the sigma and the canon MKI and couldn't really see much of a difference in IQ. The new OS version is sharper than the MkI canon, but most reviews compare it to the MkII, thus making it look not as good as it should be (after all, its being compared against a lens almost twice the price). In fact, the sigma OS is considered by most who have used it to be second only to the canon MkII in IQ, and that is saying a lot.

The sigma would be my choice over the canon MkI because you can get it new vs second hand, and you get better IQ and better OS, though the canon will have slightly faster focus and has nicer build.

I've just gone from a Canon MkI to the MkII and while I was happy with the MkI (best at f3.2-3.5 for me) the MkII is absolutely awesome. I've not had Sigma 70-200 but I have used a friends new copy and I think it was just a tiny bit sharper than my MkI with both wide open but there was no real visible difference between the 2 when stopped down a bit. The MkII is a completely different level altogether, fantastic in every way.

I have had the sigma for a year now .Let me just say it`s all you need except being weather proof when it works. Mine has been at sigma service for almost a week now because of focus trouble.
The down time with this lens may force me to buy another one .

Either will do what you want. I've heard the optics in the Sigma OS are better than the Canon mark 1. Basically, it boils down to color, and name brand. I would consider weatherproofing- but you know, if it gets wet, Canon voids the warranty anyways. So much for that! The Canon Mark II- vs the OS- not a lot of differences- aside from weatherproofing (you know my thoughts on this ), price, and the girth of it. It does feel more substantial. Focus limiter is nice. White is not stealthy though.

I too have used the Sigma for the past year or so; the lens is wicked sharp past f/3.5. The shot below is 100% crop taken at f/4; it does hunt a bit in low light and is not near as sharp as the MK II at f/2.8.

If I used my lens to make a living, Canon MK II would be a no brainer; the $1,000.00 USD savings however was nice.

MK I < Sigma < MK II

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i1103.photobuck​et.com …S/American_Bald​_Eagle.jpg

If you look on the digital picture site and do a comparison at 70mm wide open the sigma looks to be a bit sharper,as you start to zoom the canon soon catches up and at 200mm canon has the edge wide open, stick a 1.4TC on and canon was the clear winner.

Just got it back and it`s working great again.
Thanks for the speedy repair Gentec-int Canada. .

Sigma is the better lens for IQ. Canon is better built.

On have the sigma OS and the canon 2.8 non is, which I just bought. I bought it because using the sigma, on full frame in good light I could not get sharp images with the sigma at 200mm 2.8. All my sharp images seemed to be around 119mm. This was a big deal.

The canon non IS rocks at 200mm 2.8 and I am more than happy.
Now the OS in the sigma is the only good thing comparing these two, BUT I will either bump ISo or use a prime if I need the low light with now flash.