Sigma 70-200 OS HSM question.

For some, there is much of a difference. For others, the Sigma works perfectly fine for everything they do.

TSchrief wrote in post #14818989
Is there that much difference between these lenses to warrant spending $2500?

For some people, yes, for most others, no. The Canon MKII is essentially better at everything, by a little bit. Slightly better IQ, better build, slightly better AF, weather sealing etc... But all this doesn't matter unless you are a professional with huge demands of your gear, because even though the sigma is not as good as the canon, it is more than good enough for a hobbyist and even for some less demanding pros.

I have had the privilege of owning both the sigma OS and the mkII at the same time. I purchased the Sigma as a replacement to my very young (6months) broken tamron. I loved the Sigma, it's af is fast, quiet. At F2.8 it was a tad soft by 3.2-3.5 it started to tack right up. I always felt like it ran the colors slightly cooler than my canon gear. Reason I let go of the Sigma, my wife and family ponied up and bought the MKII for a Christmas suprise. TBH if they hadn't I would still own it.

TSchrief wrote in post #14818989
A big thanks to both of you. I surely will make sure it is the OS HSM version. I just checked the CL listing. It says OS HSM, but there is no picture. Also the ad says less than 3 months old. In an e-mail the owner has had it a bit longer than 6 months. My radar is going up! He also said that her replaced it with an EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM (II). Is there that much difference between these lenses to warrant spending $2500?

Actually. You would be suprised. I shot with both of these lenses prior to me buying mine. I shot them both on my 40D and a friends 5D MKII. Only in a controlled environment (I would say) the Canon is better. Take a look at DXO mark and compare them. The Canon I will say...after using my Sigma for about two years now....is quicker to focus with sports and is better at 2.8 by a bit in the center. At f4 the Sigma is very nice across the lens!. I really like the Sigma's color and contrast it puts out as well. For what I do the Sigma fits my bill perfectly at what I paid for it... ($1,400) Currently I use it with my 5DMKII and 7D..(sold the 40D a while ago)

TSchrief wrote in post #14818989
A big thanks to both of you. I surely will make sure it is the OS HSM version. I just checked the CL listing. It says OS HSM, but there is no picture. Also the ad says less than 3 months old. In an e-mail the owner has had it a bit longer than 6 months. My radar is going up! He also said that her replaced it with an EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM (II). Is there that much difference between these lenses to warrant spending $2500?

I have a Sigma OS, and I have a Canon mark II . I'd guess that there is a lot of other things that are more important to him- than exactly what month he bought the lens.. Some of us are getting older- and memory is the first thing to go ( I live with about 3 days - Don't ask me what I did 4 days ago.. ) 3 months old, 6 months old, same to me.. Ask for a copy of the receipt- be leery if he can't get you a copy of that.

Sometimes, there is that nagging question in the back of one's head " Is the Canon 70-200 IS II USM that much better than the Sigma 70-200 OS ?" .. It nags. It nags.. You go to events, and you see some being slung around... The question comes back- nagging at you. Does not want to waste money on renting a lens.. Buys the lens instead- tries it.. Somethings seem a little better. Maybe to some- it's a earth shattering moment. You honestly planned on returning the Canon if it wasn't significantly better. You pause. You put it thru the paces, for months. Too late to ship the Canon back. Already paid for it. time to decide what to do with it. Keep them both ( for most- nope ). Sell the Sigma ? or Sell the Canon ? Most will sell the Sigma. The Canon is a tad bit better. It really depends upon how good your copies are, and how well they work with your camera(s).

that's how it goes for some. Try the Sigma out. If you can, try out the Canon as well. Then decide if the differences are worth it. Take a mini-vacation- and rent them both- for 5 days- and see what you like. What you spend on renting them for 5 days will be less than what you lose selling one or the other. However, if you cannot or don't want to afford the Canon, go with the Sigma- it won't let you down. It's a darn fine lens..

Oh, if you could not tell....

I think any form of IS is a plus. It gives you a few more choices. I use my 100-400mm with my 7D and the 580EXII flash so it is very heavy. I am steady handholding but find the monopod helpful. The shorter lens will be easier to handle but the 2.8 versions are heavy as well.

Happy Shooting!

The new Sigma 70-200mm OS is very good lens' and $750 is a steal. I've used to own this lens but for Nikon mount when it came out last year. it's sharp at center and a corner if you stop-down little bit. The color is seem warmer than Nikon counterpart. I don't remember that I've to MA on my D700 or not. But try to get copy of original invoice from a seller if you can for just in case.
-capt3450

TSchrief wrote in post #14816167
I have an opportunity to get a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS HSM for $750. The alternative would be an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM, no IS. My 100-400L has IS and I don't find it particularly useful at 400mm. I just can't afford the 70-200 II. I use a 60D. Any thoughs?

I picked up my new-to-me Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM today. The seller wouldn't budge off of $750. I don't blame him. I just had to put it on my camera as soon as I got home. Here are two shots of my cats. Both are near 100% crops of 200mm f/2.8, this lens's worst settings for sharpness. If this is the worst it can do, I am a happy camper!

It had a filter (Kenko UV) on it when I got it. I took it off. Any opinions about how well this lens plays with filters? My 100-400L does not like them at all. I am moving towards no filters, just the hood.

Pretty good. Do some more tests and have fun...I use a Hoya Pro 1 Digital MC on mine

I have a Kenko UV(0) and a Tiffen UV(?) in the 77mm size. I will try them out and get back here with the results. There must not be too many people using filters these days. I keep UV filters on hand for messy environments and when putting any lens on my film body.

Here are a few recent shots from my Sigma 70-200 OS on my 7D

All those shots are looking good guys. Happy shooting.....

Wow! I haven't watched a NASCAR race in a few years. I didn't know JG was getting so gray. He was such a kid. Hey, does this mean that I am getting old? Nah, couldn't be.

This thread is getting me more and more sold on the Sigma 2.8 OS, vs a Canon f/4L IS. I don't think the extra weight would be something I'd complain about. Reliability seems much improved on the OS version. Quite impressive pics of a cute kitty! (We have 2 of them ourselves).

CanonCameraFan wrote in post #14841063
This thread is getting me more and more sold on the Sigma 2.8 OS, vs a Canon f/4L IS. I don't think the extra weight would be something I'd complain about. Reliability seems much improved on the OS version. Quite impressive pics of a cute kitty! (We have 2 of them ourselves).

I was considering the Canon 70-200s: f/2.8 non-IS, vs the f/4 IS. The 2.8 II is out of my price range. The Sigma was lurking in the back of my mind as a way to get both IS (OS) and f/2.8. My only concern was IQ at 2.8 & 200mm. As the cat pictures show, this lens is no slouch at 2.8 & 200mm. I've never shot a Canon 2.8, it may well be better. But I got this lens for less than a 1/3 of the price of a new Canon 2.8 II, $750.

This lens sharpens up nicely f/4, with most of that improvement seen by going from 2.8 to 3.2. Just for giggles I shot some at f/16 and f/22. F/16 is just starting to get soft. At f/22 it is similar to f/2.8. I don't see ever shooting this lens narrower than f/8.

As far as the weight goes (the lens, not me), I'm an old(er) geezer, and I don't mind. This and my 100-400L are by far my heaviest lenses. I manage them in situations where I want to use them. I don't think I'll ever be using either one of them for a general purpose, walk-around lens.

Oh, I have 11 house cats. I can't sleep without 4 or 5 cats in bed with me. And yes, EVERYTHING is hairy! If you come to visit, do not wear black.