Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L or Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8?

Ok I had the 70-200 F4 L A great lens sharp light, But I found that when getting a good shot at 200mm when the light starts to go ( For me anyway ) Just didn't happen. I shot wildlife Sold the lens then wish i didn't.
have just recived the 70-200 F2.8 IS . 2.8 to help with low light and IS to help with camera shake.

tuttifrutti wrote in post #6218057
Hi guys,

New UK DSLR convert here...

I cannot make my mind up between the two lens below:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens or Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM Lens

I'll admit i'm a total newbe to DSLR and i'll be purchasing a Canon 40D and a Sigma 17-70 lens aswell. I am after a lens to cover this range and have more or less decided on one of the two so am after opinions.

I've looked through the archives for both lens and of course everyone swears by their lens and i've seen some wonderful examples for both. Would really appreciate a bit of guidance. The price isn't an issue up to the value of the Canon one, just what's gonna suit me better. Is the IS the be all and end all to help a starter out, is the Canon lens that much sharper being an "L"... it's a little dliemna which I need your help on please.
Kind regards
Ian

What are you shooting and where? Sports indoors, outdoors on a sunny day? Family events....

I have the Siggy 70-200 2.8 and I love it. Sure sent it in for calibration, had the lens back in 5 -7 days. Also get a longer warranty on the Sigma than you do on the Canon I believe.

Try both, and shoot the lights out with them in all conditions. just pick a store that has a liberal return policy.

I shoot all Sigma lenses and I am very happy with the choices I made, you need to decide what works for you and your shooting style. There really is no right answer. You have to decide for yourself.

For me, it is all about speed. I want the fastest lenses possible (in my $$$ range) for my boys growth in their sports, f4 will not cut it in a gym when they are wrestling or playing under the lights.

Does not matter how "sharp" the lens is or the IQ, if the light is not there, it is tough to grab a photo.

I am not saying anything against the Canon lens, but you will get more in low light with a 2.8, Sigma or Canon than the f4. Especially if you need to bump up the iso.

Speed is what I was after.....and the price of the Sigma was in "my" budget. Would love a Canon, but cannot afford it. And don't think I need it.

LOL - I remember telling myself this SO many times. And I was right; I didn't need it. But once I saw it, I dang sure wanted it.

As for being in the budget, it's all just priorities. My first 70-200 was the 2.8 Sigma. It was nice but just never "did it" for me. I sold it an bought a Canon f4 and was hooked. About a year later, I sold it. Then I kept saving my money, kept making cash offers, and finally scored an f4/IS for $900. That is just $200 over what I paid for the first Sigma f2.8 and I am SO much happier with the images. Hindsight being 20/20, I'd go directly to the Canon 70-200/f4L-IS hands down.

Glad we have a forum to share personal experience and opinion...

I know this thread is a comparision thread of the two models, but I recently just got the EF 70-200mm f/4 L (non-IS), because I just couldn't shell out the money for the IS version yet. So my question is.. what do you guys think of the lens performance in low-light or indoors? I took some test shots already in open broad daylight and the sharpness and crispness of the shots blew me away!.. but now thinking long-term, would I suffer from the lack of IS in this lens or having the f/2.8 instead?

Icediamond wrote in post #6362294
I know this thread is a comparision thread of the two models, but I recently just got the EF 70-200mm f/4 L (non-IS), because I just couldn't shell out the money for the IS version yet. So my question is.. what do you guys think of the lens performance in low-light or indoors? I took some test shots already in open broad daylight and the sharpness and crispness of the shots blew me away!.. but now thinking long-term, would I suffer from the lack of IS in this lens or having the f/2.8 instead?

Seeing as how you have it, why don't you try it out?

For me f/4 is way to slow indoors, and IS would not help me at f/4 because usually my subjects are moving so I still need decent shutter speed. So f/2.8 is about the slowest I can go. Your mileage may vary though.

I bought a Sigma 70-200 2.8 macro last week. I ahvent tried it indoors yet but am pleased so far with the results. A couple:

Full 200mm zoom, handheld on a 40D body.