70-200 F/2.8 - Canon non IS vs Sigma with OS

Both about the same price ...... I originally thought that a stabelized lens is the ultimate, but - someone said to me that I didn't really need IS if I shoot at 2.8.. Huh? I didnt' ask for an explanation as it was a passing comment, but - could that be true? - I was going to get the Sigma 'with' the stabelized feature, but - If it's not really necessary for lower lighting settings, I'll get the Canon..

Recommendations - I have about $1500 to spend at this time, .. Mostly shoot landscapes/critters - 'some' sports (Soccer) but not much..

tks,

r

I would try for a used canon version I IS.

I just picked up the new one and the IS amazes me.

Here is a handheld 1/6 second comparison from the other day at 200mm

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/robertpflynn/6​233290810/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/robertpflynn/6​236109104/

Id go with the sigma 70-200 OS
The stabilisation makes a big difference.

From what I've heard the Sigma is better than the IS mark I. Haven't used either, so take that with a grain of salt, but the only advantage is that the Canon has weatherproofing.

theextremist04 wrote in post #13248784
From what I've heard the Sigma is better than the IS mark I. Haven't used either, so take that with a grain of salt, but the only advantage is that the Canon has weatherproofing.

The MK1 also has slightly quicker AF (and higher magnification), though the Sigma OS is pretty fast. The MK2 is king of the hill, and as I've said before, I'd put the new FLD-glass OS lens in 2nd place in this lens category. It's a very good lens.

The canon has the advantages of build quality and AF speed. The sigma has advantages in pretty much everything else. I'd get the sigma if I ever upgraded to 2.8

I'm in exactly the same boat aswell. I'm in need of a 2.8 telezoom. I'm eyeballing the sigma, but cant help thinking about the IS mk1 and the non-IS aswell.

IS/OS is a fine feature to have, even just for the more peacefull viewfinder image. do I NEED it? No...
Fast AF... so the Canon's are faster... Well, i'm not chasing ducks, but i sometimes shoot an occasional soccergame (not professionally). So will the sigma fail me there?

And i really dont know what the best option is. I've heard the sigma is the better optical performer, But its mentioned focus breathing and the resulting magnification are holding me back. So go for the Canon you'd say? Well, thats still very expensive in my area. More expensive than the sigma.... And i do like the sigma....

Sigh... it just isnt easy to pick one.

muusers wrote in post #13249226
I'm in exactly the same boat aswell. I'm in need of a 2.8 telezoom. I'm eyeballing the sigma, but cant help thinking about the IS mk1 and the non-IS aswell.

IS/OS is a fine feature to have, even just for the more peacefull viewfinder image. do I NEED it? No...
Fast AF... so the Canon's are faster... Well, i'm not chasing ducks, but i sometimes shoot an occasional soccergame (not professionally). So will the sigma fail me there?

And i really dont know what the best option is. I've heard the sigma is the better optical performer, But its mentioned focus breathing and the resulting magnification are holding me back. So go for the Canon you'd say? Well, thats still very expensive in my area. More expensive than the sigma.... And i do like the sigma....

Sigh... it just isnt easy to pick one.

Given they're all around the same price, I'd go for an IS/OS lens almost every time, unless there was something about the non-IS/OS which was noticeably better than the IS/OS.

In the present scenario, there isn't.

So that leaves the IS Mk I and the sigma OS.

The Mk I has slightly faster AF, noticeably better build (all magnesium goodness), and weathersealing.
The sigma has better IQ and newer OS system. Given that when I buy better lenses I generally rate IQ pretty darn high on the list of considerations, I'd pick the sigma, because magnesium, as nice as it feels, won't help me produce better images.

The sigma OS is slower than the canons in terms of AF, it is not slow. Don't get the terms confused. It is plenty fast enough to capture sports.

Re: focus breathing, the canons have that too.

So no, go for the sigma I'd say.

My Sigma arrived a week ago tomorrow, and has not failed to completely blow my mind every day that I use it. Last weekend I shot a wedding within 3-hours of unboxing, and quickly ran over 1,500 shots through it. In my humble opinion Sigma completely knocked this one out of the park. Many reviews I read claimed that you get 80% of the Mk II at roughly half the cost. I would counter that, as I believe you get 95% of the Mk II; true, its not weather sealed, but neither is my 60D.

Making the tough choice to go with the Sigma was the best decision I have made, since going Canon over Nikon.

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #13249826
My Sigma arrived a week ago tomorrow, and has not failed to completely blow my mind every day that I use it. Last weekend I shot a wedding within 3-hours of unboxing, and quickly ran over 1,500 shots through it. In my humble opinion Sigma completely knocked this one out of the park. Many reviews I read claimed that you get 80% of the Mk II at roughly half the cost. I would counter that, as I believe you get 95% of the Mk II; true, its not weather sealed, but neither is my 60D.

Making the tough choice to go with the Sigma was the best decision I have made, since going Canon over Nikon.

We're going to want samples

Don't forget that Sigma gives you a 4 year warranty, too.

Sirrith wrote in post #13249695
Given they're all around the same price, I'd go for an IS/OS lens almost every time, unless there was something about the non-IS/OS which was noticeably better than the IS/OS.

In the present scenario, there isn't.

So that leaves the IS Mk I and the sigma OS.

The Mk I has slightly faster AF, noticeably better build (all magnesium goodness), and weathersealing.
The sigma has better IQ and newer OS system. Given that when I buy better lenses I generally rate IQ pretty darn high on the list of considerations, I'd pick the sigma, because magnesium, as nice as it feels, won't help me produce better images.

The sigma OS is slower than the canons in terms of AF, it is not slow. Don't get the terms confused. It is plenty fast enough to capture sports.

Re: focus breathing, the canons have that too.

So no, go for the sigma I'd say.

Thanks for the slight nudge in the right direction. I guess im just scared to be let down by 3rd party lenses (happened before, not sigma though)

About the breathing... Regarding several reviews the sigma is worse than the canon MK1.

I'm going with the Sigma eventually!

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #13249826
My Sigma arrived a week ago tomorrow, and has not failed to completely blow my mind every day that I use it. Last weekend I shot a wedding within 3-hours of unboxing, and quickly ran over 1,500 shots through it. In my humble opinion Sigma completely knocked this one out of the park. Many reviews I read claimed that you get 80% of the Mk II at roughly half the cost. I would counter that, as I believe you get 95% of the Mk II; true, its not weather sealed, but neither is my 60D.

Making the tough choice to go with the Sigma was the best decision I have made, since going Canon over Nikon.

Not to go on too much of a tangent, but your 60D is actually weather sealed. Believe me, I have dunked mine in water by accident with no issue and taken it out into the rain and snow countless times in the last year. If you look at the sealing diagrams, the 60d is even better sealed than the 7d.

BTW, I would go with the Sigma over the Canon too given the choices. Although if f4 was a consideration, the L f4 IS would be up at the top for the price.

I just sold my 70-200 2.8 non IS. The ONLY reason I sold it is to get the mkII version. On a telephoto lens I'll always want IS. I tried shooting at 200mm and it's hard when theres low light, which seems more often than not.

I would get a 70-200 2.8 mk1 or wait and save some money then get the mkII.