The lousy L bug, halp!?

Cham_001 wrote in post #13338389
Before you commit to additional expense - why not rent the 70-200mm first ?

If it suits then by all means go-ahead and buy it!
Otherwise, you have only spent a little money on 'research'.

This is the best advice you'll get. Rent the lens from one of the good online lens rental business, and let the lens make the decision for you. If you post a "what do you think of this lens" thread here, you are going to get answers from one end of the spectrum to the other. For any given lens, there are those who worship it, and those who loathe it. Get the lens in your own hands and on your own camera and let it make its case.

Pretty darn positive if I had to rent the two, I can't tell the difference unless I got to use them at the real world situations I actually take my lenses too. I just can't seem to get ahold of a lens and just let it go...won't work for me. I usually buy all my lenses upfront anyways. :S

Vixen89 wrote in post #13342159
..and then someone had mentioned the Sigma 70-200 OS to me in a PM...LJASLKDFJKLDSF

Easy choice there. The sigma has 2.8 and OS as well as nicer build than the f4 IS for around the same price. Compared to the canon 2.8's, it has better IQ than the IS mkI and around equal to the non-IS, but it has OS, and costs the same as the non-IS although it must be said the canon 2.8's have better build.

I'll put it another way:
If you don't mind the weight of the 2.8's and can't afford the canon 2.8 Mk II, the sigma 2.8 OS is the best choice.
If you do mind the weight, the f4 non-IS is much better bang for your buck than the IS.

Vixen89 wrote in post #13342441
I can't tell the difference unless I got to use them at the real world situations I actually take my lenses too.

so rent it and use it at a real world situation...

So went to the camera store on my lunch break and held the two, f/4 with IS and f/2.8 non IS..

The 2.8 weighs twice as much and made me my right arm a little sore with the 7D gripped as well. I snapped some photos and found myself shaking way too much because of the weight difference I am not used too. I will probably get the f/4 with IS just because I couldn't handle my own camera shake with that much weight. The Sigma weighs the same as the f/2.8.

Vixen89 wrote in post #13338596
You guys don't think my range is overlapping? I'm thinking of getting rid of the Sigma 50 1.4, the Tamron 70-300 vc, and the Tokina fisheye (I have the Rokinon 8mm fisheye that I forgot to list). I mean I thought about it this way as well, I only have one camera body, why do I need so many lenses? I think the Sigma 30/85 is a great combo to keep, and the Sigma 50 always stays in the bag for the most part. I don't usually touch the Tamron unless I know for sure it's a drag/drift event but ..meh.

i think out of those lens these are the ones i would use to fund the new 70-200. i honestly didnt use the 50 when i had it. and the tammy will be overlapping your new 70-200. then you a sig 10-20 AND a rokinon 8, so getting rid of the toki 10-17 would be fine too.
trust me, once you get the 70-200, you'll love it, no matter which version you get.i certainly love mine!

hensgonwild wrote in post #13343501
i think out of those lens these are the ones i would use to fund the new 70-200. i honestly didnt use the 50 when i had it. and the tammy will be overlapping your new 70-200. then you a sig 10-20 AND a rokinon 8, so getting rid of the toki 10-17 would be fine too.
trust me, once you get the 70-200, you'll love it, no matter which version you get.i certainly love mine!

oh my, where were you when I needed this answer!! I had to get a lot of help to finally cope to let go of my lenses, but that's exactly what I was selling! The Tokina fisheye, Tamron's 70-300 vc, and the Sigmalux!

Sirrith wrote in post #13342448
Easy choice there. The sigma has 2.8 and OS as well as nicer build than the f4 IS for around the same price.

I find this really hard to believe. There is no way the Sigma has better build quality than the F/4 IS.

Raylon wrote in post #13344114
I find this really hard to believe. There is no way the Sigma has better build quality than the F/4 IS.

I've used the sigma HSM II (same or worse build than the OS) and I used to own the f4 IS. The sigma does have better build. And I don't count weather sealing as "build".

Sirrith wrote in post #13344119
I've used the sigma HSM II (same or worse build than the OS) and I used to own the f4 IS. The sigma does have better build. And I don't count weather sealing as "build".

I just can't imagine any plastic lens feeling better built than an all metal lens. I guess I need to get ahold of a Sigma 70-200 and see for myself.

Raylon wrote in post #13344133
I just can't imagine any plastic lens feeling better built than an all metal lens. I guess I need to get ahold of a Sigma 70-200 and see for myself.

Unfortunately the 70-200 f4 IS is not metal. Its plastic. The only metal bits on it are the bits on the zoom and focus rings that aren't rubber, and the mount.

Sirrith wrote in post #13344184
Unfortunately the 70-200 f4 IS is not metal. Its plastic. The only metal bits on it are the bits on the zoom and focus rings that aren't rubber, and the mount.

Sirrith the 70-200 f4L IS must have been bad to you because you love to knock it when you can, IMO it has brilliant build quality, we're in the 21st century now and metal is old hat, Canon should be using more plastics and composite materials anyway. Look at Samsung, I have a Samsung Galaxy II phone, it's mainly plastic but still good quality, I'd rather have that than an iphone, but I'm sure you already guessed that from my avatar..

DeFinitive wrote in post #13345299
Sirrith the 70-200 f4L IS must have been bad to you because you love to knock it when you can, IMO it has brilliant build quality, we're in the 21st century now and metal is old hat, Canon should be using more plastics and composite materials anyway. Look at Samsung, I have a Samsung Galaxy II phone, it's mainly plastic but still good quality, I'd rather have that than an iphone, but I'm sure you already guessed that from my avatar..

he wasn't really knocking it by pointing out it was plastic...raylon said the build quality of the sigma couldnt compare because it was plastic vs. the metal of the L...if the L isn't metal...then obviously it makes sense that they are comparable....

most people love to knock sigma lenses without ever using one...that's pretty apparent in this forum at least...

DreDaze wrote in post #13346526
he wasn't really knocking it by pointing out it was plastic...raylon said the build quality of the sigma couldnt compare because it was plastic vs. the metal of the L...if the L isn't metal...then obviously it makes sense that they are comparable....

most people love to knock sigma lenses without ever using one...that's pretty apparent in this forum at least...

Fair comment but I'm sure Sirrith will admit he's had numerous posts where he's knocked it, not sure why someone would own it then sell it to get the non IS instead, unless it was to free up money for another lens.

DeFinitive wrote in post #13345299
Sirrith the 70-200 f4L IS must have been bad to you because you love to knock it when you can, IMO it has brilliant build quality, we're in the 21st century now and metal is old hat, Canon should be using more plastics and composite materials anyway. Look at Samsung, I have a Samsung Galaxy II phone, it's mainly plastic but still good quality, I'd rather have that than an iphone, but I'm sure you already guessed that from my avatar..

Not sure where you get me knocking the f4 IS. I always say it is technically a great lens. I even say it is a better lens than the non-IS, just that it is not twice the lens as the price would suggest. If your definition of knocking is me saying I don't think its worth the money, then ok...