70-200 2.8 - which one?

Hi,

Given that I have the long range covered and am only now looking to help me with shallow DoF & bringing in more light I'm looking to the 2.8's

Now the mother of all 70-200's (ie Canon mk II) is just too expensive and I'm looking to have decent AF too I'm probably down to the Sigma's

So..

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM II (£599.00)
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM (£899.00 - although I have seen it on import for £758.00 but thats out of stock at the mo)

Of course I would consider the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L USM (£979.00) but its a lot more and I might as well get OS for less money, plus I've heard the IQ of the OS version at least is better.

Tamron was ruled out as I heard the AF is poor.

I've taken a look at the image archives and all three mentioned look pretty good, but to my eye the Sigma's seem better.

What are your thoughts\findings?

Went with the Sigma; 85% of the quality of the Canon MKII at 65% of the price tag, is perfect for a budding hobbiest like myself.

If you are willing to accept that at f/2.8 your shots will not be as crisp as the MK II then go for it; by f/4.0 the lenses are identical in performance, save the weatherproofing.

I can't say I'm too bothered about weather proofing, Canon don't cover it in their warranty so there's no way is trust it anyway

I use the Tammy version and I am quite happy with it.

I understand the IQ, but the AF is still important

Definitely the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, unless you can afford to spend more on the IS II. I only went IS II because I could get it through the canon loyalty program for $1,600 + tax. If I had to pay more than that I would have went with the sigma.

Is canon loyalty only US? I have CPS gold status but have never looked into it.

You would have to call your canon location and see if they offer a similar program.

Nah, apparently they've got the decent market share so they don't bother over here - so definatly back to the Sigma's (not that I have much kit to trade in anyway on the Canon front)

I personally had the tamron for a few months and it was quite good. As far as af goes, what are you going to be shooting? It's fairly decent, I've shot aviation and some birds with out too many problems. I will admit, there were times when I found myself needing that instantaneous snap into focus but that would be the only thing it lacks. If that's what you're looking for then ruling it out would be wise. And my vote would for the 2.8L non is

I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS and I love it. I picked it up for $1100 US used (looked new to me) and for that price I could have only gotten the older Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS. For $300 more I could have gotten the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS mk 1, but through research it looked like the Sigma OS was on par with it.

I've used the Canon 70-200 2.8 non-is before and what's the difference? Canon is a smidge sharper at 2.8 and then after that it's equal. In fact, I can't really tell a difference in real IQ non pixel peeping. I'd get the Sigma OS if money is an issue and be done.

Sadly I've never seen an OS second hand over here, ideally I would go OS but I can see me getting the HSM II just due to budget, although it certainly is no slouch either!

The Sigmas just make pictures look a little different. It's fairly obvious in our own threads here and from tests on websites.

Myself I often decide I don't like it. I would probably opt for the non-IS Canon. I like fast exposure times for animals anyway so I might as well get away without IS. Right now I am using the 200mm f/2.8 prime which I like a lot.

On the other hand if you just want center sharp shots taken quickly out in the wild and can't lock yourself into a prime then I'm sure the Sigma will provide that. Minor differences in how the image might look go right out the window if you are in a situation where you cannot get a sharp shot without f/2.8 and IS and crop the center of the image anyway.

So far I'm loving my sigma. I've owned the canon 70-200 F4 noniS and the IS version. I couldn't afford to jump to the 2.8 version canon's with IS and I felt that I wanted to keep the IS so that left me with the swap to the Sigma.

So far I'm extremely happy. It's performance is identical to the 70-200 F4 lens and then I have the option to go to 2.8 and like another guy said, if your not pixel peeping it's hard to tell the difference in IQ.

The AF of the sigma is extremely quiet but it's not lightning fast as the Canon's. It's still faster than tamron lenses, it's peppy just not lightning fast.

John_N wrote in post #14347333
Sadly I've never seen an OS second hand over here, ideally I would go OS but I can see me getting the HSM II just due to budget, although it certainly is no slouch either!

I would wait until you can afford the Sigma OS. It is a better lens IQ wise regardless of the OS. As others have mentioned it is up there with the F4 IS and IS II.