Canon 70-200 non-is or sigma 70-200 os?

Which one is sharper? I've seen great shots from sigma.

the canon is defenitly sharper, but the sigma has IS (OS as sigma calls it) which can be very useful in that FL.
I think they're both great lenses, but your decision should be based on your intended use of the lens,
for example for sport IS is not as important as focus speed (which is better on the canon) but then again if it's inside then the IS well be great

eyalha wrote in post #14655169
the canon is defenitly sharper

Except it isn't. They're about the same, if anything the sigma has the edge. Its about as sharp as the canon f4 IS, which is a bit sharper than the 2.8 non IS.

The OS on the sigma will give you an edge at longer FL.
off a tripod in a studio.... This is more of a religious discussion. Some believe one and some the other.

nes_matt wrote in post #14655775
This is more of a religious discussion. Some believe one and some the other.

Isn't that the truth!
I suppose that's why there are lens comparison sites like photozone, digital picture, etc.

Unless you need a little bit faster AF (95% of the time the difference is a non-issue), and/or weather sealing, the clear choice to me (and many others) is the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS.
I own one and it's a great lens. Just like mentioned above most users and reviews consider it at least as good or better than the first generation of Canon 70-200 2.8 lenses.

@OP, why are you asking ? I see you have a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L listed in your gear list.

Maybe he's thinking of selling it & buying the Sigma?

LeeRatters wrote in post #14657386
Maybe he's thinking of selling it & buying the Sigma?

Exactly. I was out shooting the other day with my Canon and I was a bit shaky with it so it got me thinking about image stabilization. I also shoot weddings so it would help quite a bit there as well.

Are there any good reviews out there that compare the two lenses side by side (even the newer canon versons) with the same example pictures. I have seen some great shots with the Sigma on this forum that rival anything i've ever seen from the Canons.

You will find the OS on the Sigma very different from the IS on the Canons. The OS kicks in- i.e. it stops movement very abruptly. Canon is a bit different- very subtle- not as noticeable- yes- it's there, but not as noticeable as the Sigma.
On my Sigma, sharpness can be bumped up to sharpen up nicely, or if I stop it down to 3.2 or 3.5- it does it nicely. Others say theirs is sharp wide open, but you know, everyone's idea of sharpness is their interpretation. I say that because I am curious about yours-- how does it behave ? Do you have to stop down your Canon to get it nice and crisp, say when using neutral picture style ?

When you were shooting, why didn't you bump up your iso to bring up speed, or are you looking for the optical stabilization to freeze the motion in the viewfinder ? If you are looking at freezing the motion in the viewfinder- Sigmas rock at this! I looked at the spec's on the 1D III, and noticed its upper iso limits- and was also wondering if you might benefit going to a newer body like a 5D III.

Like I said- if you were looking at freezing the motion- I have seen nothing beat the sigma's OS.

By the way, here's a link comparing the 70-200 OS and the Canon mark II.
http://www.flickr.com …1/sets/72157625​445936481/

By lightrules...

wayne.robbins wrote in post #14658068
You will find the OS on the Sigma very different from the IS on the Canons. The OS kicks in- i.e. it stops movement very abruptly. Canon is a bit different- very subtle- not as noticeable- yes- it's there, but not as noticeable as the Sigma.
On my Sigma, sharpness can be bumped up to sharpen up nicely, or if I stop it down to 3.2 or 3.5- it does it nicely. Others say theirs is sharp wide open, but you know, everyone's idea of sharpness is their interpretation. I say that because I am curious about yours-- how does it behave ? Do you have to stop down your Canon to get it nice and crisp, say when using neutral picture style ?

When you were shooting, why didn't you bump up your iso to bring up speed, or are you looking for the optical stabilization to freeze the motion in the viewfinder ? If you are looking at freezing the motion in the viewfinder- Sigmas rock at this! I looked at the spec's on the 1D III, and noticed its upper iso limits- and was also wondering if you might benefit going to a newer body like a 5D III.

Like I said- if you were looking at freezing the motion- I have seen nothing beat the sigma's OS.

My canon is tack sharp at 2.8 and i'm very happy with that lens. The environment I was shooting in when I thought it might be nice to upgrade to stabilized lens was outside on a sunny day, I was shooting a baby swan that had just hatched in my neighborhood. The nest was in the shade and I was shooting at ISO 200 and was getting shutter speeds like 1/200 and 1/320. Speeds that should be hand holdable. I noticed though the viewfinder that I was quite shakey and the pictues shows slight motion blur. The only tack sharp pictures I got out of the bunch were at 1/640. This was the only time i've noticed I haven't been able to hand hold those high of shutter speeds so it sparked my interested in stabilization. For weddings I use a monopod so that usually is not a problem. I thnk my 1DIII does quite well at high ISO and I wouldn't be able to afford that upgrade anyway to the 5DIII. Nor would I want to. I love my cameras and can't see switching to anything else.

wayne.robbins wrote in post #14658112
By the way, here's a link comparing the 70-200 OS and the Canon mark II.
http://www.flickr.com …1/sets/72157625​445936481/

By lightrules...

I noticed you have both lenses....how noticeable is the image quality between the two? Have you had your Sigma calibrated to your camera?

I just switched from the 24-70L to the Sigma version. The Sigma was front focusing quite bad, but the area that the lens decided was in focus was much sharper than my Canon. I sent it in to Sigma with my camera to have them calibrate it.

Canon AF super fast. I'd go with it.