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

There is another thread with a lot of good feedback on the Sigma lens. I'm not sure how to link to another thread but here goes:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=915516

One of the reasons I sold my 70-200L non-IS is because of the lack of IS. My keeper rate is much higher with the Tamron 70-300 VC USD, in essence making it a "better" lens, even though it's not QUITE as sharp...but what's the point of a sharp lens that makes you to get blurry pictures, right?

I'd say go for the Sigma...

Never used any of the Canon 2.8 versions but I sold my F4 IS canon to buy the Sigma... will never look back.

I think in your case sigma is a better option. I wouldn't use a tele zoom without IS.

If I were getting paid to shoot weddings where I needed every shot in focus and at the second I needed to hit the shutter, it was ready, I would be skipping both of these and getting the 70-200/2.8 II.

If I was shooting weddings, at a high price, of course I'd use that too. But most of us here don't. But you're right, if someone is making thousands per month doing photography he/she should get the best.
I'm still happy with my Sigma

I know what a lot of people don't understand about Sigma is that they basically tell you that you most likely will have to send your camera in with the lens to get the best results on their website...

AF Data Adjustment
Due to extreme sensitivity of the digital camera mirror box, more than 5 times as sensitive as that of a film camera, it may be necessary to adjust the AF data in your Sigma lens. At Sigma, we adjust all of our lenses to a neutral focus point during manufacturing. It may be necessary to have your Sigma lens adjusted to your own personal camera. This is a known problem with digital cameras and many companies have included Micro Focus Adjustment capabilities on their high end cameras to address this problem with their lenses. If you are able to do this with your camera and lens combination, there’s no need to send your equipment in for adjustment.

I decided to try the Sigma. I figure if I don't like it, I can always return it and get another Canon.

FEChariot wrote in post #14661290
If I were getting paid to shoot weddings where I needed every shot in focus and at the second I needed to hit the shutter, it was ready, I would be skipping both of these and getting the 70-200/2.8 II.

Funny when I read this because I get this with my sigma when it comes to anything but sports. It's dead nuts accurate every shot. (unless it's sports where baseball player is running at me behind the plate type scenario)

I've decided to weigh on the Tamron, Sigma, and Canon debate regarding the 70-200. I would consider myself a serious hobbyist with my camera (XTI) but unfortunately my budget doesn't reflect my ability. Meaning that I want to be able to afford the Canon glass L lenses and better body (7D), but wound up going with Tamron or Sigma glass. Currently I have an XTI, 50 1.4, Tamron 17-50 VC, Tamron 18-270 PZD VC, Canon 18-55, Canon 430 EX. I've looked at Canon glass with awe and dismay at the quality of the builds but prohibitive expense for that build quality. I'm not going to get into Tamron or Sigma's build is better or worse, I'm just focusing on expense.

I'm in the market to replace my 18-270 as I came to realize that a superzoom can't do everything I want but was a good option at the time I bought as a walk around lens and now that I know better my tastes have change. I would rather carry around 2 different lenses 17-50 2.8 & 70-200 2.8 to have better image quality in all light situations. Now my dilemma. I want to purchase a 70-200 with IS, OS or VC but currently only Sigma has a 70-200 OS that's below $1500. I've read and viewed many reviews with the Sigma and I've also held it and took several test shots with it, I was impressed but I still felt that Tamron's 70-200 non VC was a better lens and gave me better image quality.

What do you guys (and gals) think?

Talley wrote in post #14670598
Funny when I read this because I get this with my sigma when it comes to anything but sports. It's dead nuts accurate every shot. (unless it's sports where baseball player is running at me behind the plate type scenario)

I am a big fan of my Sigmas but they don't do as well in AI servo as my L glass. Sure in one shot they basically don't miss but it seems to me they just don't update focus information as often as the Canon glass. This means there is more likelihood that the subject has moved out of the focus plane before the lens has made its correction. Nothing scientific here just my observation.

Now for my Sigma glass, the 17-50 and 30/1.4, they aren't really sports glass and I tend to use them in one shot only. For something like a 70-200/2.8, I would absolutely want them to be accurate in AI servo so they dont miss that baseball player.