canon 70-200l or sigma 70-2002.8

over the last couple of weeks ive been lucky enough to pick up a sigma 105mm2.8 for £110 ans the sigma 24-702.8 for £180.
im now looking for the last piece in the jigsaw a big zoom to replace the sigma 28-300.
was thinking of a sigma 70-200 2.8, but i noticed that i can get the canon 70-200 L for a lot less.
i know i loose a f stop ie:2.8 - f4
but i would love to own a big white lens.
is the canon better than the sigma ignoring the difference in f stop

It all depends on what you shoot. Do you photograph in dark settings? Sports? Plays etc? If you don't, I would prefer the Canon F4. You seem to have a pretty good set of lenses for low-light...But you can't make an F4 into an F2.8, But you can make an 2.8 into and F4 , The sigma would be you best bet

how do compare in terms of sharpness.
id give up the extra stop for a sharper lens, but from what ive seen of the sigmas they are very good

This debate has been brought up many times. I think that the general consensus is that image quality of the Sigma is very close to if not indistinguishable from the Canon L. Unless you have shaky hands and need the IS or just have money to blow, the Sigma is an excellent alternative to the $1200 L.

FWIW, I chose the Sigma

i was thinking of the canon 70-200 f4 L NON IS
in the uk it is £399 compared the the sigma 70-200 f2.8 at £490

I would go for the canon.

I've had experience with both the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the Canon 70-200 f/4 L

I first purchased the Sigma because it wasn't much more expensive than the Canon and wanted the extra speed. My copy was very soft at f/2.8, and wasn't sharp until f/4 in very good light. Plus, the focus would hunt quite a bit.

I returned it to give the Canon a try and never looked back. Sure I lost some wide open f / stops, but my copy of the Canon is tack sharp and the focus speed is fantastic, plus the colors and contrast are better too.

Many here have had great copies of the Sigma , with nice pics to prove it, so your mileage may vary, but if your asking me for my opinion based on personal experience, its the Canon hands down.

Just to give you an example about the focus speed and related sounds:

Sigma: WEE WEE TUCK
Canon: TUCK

Hahahaha, you said wee wee.

I just picked up my Sig 70-200 f/2.8. Last night was the first time I really used it, and it was at my aunt's place for our fmaily Christmas party. While I haven't put it through its paces yet on image quality, mine focused extremely fast in the very dimly lit room. I have picked up a Canon f/4 before and it was fast, but I don't recall it being any faster than what my Sigma was accomplishing last night.

Another thing to note: if you have an eos20d, it AF's faster with an f/2.8 or faster lens.

EDIT: you don't have a 20d, so I guess just keep that in mind if you ever want to upgrade the body!

This seems to be the trend.....white body or red stripe over practicality and usefulness.....sorry, not trying to be a butthead, but I have been a paid photographer for a while now, and I have never seen such blind devotion towards clever marketing in regards to photo equipment as I do here...

I've used both and ended up buying the Sigma b/c it's 2.8/HSM/EX for less money. The image quality is fantastic and given I shoot mainly on a mono or tripod, IS was not important.

You can find the Sigma on the net for 1/2 or less than 1/2 the price of the L lens and if budget exist for the f/2.8 L you now have money left for an f/4 L lens i.e. 17-40mm L f/4 or 100mm f/2.8 macro

LOL, A can of white spray paint and a big red rubber band should do the trick

thought about spraying my sigmas lol.
but for some strange reson the f4L is cheaper than the sigma2.8 about £60 cheaper.
been more than happy with my sigmas so i guess i should stick with what i know
but then again the red stripe, mmmmmmmm
guess im going to have to think this one through

Take a look at this review of both lenses. It has MTF measurements for each lens.
http://www.photozone.d​e …/sigma_70200_28​/index.htm
http://www.photozone.d​e …s/canon_70200_4​/index.htm
You can see from the measurements that the Sigma can pull out more resolution than the 4L. However, resolution isn't the whole story, but from what I've seen there really isn't much difference. Me personally, the f2.8 is more important to me.

jason... thanks for putting in those links. I was about to cut and paste the MTF charts for both but resisted because raw numbers don't take pictures. But I do see the argument that the Canon is much sharper far too often, and the scientific testing just doesn't bear that out. Edge sharpness I beleive is even better the the Canon 2.8 L.. center is a little softer. Bottom line though is either of the lenses are capable of producing fantastic results and it is ulitmately down to style. The Sigma is heavier but optically faster, and the canon is smaller but slower optically. To each their own.

Hand held, shot out of the window of a moving car (i was driving ) on the 20D with Sigma 70-200 f2.8 attached

Click me!!