canon 70-200l or sigma 70-2002.8

Just wondering where were you able to get those Sigma lenses mentioned in your initial post at those prices?

http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/

never used them, but the people on this forum who hvae highly recomend them.
beleive they are based in hong kong but will pay any import duty charges (uk only)

Really? You must not visit too many other internet forums then, since they all have there groups of supporters. Apple, PC/Windows, cars, high end hi-fi... the list probably covers every possible hobby.

Personally I'd love to get the 70-200 IS, but my budget (3 kids plus mortgages on two properties) says my money is better spent elsewhere - especially since I'm NOT a paid photographer.

I will probably end up with the Sigma (I wish they would add OS to their model), or I may just hold off altogether since I found a great camera store 10 minutes from my house that will rent me a 70-200 IS for $35 for the entire weekend.

And FWIW, I don't think the "L" lenses are all clever marketing, there is no doubt they are a higher quality item. Just look at the horrible condition of some that have been used by the PJ community, and yet they still function like the day they were bought. That said, I don't think they are always worth the sometimes insane premium placed on them.

What I find funny is the "pros" who love to slam the amatuers about babying their equipment. Its just a hobby, and since we're not making money from it there is no return on our "investement". I'd say that provides a fairly hefty reason to take good care of the equipment, unless you have limitless funds to purchase replacements.

Nope, I sure don't. I enjoy the real world on occasion.

I am certainly not bashing the quality of the almighty "L", but I am making comment on the white body and the famous red stripe...I just felt that the statement by markyb " but i would love to own a big white lens." was exactly what the sales division was going for. We all see the people at the games and at the events, and even at the zoo with their huge white lenses and we all get giddy....myself included. But I have to force myself to justify the purchase.

I certainly do not mean to bash...not at all. I am amused though that so many hobbiests have far better equipment than I do and that they see no financial return on owning said equipment. I do not judge anyone for it, I just find it interesting.

I am happy with a camera and a job to shoot, I really don't care if I have a white lens or a black one, I don't care if my flash is from the camera manufacturer or 3rd party, I don't care about much of anything except for my ability to capture the moment, which is always in need of improvement.

I'm certain that I sound like a butthead sometimes, but I am a firm believer in the practical, and I am not afraid to share my opinions. That is all that they are, opinions, take them or leave them, it is NEVER anything personal.

Also, I would like to throw in for the purpose of this thread that the Tokina 80-200 AT-X AF PRO 80-200mm f/2.8 gives great quality for the money.

I'd take f/2.8 over f/4 any day.

I've owned the Sigma for a time(well it was my friends, he let me borrow it for the time he owned it pretty much).

I did buy the 70-200 IS, but that's a completely diff lens with the IS in there.

However, that sigma puts up comparable results. I do notice some differences, but they arne't that big, and it would make you cry over the results if you used both lens, unless you are a perfectionist.

You'd defintely be happy with Sigma's 70-200, i'm sure.

GSH wrote:
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!!

Nice Shot!

Beware! The Canon does not come with a tripod collar! This is an extra expense that can actually make it more expensive than the Sigma (which does come with one included).

Basically, the Sigma is the better lens for the money. I'm not big on indoor shooting, but the extra stop of light is a winner in many situations.

I owned the f4 Canon and it's a lovely lens but in likes a bit more light than I might have expected for an F4 in the so called Luxury end of the market.

I then bought the 2.8 Sigma and I have to say I prefered it. But I'm a pragmatist. I'm not blinded by the L magic (sic!) and I really want tools that do the job rather than to join a club. The 2.8 simply worked better in the light conditions I used it for. Uk light and light elsewhere may be different. We may have more or less and that does actually count in ones choice.

Personally, I know the 100-300 f4 Sigma is better than both and it costs similar to the 2.8 but ALMOST performs like a 2.8. Worth checking out. It needs a mono/tri to give the last 10% that reaches into the stellar range. Does well with a TCon if you fancy wildlife.

If you like lighter, whiter, cheaper go with the f4, otherwise get the better lens.

Completely different lens though.

If you want to compare in that area, Canon's 100-300 and Sigma's 120-300.

grego wrote:
Completely different lens though.

If you want to compare in that area, Canon's 100-300 and Sigma's 120-300.

Not really ... depends on the differences that count for the OP, which we don't know. The price differences (ballpark) are around £60 more for the 2.8 and just £10 extra on top for the 100-300 f4. He did say big lens ... and I wouldn't personally count the 70-200mm's as big.

rabidcow wrote:
Nope, I sure don't. I enjoy the real world on occasion.

I have little choice, the kids do their darndest to keep me away from the electronic junk. It has its perks, tho...

Sums up my personal attitude as well. Buy what you want, as long as it makes you happy and doesn't ruin you financially.

I have no "L" in my meager collection, and its a zoo of manufacturers to boot (Sigma lens and flash, Canon lenses and body, Tamron lens).

My biggest reason for wanting the 70-200L IS is simply the IS. I rarely have the ability to use a tripod, so IS can be a huge benefit. If Sigma offered their 70-200 with OS for ~ 1000 - 1100 I would be all over it (assuming it remained competetive with the Canon in the image quality areas).

I will have to look into the Tokina, I really need an affordable f2.8 telezoom so I appreciate the pointer.

Actually, I think there is a good reason for it being white. "Larger lenses would be more subject to expansion/contraction due to heat absorption in sunlight". Makes sense to me. So I guess this would be a feature not just branding.

That's exactly why they are white.

Well, 70-200 2.8 or 4, cover a lot diff than the 100-300. That's why. Obviously prices vary for all the named lens, but its not really fair to look at two different types of lens.