New Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM or used canon 70-200 f2.8 is usm

I am looking to get a mint condition used Canon 70-200 f2.8 is usm lens.
The other option is to buy a new Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM.
I can not afford the type II of the Canon, so need to select one of the above.
I am looking for some real world experience from users that have preferably owned both lenses.
Please advise about the pro's and cons for these lenses and why to select one or the other.

I ended up buying the MKII Canon, but from my research before committing to it:

-The Canon MKI is slightly faster/more accurate in AF speed
-The Sigma is sharper than the MKI Canon (but not as sharp as the MKII Canon)
-The Sigma is not weather-resistant, where the Canon offerings (with IS) are supposed to be (to what extent, I don't know)
-The Canon may have better resale value, simply being a Canon (not a factor for everyone)
-The Sigma has zoom and focus rings reversed (relative to the Canon offerings) - I don't think you can zoom with the hood reversed on the Sigma
-The Canon is a big white thing, the Sigma is a big black thing
-The Sigma has a longer warranty (I think?)
-Size/weight between the two was negligible, from my perspective

pretty accurate. I own the 70-200 OS and I love it.

Have you guys looked into the just released TAMRON 70-200mm VC ?

I'm leaning towards that...

that is if i were in the market for 70-200 ....again

Thanks Blubayou, your list is very informative, especially your second point is very essential for me. I would like to get the sharpest lens possible at that budget.

Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS = great. I have it and it is wonderful. I never have used the Canons.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1259791

I'll repeat what I said pretty much I have owned the 70-200 2.8 OS and the canon version II. The canon is a bit quiter and tad faster and built like a tank. The sigma is overall good and unless you get paid I would go with the sigma. If your starting out and getting paid still the sigma.

The II is not worth double in my mind for the avg joe. Its rougly double used vs used.

The sigma can get good shots. The canon no doubt might be the best 70-200 out currently for canon or nikon, but wow its pricey.

Hope that helps.

I just bought the Sigma not too long ago and so far it's been pretty good. I rarely shoot sports so the faster AF of the Canon doesn't matter as much to me. It was a choice between the Canon Mk1, Sigma, and the new Tamron for me. In the end the Siggy had better IQ than the Canon and I didn't want to be a guinea pig with the new Tamron even though I could have gotten it at cost minus 20%. The Sigma had been around long enough with enough samples for me to choose it.

Oh and the 10 year Canadian warranty made it a no brainer as well.

Dooku wrote in post #15525576
Thanks Blubayou, your list is very informative, especially your second point is very essential for me. I would like to get the sharpest lens possible at that budget.

Glad to help!

I want to thank everyone that replied with their input, seems the Sigma is indeed the best choice for my budget.

Here is a nice comparison, and a nice read. I have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM and I like it. No complaints, considering an EF II costs more than 3 times as much. I got mine used for $750.

https://photography-on-the.net …382&highlight=m​ini-review

edit: OOPS! I just noticed the review compares the Sigma and the Canon version I.

Blubayou wrote in post #15525448
I ended up buying the MKII Canon, but from my research before committing to it:

-The Canon MKI is slightly faster/more accurate in AF speed
-The Sigma is sharper than the MKI Canon (but not as sharp as the MKII Canon)
-The Sigma is not weather-resistant, where the Canon offerings (with IS) are supposed to be (to what extent, I don't know)
-The Canon may have better resale value, simply being a Canon (not a factor for everyone)
-The Sigma has zoom and focus rings reversed (relative to the Canon offerings) - I don't think you can zoom with the hood reversed on the Sigma
-The Canon is a big white thing, the Sigma is a big black thing
-The Sigma has a longer warranty (I think?)
-Size/weight between the two was negligible, from my perspective

pretty much hits the nail on the head. If I were using it for sports, Canon hands down, for just about anything else, the Sigma would be my weapon of choice if I werent going for the MkII.

I have owned the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM for about 8 months now. It is hit and miss on my 50D body, even after a couple micro adjustments. Tends to slightly front or back focus on about a quarter of my shots. But on my 5D Mark ii, it is flawless. Here is a shot from a senior shoot I did this past weekend. Taken with the 5D Mark ii. It's a great portrait lens. AF works fast enough for my type of work. I don't do sports.