Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO EX DG OS- 925.00?

Is 925.00 shipped to much to pay for a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO EX DG OS, supposed to be in mint shape? Or spend the extra 300 for new or a used non IS L?

I like the idea of the OS though.

Its a good price, IF it comes from a trustworthy source.

Amazon has sold it for 1000 in those daily deals. If i am not in a hurry i would wait.

how does this lens compare with the canon 70-200 2.8 IS? similar results?

Canvaslove87 wrote in post #16339130
how does this lens compare with the canon 70-200 2.8 IS? similar results?

Not in the ball park with the Canon at all, the Tamron (SP 70-200MM F/2.8 Di VC USD) is a way way better lens by leaps and bounds than the Sigma is, don't let price dictate a bad lens purchase.

My old Canon 80-700 2.8L puts the Sigma to shame not the case with the Tamron its just a bit under the 70-200 2.8L IS II lens and that says allot at $1300 VS the Canon at $2499.00

Keep in mind I have never been a Sigma fan boy until the 35 1.4 Art lens this lens is a stunner of a lens and may even be better than the Canon L version in the same focal length. The newer crop of Sigma lenses show promise lets see what they will be releasing next.

I tried the Tammy yesterday non vc it was slow as heck and loud.

Canvaslove87 wrote in post #16339130
how does this lens compare with the canon 70-200 2.8 IS? similar results?

Also remember that the sigma is at least 1k less

hotled wrote in post #16339511
I tried the Tammy yesterday non vc it was slow as heck and loud.

Not the same lens as the new version with VC. There is a considerable difference there - very considerable.

It's a fair price. I sold mine for 880 fyi

Hi all,l my first post.
Does anyone get turned off by the 70-200 f2.8 ii because its white?
I would love to get it but I think it turns heads.

Subject wrote in post #16339754
Hi all,l my first post.
Does anyone get turned off by the 70-200 f2.8 ii because its white?
I would love to get it but I think it turns heads.

I bought a Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS partly for the price ($750) and partly because it is black. A lens that size gets attention, no matter the color. Although I do agree, white looks stupid.

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16339805
I bought a Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS partly for the price ($750) and partly because it is black. A lens that size gets attention, no matter the color. Although I do agree, white looks stupid.

I'm thinking of getting the tammy my self (undecided). I was told canon make there lenses white to keep them cooler. Why aren't all there lenses white then, I think its more of marketing tool so people can see from afar its a canon lense.

Similar to above, it's a fair price if from a trustworthy source.

As far as quality, I love my Siggy. I've rented the Canon II a few times (about 5 times) for various events and for everyday use and non-pixel peeping, the overall differences are negligible.

AF on the siggy may be slightly slower mainly when tracking. OS is slightly noisier. The Siggy doesn't have the focus limiter like the Canon nor weather sealing. Is that worth $1000 more? Up to the buyer.

Last, OS goes a long way so going from the Canon non IS to the Siggy OS is great.