What in the world? New Sigma 70-200?

In2Photos wrote:
What if you could get the new OS version for the same price as Canon's non-IS version?

hehe still would be a tad too expensive for me. $700 is about the max i can afford. =P at least for now as a student

IS/OS is over-rated

You're joking, right?

Sounds like the big difference wil be the word "macro" stamped on the lens.. kind of like the difference between the EX and the DG which now has two whole more letters in the name

Apperently Sigma did not get my memo...

mijbril wrote:
The Sigmonster is not exactly a lens with a lot of competition, but I'd love to get my hands on one some day

With OS it might even be useable!

/rant on

Ok I'll say it again. Sigma, For (Insert Omnipotent Beings Name Here) sake put HSM on ALL EX lenses.

/rant off

if it does come with "OS", what will the retail roughly be?

I think the "OS" reference was regarding the Sigmonster.

The new 70-200 does not have OS.
I think it's a great improvement to this lens - current version minimum focus distance is 1.5 metres, compared to 1.4 (I think for the Canon equiv) or 1.5 for the Canon 200 L. Maybe not the perfect macro lens , but clser focusing would be nice.

New Revised Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM lens

Anyone see this announcement. Anyone else wish their 70-200mmL could close focus to 10cm instead of 5feet!!!!

Holy crap, being able to use a 70-200mm indoors up to 10cm would totally rock!!

dpreview has the announcement up, kind of makes me wish my Canon could do that and be just as sharp.

And how about the Leica 14-50mm f2.8-3.5 ; 4:3system IS lens, maybe that 4:3 system from Olympus will have legs one day.

100 cm, not 10. That's 39.37 inches. Not bad but not an insane improvement either.

What does that get the reproduction ratio down to? 1:2 maybe?

Sorry one heck of a typo on my part, the mag goes to 1:3.5.

But the lens still focuses at almost 1.5' closer then the 70-200L. That's alot indoors, I don't really care about the macro but being able to use my L that much closer indoors would be huge plus vs. almost 5' minimum.

No

It's only good for stationary subjects in low light.

Not everybody needs to photograph those scenes and if they do, the might use a tripod/monopod.

That's not true. For example, if you're on a boat or some slightly moving craft, IS comes in real handy to steady your framing and assist in a sharper shot. Another example is for longer lenses (e.g., 500f4, 600f4), even being on a tripod (or monopod for that matter), helping to minimize even the slightest of shake or mirror slap with that kind of length/reach.

The practical benefit of having IS at any given time (and not having to lug around a tripod/monopod) can often mean getting the shot or not getting the shot.

I am looking to buy the Sigma 70-200 2.8. Should I wait and buy the new 70-200 2.8 with macro?