70/200 F2.8

Dear Board,

If I had the dough I wouldn't even ask the question.

I'm poor and I want the best lens I can afford, I'm willing to spend $ 1200.00. The lens will be used on a 40D and a 1DMk2. I'm leaning to the Sigma 70/200F2.8 DG OS.

Is it a bad choice, should I save up for the Tamron version? Don't suggest the Canon 70/200 F2.8 V2. I know it's the best choice, but
I'd have to be institutionalized if I would spend $ 2200 to hang a lens on two cameras that I didn't spend $ 900.00 on.

Make your suggestions for a cheapskate!

Regards,

Tim Murphy

What are you expecting to do with the lens? Why a 70-200? Do you really need 2.8 for your shooting?

How important is the IS (or equivalent) for you?

You could get the Canon 70-200 2.8 non IS or what about getting a used IS model? The IS II is likely still a little costly used.

jtmiv wrote in post #17274248
Dear Board,

If I had the dough I wouldn't even ask the question.

I'm poor and I want the best lens I can afford, I'm willing to spend $ 1200.00. The lens will be used on a 40D and a 1DMk2. I'm leaning to the Sigma 70/200F2.8 DG OS.

Is it a bad choice, should I save up for the Tamron version? Don't suggest the Canon 70/200 F2.8 V2. I know it's the best choice, but
I'd have to be institutionalized if I would spend $ 2200 to hang a lens on two cameras that I didn't spend $ 900.00 on.

Make your suggestions for a cheapskate!

Regards,

Tim Murphy

The least expensive new 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is a non stabilized Tamron unit. Used for these images.

You've already got 5 or 6 lenses that cover all or part of this range. A REAL cheapskate wouldn't be looking to add another. I will assume you are doing this for the f/2.8. For a lot less money, you could select either a 135L or a 200 2.8L II, and have a smaller, lighter lens.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17274397
You've already got 5 or 6 lenses that cover all or part of this range. A REAL cheapskate wouldn't be looking to add another. I will assume you are doing this for the f/2.8. For a lot less money, you could select either a 135L or a 200 2.8L II, and have a smaller, lighter lens.

good advice there., but... if you are getting a 70-200 get the tamron VC

secretninja wrote in post #17274453
good advice there., but... if you are getting a 70-200 get the tamron VC

Agreed. I have the Σ-OS. The Tamron VC is about the same price, and noticeably better at the long end. Just in case anyone is wondering, I bought the Sigma before the Tamron existed. Canon II L is way out of my price-range.

Which camera would you be using the lens on primarily? If it's the 40D consider the sigma 50-150 2.8 OS. It is sigma's version of the 70-200 IS II for crop bodies. Amazing lens and build. Very sharp and fast af. I don't think it will work on the 1d2, but it might. Worth looking into as it is only about $950 brand new.

Had a sigma back when I was using another brand of camera. Worst lens I ever bought. It was not sharp, and aside from the focus being slow-- it would focus all the way in, all the way out, in and out, then kind of focus on the subject to the point where it was recognizable but still not sharp. I sent it in thinking it was defective, next lens had the same issue. Never buying sigma again. Unfortunately with photography, you do get what you pay for, it may be pricey, but Canon L glass is worth EVERY PENNY. Check ebay for some used ones, you should get a decent lens for somewhere between 700-1200 for the Mark I non-IS

kris142 wrote in post #17274471
Had a sigma back when I was using another brand of camera. Worst lens I ever bought. It was not sharp, and aside from the focus being slow-- it would focus all the way in, all the way out, in and out, then kind of focus on the subject to the point where it was recognizable but still not sharp. I sent it in thinking it was defective, next lens had the same issue. Never buying sigma again. Unfortunately with photography, you do get what you pay for, it may be pricey, but Canon L glass is worth EVERY PENNY. Check ebay for some used ones, you should get a decent lens for somewhere between 700-1200 for the Mark I non-IS

Not my experience, at all. Sigma does have some issues with QC reputation, though.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17274479
Not my experience, at all. Sigma does have some issues with QC reputation, though.

Yeah, I've heard great things from others and some not so great. My first and second impressions were terrible and I've been turned off since.

Nothing wrong with that. Lots of folks like the 50 1.8 II. I thought it was POS that wouldn't focus on any camera I owned. Next...

I've got the Sigma and I think it's a bit soft at 200mm as well but only at 2.8. So if you want to shoot it wide open all the time get the Tamron. It's only a few hundred more anyhow.

The Mk I Canon 70-200 2.8 IS is going for 12-1300 US used. Mine at 200 and wide open is very sharp and fast focusing.