70-200 F/4 L or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ?

The 75-300 is a piece of crap. Canon hasn't done that good a job at the 300 zooms. Sigma owns that area with the 100-300 f/4 and of course the 120-300 2.8

Thanks Condyk, I just requested the RMA from BHPhoto, and actually I coincidentally just finished watching Lord of the Rings trilogy for the first time (how come? Long story). I feel almost dumb returning an L lens, because something tells me that sporting a white lens around will make me look more seasoned. (The L lens begs to be kept around, for status, if nothing else) Just reminded me to that movie .

But I tried the Lens, and for the money I could really use a Mini-Bigma 70-200 with the 2.8 aperture, it would be a great addition to my work lens catalog.

Maybe later on another L will come my way, and I may take a liking to it. For now, MY money matters more than THEIR lens.

Cheers and thanks everyone for the participation in this thread, I have learned tons.

All the best with your decision

The Sigma has nice colors and contrast. Friend was showing off some photos that I took to his family, and they were remarking that the colors were incredible. Wow.. even they noticed.

The 70-200 L's offer a little bit more, but I keep questioning whether they're worth the price tag. Sure, I might go crazy some day and decide to bite the bullet and just buy it and never look back (and I fear that day may be closer than it seems) but till then the Sigma seems to be pretty dang decent. $600 extra for IS.. ouch....much as I love IS, it's still painful.

i am going to disagree with you on this one, there are MANY long-term members here that are L nuts... i can think of about 20 names of the top of my head. however, i do agree with you 100% about all the other things. i own lenses that fit my need best. if sigma came up with a bigma with IS, i will be all over that. if canon came up with a 500mm lens that is not L but still offers great quality, i am all over that. the one area where i can honestly say that the L's rule alone is the long telephoto lenses...

Dave, I think there's a decent amount of sampling on this forum for all aspects. Some are gear junkies, some are really new, some are experienced but maybe don't have the funds, some just try to find the best stuff that fits them.

I would have to say, some of the fair priced L's do offer a quality lens, not because they are an L, but because they offer quality(speaking overall). But then you know my stance already and know what I do and have....

And how many other brands have you tried?
And how many "big canon teles" do you own?

let's see:

canon
3 sigma
2 tokina
1 tamron
1 quantray
1 zeiss mf

it think that is it.

as for the long canon teles, i am dreaming of a canon 500 f4IS because i mostly ddo bird photography but i might go with a sigmonster and keep my 100-400IS for mobility.

any reason for your questions Doc?

I think there is a difference between those lacking experience of anything much else and who push the whole 'fever' thing repetitively, i.e. whenever a new shooter joins it's just the same old 'welcome to POTN and soon you'll lose your wallet through L Fever' blah, blah rubbish and those who own good gear, those who I think you are talking about, but also recognise that there are many very valid options depending upon how one weighs what is subjectively most important, but who also know at the end of the day it is mainly about the shooter.

Dave is referring to those who purchase L's because they think it will deliver them top notch images in regards to both quality and composition. Im pretty sure Dave is not referring to those who buy L for technical reasons such as, the Sigma 30 f/1.4 does not work well with a 1.4x crop body, leaving the 35 L as the only substitute. Sames goes for 85 L. Why is the 85 1.8 not suffice? Well the same reason one chooses a f/1.4, DoF, fast and accurate focus and and more importantly faster shutter speeds and lastly brighter viewfinder. I dont think anyone buying the 135 L needs justification, come on its the 135 L. Just pure quality and wide aperture as a bonus if you ask me.

Really, if you look at it, there are no substitutes to some of Canon's Ls. As the above mentioned for example.

I guess ive set myself up as a guinea pig for Dave's theory,claim or observation.

I don't own either lens (have used both, but the statement above compels me to post nonetheless.

Why do you want the lens? Do you want it so you'll get excellent shots, or do you want it so you have a white lens on the camera? If you really, really want a white lens, and that's the "goal", then the decision is a pretty simple one.

I've had both on my camera, and the results from the Sigma were superior. Don't let the color of a lens barrel sway your decision...

Another plus for the Sigma is 77mm vs the 67mm filters on the Canon.

Sunday night update. Got the RMA number from BHPhoto, and after only 10 frames, the lens is going back. I just wanted to throw in my opinion from these past few posts:

- The supremacy of L lenses in some areas (500/600mm f/4) is legendary, as well as other areas (perhaps the 70-200 L 2.8 IS).

- There is a hype for L lenses. I own one (as for the last 72 and next 12 hs), and a big part of me wants to keep it simply because it is white, and it is a little better than what I have. This does not mean a thing. If you got an L lens or Collection and works for you, I am sincerely happy for you. Those lenses feel sturdy and well constructed. If you don't, study your situation really well, before jumping into the pool of spending money (unless you are Bill Gates or Steve Jobs).

- The comparison I made from L to 75-300 was in fact crude. The cheapest plastic canon with no USM, to one of the cheapest L lenses. Regardless, what I learned from the tests I made, is that the difference was not enough to go from my $150 lens to a $584 L one, simply because it is white and a little sharper at 600% magnification.

- I liked the comment about 77mm vs 67mm. This makes the whole difference, because I already have lenses with the same diameter, so it allows me to use a polarizer if needed, and other filters.

In the end, this low end L lens did not work for me. There is no shame in that for Canon or anyone that owns L glass. It just means that other companies have wisened up and started to build better, stronger, longer lasting lenses. And sigma is that Contender.

And this being perhaps my last post in this thread, I must confess that if I had the money for the L 70-200 2.8 IS, I would have bought it, and probably not let go if it for anything in the world. So trying to get the f4 L to meet the IS lens expectations, was somewhat ignorant from the beginning.

What I did gather from this thread specifically, is that Sigma does have an equivalent lens at that end of the spectrum, just a tad over the price of the Canon L, and provides not only comparable IQ, but also better performance in low light. And that's all I have to say about that.

Many Grazie for all those who took the time to post, this learning experience has been invaluable to me. Without you, I would -tonight- be one more fool going to bed happy of owning L glass, but uncertain of whether tomorrow that lens will do what I need it to. And that on any + $500 lens is just unacceptable.

Thanks once more -...

another user on the fence on the 2 lenses here, quick question: how does the two lense compares interms of focus speed? I need a lense for out door sports where quick focus could be an issue (paintballing, karting). Since most events will be during the day, the F2.8 may or may not be an issue, but I need some confidence that when I frame the shot and push on the shutter, the focusing would be dead on if not close to it. I know the Canon is one of the best they offer, but how's the Sigma? thanks!

The 2.8 will take a 2xTC without loosing autofocus.
If you're using the Sigma 70-300 at the moment then either lens would be a huge improvement in AF speed.

would all your decisions change if a 70-200 f4L IS existed?