Sigma 70-200 2.8

jjmucker wrote in post #2167658
thats why i want the canon 70-200 2.8 IS L

You guys with white lens fever... I sway you to try the dark lenses. I am your father... (In my best Darth Vedar voice)

The Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 is such a great lens. If i had deep pockets I would go for the nice white lenses, but bang per buck is my motto...

jjmucker, I'll dig up some shots for you... I haven't had the lens very long so I don't have a lot of images but I'm sure I have some. If not I'll take some!! So far though I'm very pleased with the lens, the IS works extremely well, it really helps the longer out I'm shooting.

IS isn't the only reason I choose the Canon 70-300. The extra reach, great IQ and price all factored in to my decision to pick up this lens. This combined with my Sigma 17-70 gives me a great travel lens combo! Both are relatively light and easy to carry around with me.

I had a chance to try the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 at a shop when I was on a road trip and it is a great lens. I'd still like to get it someday!!

gflatt wrote in post #2167789
jjmucker, I'll dig up some shots for you... I haven't had the lens very long so I don't have a lot of images but I'm sure I have some. If not I'll take some!! So far though I'm very pleased with the lens, the IS works extremely well, it really helps the longer out I'm shooting.

IS isn't the only reason I choose the Canon 70-300. The extra reach, great IQ and price all factored in to my decision to pick up this lens. This combined with my Sigma 17-70 gives me a great travel lens combo! Both are relatively light and easy to carry around with me.

thanks mate. just whenever you have time dude

Well, I hate to hyjack the thread...but...I am thinking long and hard about picking up this lens. I'm new to this, so please be patient. I plan to shoot a lot at my kids hockey games, along with some tennis and football. After a lot of researching (trolling here) I am fairly certain that I would like/need a 70-200 2.8. So it comes down to the Sigma and the Canon L.

There is a farly big price diffrence. Other than the really cool white color, is there a big diffrence between the two optically? In the end, the price diffrence is a rounding error, but money is money.

This is one of those battles between the head and the heart. The brain says the Sigma offers everything I need and more. The heart says "yea, but look how cool that one looks". I have read a few posts and it sounds like some people are having a difficult time adjusting to the Sigma. I would have no idea why, so I'm asking for a little advise from you guys.

thanks, hyjack off.

Most of the problems people were having with the lens was user error. People saying they had soft images. Come to find out they were doing crazy stuff like shutting 1/60 hand-held at 200mm or something. I have tons of images that were keepers with this lens. It is sharp. Not as sharp as a quality prime, but very very sharp. It is heavy so it takes time to learn to shoot with. Sigma lenses ten to be slightly warm, but not a biggy when shooting RAW. The Sigma is also a few micro-seconds slower in AF. It all depends on how deep your pockets are. If they are deep get the Canon and do not look back, and curse those that get great images with cheaper equipment. LOL!

NoviDave wrote in post #2168091
Well, I hate to hyjack the thread...but...I am thinking long and hard about picking up this lens. I'm new to this, so please be patient. I plan to shoot a lot at my kids hockey games, along with some tennis and football. After a lot of researching (trolling here) I am fairly certain that I would like/need a 70-200 2.8. So it comes down to the Sigma and the Canon L.

There is a farly big price diffrence. Other than the really cool white color, is there a big diffrence between the two optically? In the end, the price diffrence is a rounding error, but money is money.

This is one of those battles between the head and the heart. The brain says the Sigma offers everything I need and more. The heart says "yea, but look how cool that one looks". I have read a few posts and it sounds like some people are having a difficult time adjusting to the Sigma. I would have no idea why, so I'm asking for a little advise from you guys.

thanks, hyjack off.

the only reason i would go for the canon is because it has IS. not too fussed about havin a white lens. if the sigma 70-200 had OS i would be going for that no doubt.ive seen sample shots of both the canon and the sigma and to me i see no difference. though thats just some sample shots.im sure if you had the 2 lenses for a few days to try on your own you may see differences. there's a canon 70-200 2.8 non IS but i think they are hard to come by these days.

I love my Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. It is the second iteration (DG, not Macro), so I guess it's a little outdated. I just can't be spending $1500 on a very slightly better lens with a white shell. If you really want a white lens, take some White-out and paint your lens white.

Not to highjack, but this past weekend I shot a concert for a band, The Season, inside a dimly church. I was able to get away with ISO 800-1600, 1/60-1/100 shutter speed, and anywhere from 70-200mm. Handheld. The gallery is here (I am aware the white balance is way off. Last 4 were taken with the Canon 50/1.8): http://subdomain.dirty​samurai.com/index.php?​list=20&page=all

infinite012 wrote in post #2168315
I love my Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. It is the second iteration (DG, not Macro), so I guess it's a little outdated. I just can't be spending $1500 on a very slightly better lens with a white shell. If you really want a white lens, take some White-out and paint your lens white.

Not to highjack, but this past weekend I shot a concert for a band, The Season, inside a dimly church. I was able to get away with ISO 800-1600, 1/60-1/100 shutter speed, and anywhere from 70-200mm. Handheld. The gallery is here (I am aware the white balance is way off. Last 4 were taken with the Canon 50/1.8): http://subdomain.dirty​samurai.com/index.php?​list=20&page=all

some good photos there mate. real good for handheld. guess upping the iso to 1600 helped alot. with my 350D theres just too much grain at that iso. nothing photoshop couldn't handle though

Now that Zooomr is back online..... Here are two photo's taken on a really grey day

f/7.1 1/400 ISO 200 300mm:

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

And here are some night shots with my Canon 70-300 IS. I cannot remember if I used my tripod or not.

f/4.0 1/15 ISO 200 70mm:

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script