Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM vs Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 APO EX HSM

Hey everyone, i'm new to this forum, and COULD NOT believe i wasn't on it a long time ago, and as a newbie, i've got some questions for every experts here.

After months of head-scratching n money saving, i finally got my 10D + 17-40mm L USM lens, and i'm happy as a jumpy bunny but now i'm thinking about equip myself with a telephoto lens.

70-200mm is the range i'm considering at the moment, i've been offered a future proposition of being a sports/press photographer(it'll depends on my skills, so i'm practicing on that as we speak), i know that 200 isn't likely to be enough for sports, but it'll be a affordable start and converter is always a solution for now. And during my free time(if i can squeeze any), i also take landscape and portrait photos.

My question here is which brand to go for, they both 70-200mm and both at f2.8, different name, different price, but i'd like to hear experts' opinion on them and hopefully guide me to help make this decision for my future investment.

I'm looking forward to ur suggestions, thanks in advance, folks

Well, the poll is tricky to answer...

The Canon is "better" but it is three times the cost of the Sigma

Having owned both,. I also feel that the Canon is only "a little" better.. it is very hard to put a number on it,.

If I had to pay full price for the Canon would I?

No WAY!

But lots and lots of people will disagree with me.

So what is the poll asking?

Which is beter? = Canon
Which s a better value? = Sigma By a HUGE margin
Which should YOU get? = No idea

I think this makes answering your poll difficult.

I did a little side by side in my review here that may help explain some of the differences...


Third reveeiw down the list:
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …oduct=12&sort=7​&thecat=27

Since then I have had a chance to use the Canon more,.

two things I have noticed
1. The Canon's White balance is far "cooler" on the my 10D than the Sigma
2. The Canon likes to underexpose... ? shooting with it is like shooting with the Sigma and -2/3 exposure compensation... no Idea why?

I am no expect by any stretch of the imagination.... but I have the Sigma... love it... won't part with it... but one day hope to afford the Canon. The Sigma is the best $613 I've spent... so far.

Also, the Canon has IS, which the Sigma does not.

True, but I was just reading on FM's site (given further up) that

Is this the case?

Fotophreak, I disagree with the post you quoted. Yes, ISO setting and f/2.8 helps. How about using the IS with f/2.8 together with higher ISO? It helps more.

For using a tripod, does a 300mm lens need IS?

And I love to shoot slower than 1/250 handheld...

Anyway, I will buy a 70-200/2.8 IS if I've enough money. Since I didn't, I've got the Sigma one. And I'm learning to use it.

I vote Canon - IS will allow you to handhold at ridiculously slow shutter speeds. It will have better resale. But if you can't swing the price, go Sigma.

thanks for the advice guys, the Canon one is indeed a lot more expensive than Sigma lens, however, if i buy it online n from the states, the price(to me) would the same, simply because the exchange rate and i can take advantage of it at the mean time and if Canon is truly better than the Sigma one, money is no issue

has anyone here purchased items from B&H with international shipping? r they good at what they do? and how is the product? i do have little worries on purchase online, please share ur experience so i can be sure not to make the wrong move, thanks again, guys

B&H

haven't used them for international but they are the top camera store in the US. Here is a good research tool for buying online:

http://www.photo.net/e​quipment/where-to-buy

Bought from them Canon 70/200 2.8 non IS in december. No problem at all. It shipped easily to Italy (the only problem was it needed a couple of days more than expexted because of Christmas vacations, but no more than that).
Five stars vote.
DDS

Just bought a 17-40mm f4L from B&H here in rip off Britain. No problem at all, took about 5-6 days and, having paid full import duty, VAT and shipping, saved £58 over rock bottom UK price.

You'll always pay import duty with them - however, careful selection of ebay merchants allows import in such a way that HM customs don't get excited. I've done that too and saved a great deal but had to wait a month (meanwhile having kittens).

B&H is basically rock solid.

Yes... but you could also buy the Sigma direct from the States and make a saving on that... So the difference in price between the two lenses is still a factor... :P

I'd have to agree ... prices are as follows...

70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM: $1,649.95 (at B&H)
70-200mm f2.8 L USM: $1,129.95 (at B&H)
70-200mm f2.8 EX APO HSM: $613 (At Delta International)

HUGE Price difference! I've dealt with both B&H and Delta International and have had good success with both.

Canon any day.

I'd get the Canon any day. Having tested the Sigma I find it needs to be stopped down to at least f/4 - f/5.6 for the best sharpness. The Canon 70-200/2.8 is excellent even wide open. If I were buying an f/2.8 lens I *expect* it to have excellent performance wide open, otherwise I may as well buy a cheaper Canon 70-200/4L (which I own, btw, and is also excellent wide open).

I also wouldn't trust the Sigma with future Canon bodies. It may just not work. If Sigma upgrades the lens or stops production of the current model you can't even re-chip it.

does IS really make that much of a difference? money wise, is it worth it?