Lets Bring it all together Which 70-200 2.8

i have lookin at this forum and just joined. There seems to be lots of us looking to buy this sort of lens. Can we have it out with all you guys ? is the image quality of the canon L's that different between the is and non is. Also is what is the diffenece between 1st and 3rd generation is.
In the reveiws I have seen the sigma is better in mid range quality but loses out at 200mm. Has anybody upgraded from the non is to is and was it worth the extra cash.

All of the Canon 70-200 zooms are nice, sharp, wonderful lenses. Why we choose a particular model varies from user to user. The main considerations are cost, weight, the need for a fast aperture, the need for IS. Some say the non-IS f4 is the sharpest of the lot, but frankly, I doubt if most users could tell between the four different models.

Tons of threads on this:

https://photography-on-the.net …68&highlight=si​gma+vs+200
https://photography-on-the.net …51&highlight=si​gma+vs+200
https://photography-on-the.net …30&highlight=si​gma+vs+200
https://photography-on-the.net …79&highlight=si​gma+vs+200
https://photography-on-the.net …45&highlight=si​gma+vs+200
https://photography-on-the.net …85&highlight=si​gma+vs+200

Not sure if this is what you intended by bringing it all together, but there are many different views. I have only had the Sigma and love it, but have not had the opportunity to compare to either of the Canon 70-200 lenses.

Me and my 70-200 2.8 non-IS get on quite well, if that's any help to you.

Here's a good example for you : http://farm1.static.fl​ickr.com/71/329930865_​5fbc711c4c.jpg The lens is sharp enough that you can crop significantly if need be.

FWIW, I used to have the non-DG Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and it was quite a fine lens. I now use the 70-200 f2.8IS, but got it mainly for the IS. All the 70-200s are excellent.

Does the F4 use the same autofocus as the 2.8 ?

Thank for the reading

LightRules wrote in post #2615219
FWIW, I used to have the non-DG Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and it was quite a fine lens. I now use the 70-200 f2.8IS, but got it mainly for the IS. All the 70-200s are excellent.

Was the is as good as you thought it would be and have you noticed the difference in your images /

k&nm wrote in post #2615291
Was the is as good as you thought it would be and have you noticed the difference in your images /

Of course IS is a boon and very useful, especially for lower-lighting conditions and static subjects. The Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM is THE 70-200 lens to have (albeit it is heavier than the f4 versions). But that said, if you don't need IS, the EX is a good bet and a great price.

from canon's website for the 2.8 IS...

this is true, but I think maybe only for 1D bodies. I took my 1DmarkIIN and my sigma 70-200 into a camera store & tried it out, and the store let me borrow a 30D, too. I handled the 2.8 IS and non-IS and the f4 non-IS, and my sigma.

I'm mostly interested in focus speed in lower light. Here's what I found:

all 3 f2.8 lenses clearly outperformed the f4 on both bodies. On the 30D the three f2.8'ers were all fast, the sigma a tiny, tiny bit slower but not by much.

On the 1D the 2.8-IS lens was smokin' fast, clearly better than either of the other 2.8 lenses. On the 30D the difference was not seen.

That and the weather sealing were my main reasons for the upgrade. The IS is OK, but not worth nearly 1000 (my cost of 2.8-IS minus my sale of the sigma).

In hockey, the 2.8-IS really shows its advantages. I leave the IS off.

By the way, thanks to CDS for turning me on to this issue.

DavidEB wrote in post #2615343
from canon's website for the 2.8 IS...

this is true, but I think maybe only for 1D bodies. I took my 1DmarkIIN and my sigma 70-200 into a camera store & tried it out, and the store let me borrow a 30D, too. I handled the 2.8 IS and non-IS and the f4 non-IS, and my sigma.

I'm mostly interested in focus speed in lower light. Here's what I found:

all 3 f2.8 lenses clearly outperformed the f4 on both bodies. On the 30D the three f2.8'ers were all fast, the sigma a tiny, tiny bit slower but not by much.

On the 1D the 2.8-IS lens was smokin' fast, clearly better than either of the other 2.8 lenses. On the 30D the difference was not seen.

That and the weather sealing were my main reasons for the upgrade. The IS is OK, but not worth nearly 1000 (my cost of 2.8-IS minus my sale of the sigma).

In hockey, the 2.8-IS really shows its advantages. I leave the IS off.

By the way, thanks to CDS for turning me on to this issue.

thanks for the info its great note the difference on the bodies.

I have done extensive testing with all four of Canon's 70-200 lenses and they are all excellent. Whether to buy IS or not is a matter only you can answer based on how you plan to use it. If you plan on shooting a lot of low light handheld pictures the IS is the only way to go and especially with the 2.8. If you do handheld sporting events in or outside the IS is very nice to have. It does not eliminate the need for a tripod but it comes darn close. The elimination of blur due to shake or other factors makes taking pictures much simplier for me so I have the f2.8L IS.

By the way, there is no difference in sharpness between the IS and non-IS models.

I love my 70-200 F/4 non-IS. I have both IS and non-IS lenses and I don't seem to see much of a difference with my style of shooting. I'd love to pick up the F/2.8, and I will more than likely save the $500+ and go with the non-IS.

Adding to what David said, there is a HUGE speed difference with the Sigma on a 10D/20D vs. a 1D body. Why, I don't know. But on mine, it is like night and day. I have almost never seen the Sigma hunt on a 1d, where with the 20d, it doesn't happen often, but it does happen. I have had the Canon lenses hunt with the 20d, but less so then with Sigma. It hasn't happened often enough to be an issue with either, but it is still there.

Since you're asking only about f/2.8 lenses, and cost is no object, then I would buy my 70-200 2.8IS lens all over again. IS doesn't add significantly to lens weight, performance is top notch under all conditions, and I needn't worry about compatibility issues with future Canon bodies.