70-200l f/4 Canon vs. 70-200 2.8 Sigma

Seems like lots of us are in the same shoes..I just posted a similar thread as am looking to get eaither the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or the Canon 70-200 f/4. From what I gathered, the Canon seems to be a better/sharper lens overall and the SIgma gives you more flexibility indoors. One big factor for me is the Sigma is about twice the weight as of the Canon, which is important when you travel around. Right now I am leaning towards the Canon lens, but we'll see. Anyone know of any big sales on the web on either?

condyk wrote in post #2635383
I had both and liked both but preferred the 2.8 Sigma overall. Now I would get the IS L 4.0.

I did that - sold my Sigma and bought the 724ISL. But the Sigma was a very decent lens, it did a good job.

ed rader wrote in post #2635388
first jojo and now you **sigh**.... .

ed rader

HUSH!! You are not supposed to offend the alien overlords who have no doubt abducted both condyk and Petkal and transplanted their posting fingers into each other. There would be no other reason to explain why condyk suddenly recommends an L. As for Petkal on the other hand I have absolutely no idea what happened to him. Methinks that exposure to the ancient old M42 screwmount glass may have caused violent allergic reactions that the aliens are still trying to deal with on the implantation table.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

i have the sigma and its absolutely gorgeous, the Bokeh is stunning and its so sharp

if you want to freeze action the f4 is a bad choice with or without IS. If you want thin DOF for portraits, the f4 is not as good a performer.

The only way the sigma is a bad choice is if you want a lighter-weight lens. Other than weight, I cannot think of any advantage of the canon f4 non-IS over the sigma f2.8 -- certainly not image quality. The focus speed of the sigma is better than the canon f4, especially in low light. Build is good for both.

if you're willing to spring the money for the f4 IS, you get weather sealing, and you can take some longer shutter speed shots. But it will still hunt for focus in low light, and you still will have a harder time with sports shots.

Thanks for all the input guys!

DavidEB - Great advice. Thank You!

Haven't used the Canon f/4, but the Sigma is a fine lens, especially when you compare the price difference between it and the Canon f/2.8.

I have the Sigma and used the canon f4. They are both very good lenses.

But now I want the Canon 2.8 or the f4 IS...

I have the 70-200 f4 and would love the 70-200 f2.8 iS, and the 100-400 IS and etc etc