Sigma 70-200mm 1:2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II or 70-200 f4???

Ok now the choices are killing me. I have a used one of these lined up to look at for about $600.00. With Canons rebates I can get the 70-200 f4 for $575.00. Im really torn right now. Ups and downs for both.

I know what your first question is going to be.

What are you using it for?

Well. I have my sons graduation coming in June (outdoors in SoCal). I enjoy motor sports and fast action sports and R/C boats along with the big boats that are huge in Washington. I also have a younger son that is going into Jr. High next year so there will be some assemblies that I will have to attend (this will be mostly indoors). So with that said. My guess that mostly I will outdoors with mostly sun for light.

I posted this same question in the Sigma thread but wanted a bigger group to get some opinions from.

Thoughts?

Thank you.

I'd go with the Sigma because you said sports

f/2.8 means higher shutter speed, indoors when the light goes poor, you need all the help you can get, and generally in this sort of lens, I go for speed before IS because of subject movement...

The bad? The Sigma is heavier than the Canon..quite a bit heftier actually..

But for $600, I'd get the Sigma hands-down

I've been doing research on this two. I'm in the need for a good tele piece of glass. I would love to get the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS, but I can't justify spending the money on it. So I'm in the same situation as 50D newbie. I think I can justify the money on a 70-200 f/4 IS L, but would my money be better spent on getting the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and then spending the difference on something else...like a Canon 24-70 L?

highv0lt6ge wrote in post #7845102
I've been doing research on this two. I'm in the need for a good tele piece of glass. I would love to get the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS, but I can't justify spending the money on it. So I'm in the same situation as 50D newbie. I think I can justify the money on a 70-200 f/4 IS L, but would my money be better spent on getting the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and then spending the difference on something else...like a Canon 24-70 L?

What do you shoot?

The 70-200 f/4 IS is a great great lens, But if you're shooting action, most guys here are going to say shutter speed is > IS, which means, you need that bigger aperture

a f/2.8 lens can be made f/4, an f/4 lens cannot be made f/2.8

example, if you're shooting 1/60 at f/4, you'd have 1/125 at f/2.8, 1/125 is passable for action, 1/60 is likely not...

IS does not compensate for subject movement, Shutter speed does

highv0lt6ge wrote in post #7845102
I've been doing research on this two. I'm in the need for a good tele piece of glass. I would love to get the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS, but I can't justify spending the money on it. So I'm in the same situation as 50D newbie. I think I can justify the money on a 70-200 f/4 IS L, but would my money be better spent on getting the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and then spending the difference on something else...like a Canon 24-70 L?

The difference in cost between these two lenses in about $300 at B&H. That's a pretty far cry from a 24-70L.

I shoot mainly trains, with a mix of landscapes, candids of family, and my younger sister's sporting events (basketball/soccer). For trains, a good sharp tele seems to go a long way. With trains it's usually always important to stop motion (unless it's otherwise on purpose) so I feel like 2.8 could be really valuable over f/4 IS during dusk/dawn applications.

@runninmann...I understand the significant cost differences, and my savings isn't enough to cover a 24-70L, but it'd at least put a good dent into it.

At $575 I think he his talking about the 70-200 non IS Canon so that is not a factor.

I don't know anything about the Sigma as far as IQ goes but everyone says that the Canon is super sharp. I have the Canon 70-200 2.8 to use for indoor sports and am still fighting shutter speed. Then again, most of what you have listed is out doors so that Canon would be ideal. I guess what I am saying is that I am no help.

If the price is right on the Sigma (I don't know what they are going for) why not buy it and if you are not happy with IQ you can resell it?

I thought that was what I was going to do till the Canon rebates came along. Im thinking of jumping on the sigma and if nothing else getting my feet wet on a nice lens and if need be I can jump on a canon later. Plus I can get this lens a batt grip and 100 2.8 macro for less then the IS.....

Thank you!

The 70-200mm f/4 will do good for outdoor sports in decent light. If you need faster shutter speed up the ISO, keep the exposure to the right and you'll keep the noise down.
I just feel the 200mm is a little short for most sports.

For your indoor stuff, I suggest a fast prime, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 2.0, or the 135mm.

highv0lt6ge wrote in post #7845429
I shoot mainly trains, with a mix of landscapes, candids of family, and my younger sister's sporting events (basketball/soccer). For trains, a good sharp tele seems to go a long way. With trains it's usually always important to stop motion (unless it's otherwise on purpose) so I feel like 2.8 could be really valuable over f/4 IS during dusk/dawn applications.

@runninmann...I understand the significant cost differences, and my savings isn't enough to cover a 24-70L, but it'd at least put a good dent into it.

I'd go for f/2.8 then

@50D Newbie, get the Sigma, at $800 people consider theres not enough between it and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 to warrant the extra money for the Canon, so at $600, its a bloody steal

I've shot one in a store before, it IS sharp, the HSM is pretty quick and of course silent as well..

Its one of the Sigma gems :3

OK, Im going to meet up with the guy right now. He states that it is less then a month old and needs the money to fund a differnt L lens...

Ill let you know what I find out..

Thanks for the help guys.

Well I picked it up! The Sigma that is. It is LNIB and looks real nice I took several shots with it and they look good. Ill post them up After I get them off the camera.

Thank you for the help.

Sigma all the way. Love mine and would not trade it. Could not justify the money on the Canon and the sigma has produced for me. Ni issues at ll. Great lens, hood, and tripod collar included, extra long warranty.

get the sigma, you will not be disappointed.

I have the Sigma, just non macro version.

I love it. I was the same as you, debating which to get. 70-200 Canon F/4, or Sigma F/2.8.

As to me, neither had IS, and they were both about the same price. So I decided "why not faster glass for the same price and almost the same quality?"

Of course the Sigma is not L glass, but it's very close.
It is indeed a heavy piece of glass.

So in the end, i invested money that i didnt have into the sigma

I love it. I think i'm going to be attached to it for a long time.