lens help

I'm looking at the sigma 70-200 or the canon f/4 non-IS. I'll be shooting on a 40d and mainly sports/wildlife. I'm thinking that the 2.8 will be better for these applications. any input would be appreciated. thanks

A faster lenses will always be better for most anything you shoot. 2.8 is great. If you have the money spend it, you will not be disappointed.

i agree. the 2.8 lenses are really great for any situation. and if you look at comparisons online, the faster lenses seem to have better image quality then their slower counterparts. good luck.

any QC concerns with the sigma? i know that the Canon should have a better chance of being fine straight out of the box, but I think that I would rather have the faster sigma.

If you can afford the IS version, get the IS version...

Sigma = QC concerns, so make sure you can test it out in a store before you buy it.

Personally, I'd reconsider the choice for sports versus wildlife, since those are pretty much two different things. What do you see as sports? What kind of wildlife?

For wildlife I'd be much more tempted to go for an IS model, or something longer (like the 300 F4 IS). For sports, neither F4 nor 3.8 will probably be enough for indoor use, so you might have to go for something shorter like 85mm 1.8 or 100mm F2.
Alternatively, for outdoor sports, get something that focuses fast. I think the Canon 70-200 has the Sigma beat on that, but your 40D will use a better focus method on a 2.8 lens, so that'd be a tough call...

Did you consider any of these lenses?
Canon 300mm F4 IS --> great wildlife range
Canon 200mm 2.8 --> extremely sharp + GREAT focus speed. good with 1.4x (making it 280mm F4, but no IS)
Canon 100mm F2 or 85mm 1.8 --> a full stop faster, good range and aperture for indoor sports (on 1.6 crop).

by sports, i mean baseball, football, retriever sports...nothing indoors

wildlife, i just mean the occasional CLOSE bird, and habitat shots.

i had thought about the 200 2.8, but i'm trying to get the best zooms for my budget right now and pick up primes later.

I'm going to pick up a bigmos for the long lens.

if i could afford the IS, i wouldn't be asking for input on this topic

For sports outdoors I don't think you have to have a 2.8, 4 will do nicely.

kingkongpennock wrote in post #8783156
i agree. the 2.8 lenses are really great for any situation. and if you look at comparisons online, the faster lenses seem to have better image quality then their slower counterparts. good luck.

unless it is the 70-200/4 v. the 2.8.

200mm is really very short with willife - epecially birds. With my 250mm I have to pretty much be at the base of the tree to fill the frame with a bird in the tree - or I am cropping down to 2MP. 200mm would be even worse and you would have to be extra sneaky so the birds don't fly away.

You might want a longer, slower lens since your sports all seem to be outdoor and you want wildlife. 100-400 IS, 150-500 OS, 70-300 IS all might be better options.

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is a fine, fast focusing lens. I would get it over the Canon 70-200 f/4. Sigma 100-300 f/4 is an even better lens (IQ and focusing). If you can find a good one used, you'll be in business.

i'm getting a bigmos as well, i'm just trying to see which lens would fit better with that lens. i'll have a tamron 28-75, one of these 70-200's, and the 150-500...just got to figure out which 70-200