Best 70-200mm F2.8

I am looking to buy a 70-200mm F2.8 Lens in the near future, I cannot afford the Canon Version of this lens, so i was wondering what is the best one i can get for a reasonable cost.

I have no experience with either of these but from what I've heard...

Sigma for the HSM focusing, Tamron for the superior optical quality. Take a look in the sample archives to compare the optical quality. You weigh the differences according to your needs.

I would get the Sigma for its AF. I doubt the optics have a discernible difference.

Depends on useage, of course. Look into the newest Tamron.

I had the Sigma new and it was okay. I felt that mine missed AF too often. After renting a Canon 70-200/2.8 I sold the new Sigma and bought a used Canon. I think if you are going to spend $600-700 on a lens it should perform a little better than my copy of the Sigma did. The Canon was worth the $1000 I spent on it. I have a hankering to try a 70-200 F/4 IS but am afraid I will have to have one once I try it.

Here is how the 70-200 2.8 chain works...

canon 70-200 2.8 IS
Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG II APO Macro HSM
Canon 70-200 2.8 non IS
Tamron 70-200 2.8

canonnoob wrote in post #8807506
Here is how the 70-200 2.8 chain works...

canon 70-200 2.8 IS
Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG II APO Macro HSM
Canon 70-200 2.8 non IS
Tamron 70-200 2.8

Huh! The chain goes like this:
Either Canon version depending on use and wallet.
Tamron if you don't need stellar AF and want as good or better IQ than the Canons.

And last and least the Sigma, and only if you want to torture yourself with crappy AF, softness at 2.8 and horrid customer service for when you inevitably need to send it in multiple times for "adjustment".

Gene

I am into shooting sports but also portraits. Does the Sigma have Stabilization?

no...

kini wrote in post #8809039
Huh! The chain goes like this:
Either Canon version depending on use and wallet.
Tamron if you don't need stellar AF and want as good or better IQ than the Canons.

And last and least the Sigma, and only if you want to torture yourself with crappy AF, softness at 2.8 and horrid customer service for when you inevitably need to send it in multiple times for "adjustment".

Gene

It has been proven that the sigma is just as fast focusing, sharp, and quality as the canon. Ive used every 70-200. Everything has worked out in the same way i have listed..

canonnoob wrote in post #8809128
no...

I didnt think it did. In your opinion what makes the Sigma better than the Canon non IS. I would prefer Canon but if the Sigma is a better lens for less money then it would be dumb to buy based on brand.

brippeon wrote in post #8809146
I didnt think it did. In your opinion what makes the Sigma better than the Canon non IS. I would prefer Canon but if the Sigma is a better lens for less money then it would be dumb to buy based on brand.

The only thing I have seen from some members here are that the sigma gets a bad rep for the AF issues.. Which every lens is capable of having... The sigma is a cheap alternative to the canon, but is just as nice in every way. The only thing I personally experienced with the canon was that it had a slightly better (I mean very very little) contrast. But that is it.

kini wrote in post #8809039
Huh! The chain goes like this:
Either Canon version depending on use and wallet.
Tamron if you don't need stellar AF and want as good or better IQ than the Canons.

And last and least the Sigma, and only if you want to torture yourself with crappy AF, softness at 2.8 and horrid customer service for when you inevitably need to send it in multiple times for "adjustment".

Gene

Canonnoob is correct if you want value for the money. And as for any AF issues, maybe only the newest model has had some issues, I have no idea. I have had 4 of the 3 prior versions of the 70-200 Sigmas in the past, and they were great. The only reason I have the Canon is for the IS.

And keep in mind that issues with focus is not exclusively the fault of the lens....

Ok thanks for your help.