Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 AF in low light

So the next lens I want to pick up is a 70-200mm f/2.8. I've borrowed a friend's canon L and it was awesome. I know what it can do and was very pleased. To me the kickers for that lens were the AF and the killer IS. That lens was so damn sharp!

What of the Sigma? Anyone shoot with it? How does the AF do in the low light conditions? Is it fast enough? Is it comparably fast to the Canon? Does the AFT seem to "hunt" in low light? I have looked at IQ in another thread and I've been pretty impressed. In the soft images I think a little sharpening would help and I'm fine with that. If I can save the coin and get similar results to the L I might seriously consider the sigma alternative.

Any feedback?

I've never had an issue with mine, the AF is extremely good. And if 2.8 is fast enough for you, it's a wonderful lens. It's considered to be every bit as good as the non-IS Canon.

I've recently bought the Sigma you mention (7 months ago) and I'm pleased with it. f/2.8 is enough for most lighting conditions (shot with it in a dark church, no focusing issues whatsoever).

Let's be honest, it *does* hunt, but not more than the Canon... i may be backwards on this one, but it seems a wonder to me that the lens focuses by itself, so this fact alone makes me less inclined to point out an eventual lack of speed or precision.

the manual focus ring is laaaaarge, soft and precise, so if your camera has a luminous viewfinder you should have no problems, even in the most demanding situations.

It's black and sparkly when bought, dull black after some months of use, and doesn't stand out like the white Canons do. I'll let you decide whether that's good or bad Build quality is excellent, and allthough not weather sealed, mine survived a dip in wet, muddy snow (ît went in about halfway).

I say if noone's paying you for taking pictures, go Sigma.

I have mine for a couple years now and its a great lens! Its just as fast as the Canon, mine is sharp even at 2.8 and I have not noticed any problems with the AF. My only concern is that the finish starts to peel off at some spots and I managed to get a tiny scratch on the front lens, but thats invisible in the photos. I can only recommend the lens as good as I can.
(its the old 70-200 APO version. Not the DG I or the even newer II)

I was at a music video production shoot yesterday and was responsible for still photography of the set and the process. The studio was very dark at times and I struggled to use my 70-200 F/4 in that light.

There was also a pro photographer who was responsible for taking studio shots of the talent during the down time. He was really cool and let me borrow his Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8.

I was pretty amazed with that lens. It focuses just as fine as my F/4. Sure enough there were times it hunted in that extreme low light condition, but so did my Canon F/4.

This pro photographer loves his Sigma 70-200. He tells me that its one of his workhorses, and he doesn't mind *if* the Sigma is slightly softer for what he shoots. He doesn't see that the price difference for the Canon is justified when he can get the Sigma. This is coming from a guy who shoots Black Eyed Peas & other artists' album covers.

I'm thinking about selling my F/4 and getting the Sigma. His lens' finish is really peeling. I guess I can confidently say that he really uses his lens.

I have had it for about a month now and have been using it for concerts on my xsi. at 1600 iso, 2.8 is really sharp. If you want to see some of the pics I have taken with it at show or in my studio, go to my facebook busines page,http://www.facebook.co​m …53618027795?ref​=ts&__a=18 and look at the photo album, love and cake smash. that lens was used in several of the shots. in cake smash, any of the images that are close cropped, it was used on. In the album of the band the stills, I used it also on the close face shots. I will have the brooks and dunn album up tomorrow. I used the hell out of it. it is a tight fast focus in the concerts I have been shooting. Not sure what else to say other than for 1/3 the price of canon, I plan to look into a few fore sigmas.

I love my Siggy 70-200 f/2.8! I've used it for stage productions, and while I'm sure it might not be quite as sharp as Canon's offering, the AF didn't struggle at all and I came away pretty pleased. I also did some floodlit freestyle motorcross (photos on my flickr under 'people') last weekend, again the AF was fine!

If you can afford the Canon and it won't mean you don't have the money for other things, then you might as well get it, I'm sure it' a little better. But if you could be putting the money towards something else, the Sigma is a fantastic buy!

Chris