Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM $1350 @ BH

Sale is Dead!!! http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …70_200mm_f_2_8_​EX_DG.html

Nice find.

Haha! Big mistake on Sigmas part! $1700... everyone knew that was $500 too much. I still don't think people will buy this at $1300. My guess is it ends up at $999

Drozz119 wrote in post #11412792
Haha! Big mistake on Sigmas part! $1700... everyone knew that was $500 too much. I still don't think people will buy this at $1300. My guess is it ends up at $999

I dont get it. Why a big mistake? I have the non OS version that I paid $799 for and I think its worth every penny. I would only assume having OS would add at least $500 to the price tag...

cory1848 wrote in post #11416453
I dont get it. Why a big mistake? I have the non OS version that I paid $799 for and I think its worth every penny. I would only assume having OS would add at least $500 to the price tag...

Because $1699 was too close in price to the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS mkll.
Had Sigma released the 70-200 2.8 OS at $1350, the lens might have been pretty popular by now.

Drozz119 wrote in post #11412792
Haha! Big mistake on Sigmas part! $1700... everyone knew that was $500 too much. I still don't think people will buy this at $1300. My guess is it ends up at $999

I agree, people buy the Sigma non-OS version because it's an affordable f/2.8 tele-zoom. Even at $1350 price point I suspect that 70-80% of people would get a used Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS rather than go with Sigma 70-200mm OS.

rjx wrote in post #11416634
Because $1699 was too close in price to the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS mkll.
Had Sigma released the 70-200 2.8 OS at $1350, the lens might have been pretty popular by now.

He's right, If the price between the Sigma and Canon were pretty close, I would choose the Canon. Being a third party, you should offer a huge price difference with your "competitor"

rjx wrote in post #11416634
Because $1699 was too close in price to the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS mkll.
Had Sigma released the 70-200 2.8 OS at $1350, the lens might have been pretty popular by now.

Because Sigma glass is somehow magically inferior to anything Canon makes so it has no right to be priced anywhere near what Canon charges correct?


Im hoping that it does drop below $1000, Im in the market for a 70-200 2.8

Jimmer411 wrote in post #11418407
Because Sigma glass is somehow magically inferior to anything Canon makes so it has no right to be priced anywhere near what Canon charges correct?


Im hoping that it does drop below $1000, Im in the market for a 70-200 2.8

The Sigma lenses are reversed engineered to work with the Canon system versus being developed with it. Because of this you are more likely to have issues with the AF versus the Canon equivalent. So yes it should be cheaper.

Jimmer411 wrote in post #11418407
Because Sigma glass is somehow magically inferior to anything Canon makes so it has no right to be priced anywhere near what Canon charges correct?

Not neccesarily. I love my 30mm 1.4. To me the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is better than Canon's. And The new 85mm 1.4 produces spectacular IQ. The Sigma 105,150 and 180 macros also have great IQ.

To me where Sigma starts to lose it is with the zoom lenses. But I like how they offer focal ranges to photographers that Canon does not, such as the 120-300 2.8, 50-500, 150-500.

I would definitely consider it if it's $1k. At $1.4k, I would go with a refurbished Canon. In any case, in aother year or so, Sigma would probably be available used at $1k.

rjx wrote in post #11418882
Not neccesarily. I love my 30mm 1.4. To me the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is better than Canon's. And The new 85mm 1.4 produces spectacular IQ. The Sigma 105,150 and 180 macros also have great IQ.

To me where Sigma starts to lose it is with the zoom lenses. But I like how they offer focal ranges to photographers that Canon does not, such as the 120-300 2.8, 50-500, 150-500.

+1 on the Sigma 30 1.4

Let's face it, Sigma is the outsider on our bodies... it is a personal choice if you want to try it. Return it if it's a bad copy. Canon lenses are not perfect either... shouldn't they be if there is no reverse engineering??? Just sayin'

As for price... I do agree with the original price of the 70-200 OS to be on the high side. I can see how ppl would just go for the Canon versions.

Considering to buy the Bigma 50-500 with OS if the price drops, significantly.

liupublic wrote in post #11420654
I would definitely consider it if it's $1k. At $1.4k, I would go with a refurbished Canon. In any case, in aother year or so, Sigma would probably be available used at $1k.

That's what I'm hoping for because I'd love to grab one of these for $1K. The problem is nobody's buying them now so I'm not too convinced we'll see many used ones come up. The sigma 70-200 non-os is a steal but at the $1,700 they tried for this lens everyone's just gonna go with the canon 70-200 IS I for about the same price or spend more on the IS II.

Glad to see this mentioned here on the price though. I hadn't been monitoring the price and I just happened to look them up a few days agao. I was wondering why B&H was so cheap compared to amazon and everywhere else.