why not buy sigma 70-200 F2.8

He ,weasel, et al, must have a sad lonely life to always want to be that disruptive...sorry weasel, take it somewhere else, I'm not real interested....Thanks for that info Mr Condyke, I'll keep an eye out

IT's here, all in apparent good order ! I took a few test shots and the mention exif 200mm is right where it should be..however from the quick photos I just took I'd say there may be some learning curve here ! I'll post the first accaptable photo ! I need a model...my grandson saw the lens and ran screeming into the night....my lab took one look and put her tail between her legs and headed under the porch...I'm looking for my wife now!

Great,
Sounds like you got a good one then. I got a lemon but I got it switched for a good one, that's why I warned you about the problems and why I knew of them.

She'll probably be life, you just spent a lot of money on that, go find someone else!!!!

Heck, any household item with nice contrast in colors would be acceptable. heck, even a soda can to test it out.

When I fight got my 50 1.4, I tested it out on the box I got it in. I shot from like 1.4 all the way up to 3.5.

@1.4 http://img.photobucket​.com …357/greg9683/IM​G_8106.jpg
@3.5 http://img.photobucket​.com …357/greg9683/IM​G_8114.jpg

Not a model, but made me imagine big things.

It took me a couple of tries with it to get used to it. the focal length really pick up any shake what-so-ever... I came away frustrated my first time. Keep the shutter speed up until you get really comfortable with its feel, then you will be able to shoot slower stuff. This is one area that the Canon IS really helps with on longer lenses. Now holding it rock steady is just second nature and I don't even think about it anymore. Enjoy it...

I got the dog to sit still...the light is fading...but this was a start...see what you mean about shake...and DOF...I shot this at about 10 yards, aimed for the eyes...they are ok but the nose is already out of focus.....(My wife is expecting to see crystal clear shots VERY soon !! ) I'll be working this baby out hard for the next few days...how could it be any more perfect, showing up on a Friday afternoon w/ all weekend to play!!

info...ISO 1600, 70-200@159 1/800 ,Av 4.5 about 10 yds, sun setting, she was sitting in the last light, CC or instructions/suggestio​ns welcome!

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Mine came today (DG version) 738 at Sigma4less... second DG I've bought from them. Pretty sure they sold out of the previous version weeks ago at 649 if I recall.

This lens is AWESOME. I care about the image, not the color of the barrel.

Haven't gotten it out to the MX Track yet, but...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I'll take a (noob) shot:

Closer to the subject (less zoom) and a step it down a couple.

That is a lovely image

That's good, but its not really about the color, if you go the way of Canon. Of course everyone has their different reasons, but there are some right reasons for many pros to go the way of the 70-200 2.8L's.

Anyway, photo looks very nice. Congratulations on your lens, and I'm sure you'll love it.

Excellent colour and perfect 3d quality.

The so called pro's (who are these people?) can kiss my royal a*se. I prefer to use my own eyes and buy on that basis.

Photojournalists who treat their lens the toughest or a wedding photographer. I've used both lens. I've semi-owned the Sigma. Great lens as well, and good value, but I bought the 70-200 IS. And I'm on a college budget so it has some meaning it it. Pros are technically anyone who gets paid for doing stuff.

Steping it down a couple?? You obviously have it down..what settings do you suggest ? I tried at this distance because I've got this lens for candid shots and hoped to see what to expect across some space...

He wants you to have more DOF, I guess. I actually like your photo. The focus part are the eyes, which is where your eyes draw. Good job and congrats on your lens.

Granted... if I made a living with my gear, I'd buy the best available, for insurance if nothing else. I'd have 3x more $ in the body too. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons the white version costs twice as much.

But as it stands, technically I believe this to be on the same level, from all examples I've seen and comments I've read. Besides, I can buy a LOT of white spray paint with the $700 left over. (J/K!!) There will always be purisits.