tkbslc Cream of the Crop 24,604 posts Likes: 45 Joined Nov 2008 Location: Utah, USA More info | Jan 31, 2011 15:18 | #1 Looks like Sigma's new 70-200mm f2.8 is not selling as well as they had hoped. They are dropping MSRP from $1699 to $1399. Anyone think $300 will make the difference? Taylor
LOG IN TO REPLY |
superdiver Cream of the Crop  9,862 posts Likes: 5 Joined Jan 2006 Location: Ketchikan Alaska More info | Jan 31, 2011 15:28 | #2 is ther a big difference between it and the canon version? I havent seen any comparisons... 40D, davidalbertsonphotography.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
themadman Cream of the Crop  18,871 posts Likes: 14 Joined Nov 2009 Location: Northern California More info | Jan 31, 2011 15:31 | #3 DAMN! Thats a bargain! ... I almost want one... but I already have the Canon mk2... and the older Sigma HSM II... lol Will | WilliamLiuPhotography.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tkbslc THREAD STARTER Cream of the Crop 24,604 posts Likes: 45 Joined Nov 2008 Location: Utah, USA More info | Jan 31, 2011 15:33 | #4 I don't think you could be happy with it after owning the Canon II. Taylor
LOG IN TO REPLY |
krb Cream of the Crop  8,818 posts Likes: 8 Joined Jun 2008 Location: Where southern efficiency and northern charm come together More info | Jan 31, 2011 15:35 | #5 I'm in the market for a 70-200 and theirs was out of the running based simply on price. $300 is probably not enough to convince me to buy it, but at least I'll take a closer look at some reviews of how it performs. -- Ken
LOG IN TO REPLY |
muskyhunter Goldmember  1,137 posts Likes: 4 Joined Nov 2010 Location: Toronto, Canada More info | Jan 31, 2011 15:43 | #6 Needs to be $1200 !
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Szxk23 Mostly Lurking 11 posts Joined Sep 2010 Location: Howell, MI More info | Wow hell of a value for the money
LOG IN TO REPLY |
drumsfield Goldmember  1,601 posts Likes: 27 Joined Oct 2009 Location: Bethesda Md More info | Feb 01, 2011 13:00 | #8 Probably because of this: Canon 5D MkIII | Olympus OM-D | Olympus E-P2 | 16-35L MKII | 24-70L MKII | 70-200L MKII | 85L MKII | EF 50mm 1.4 | EF 100mm 2.8 | 100-400mm L MKII | 20mm 1.7
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tkbslc THREAD STARTER Cream of the Crop 24,604 posts Likes: 45 Joined Nov 2008 Location: Utah, USA More info | Feb 01, 2011 13:04 | #9 drumsfield wrote in post #11756836  Probably because of this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0 Not the same lens being discussed in this thread. Taylor
LOG IN TO REPLY |
drumsfield Goldmember 1,601 posts Likes: 27 Joined Oct 2009 Location: Bethesda Md More info | Feb 01, 2011 13:32 | #10 Oops my bad. Canon 5D MkIII | Olympus OM-D | Olympus E-P2 | 16-35L MKII | 24-70L MKII | 70-200L MKII | 85L MKII | EF 50mm 1.4 | EF 100mm 2.8 | 100-400mm L MKII | 20mm 1.7
LOG IN TO REPLY |
botw Goldmember  1,157 posts Likes: 5 Joined Feb 2009 Location: Potomac, MD More info | Feb 01, 2011 13:43 | #11 tkbslc wrote in post #11756863 Not the same lens being discussed in this thread. And compare that one to the 70 2.8 L without IS. Looks pretty good in comparison when compaured against a lens that it more directly competes against.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
When I first read this news I immediately thought of the digital rev video already posted above. That very short review convinced me that if I was gonna buy a 70-200 2.8 with stabilization I would just save up the extra couple hundred bucks for the Canon II. With the price lower on the Sigma it becomes a slightly more attractive option. Id still love to see it around $1000-$1200 though.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
barkingspud Senior Member  511 posts Likes: 3 Joined Sep 2010 Location: Chi-Town Burbs More info | Feb 05, 2011 23:27 | #13 What lens are you talking about?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 06, 2011 00:23 | #14 barkingspud wrote in post #11785846 What lens are you talking about? http://www.sigmaphoto.com …mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm-sigma This lens is MSRP $2470 That's what Sigma would like to get for it..it actually sells for a LOT less. Still though, it's $1,000 less than the Canon version.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
barkingspud Senior Member 511 posts Likes: 3 Joined Sep 2010 Location: Chi-Town Burbs More info | Feb 06, 2011 12:58 | #15 ShotByTom wrote in post #11786097 That's what Sigma would like to get for it..it actually sells for a LOT less. Still though, it's $1,000 less than the Canon version. B & H Price $1,399 Ah...Ok. thanks. I think I'd just buy a used Canon 70-200 for the same money.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is Thunderstream 1017 guests, 110 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
