Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L (non-IS) or New Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 EX DG OS HSM?

With the recent price drop of the Sigma to $1399, these 2 lenses are now the same price. The Sigma has a better warranty AND IS, so I'm really struggling picking between the two. I plan to primarily shoot sporting events on my 7D, so IS isn't required 100% of the time, although it would be nice to have for the occasional stage shot at kids programs and video. Does anyone have any experience with the new Sigma? Any comparisons? Also, I only plan to buy new and the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS vII for $1,000 more is out of the question - unless I win the lottery, which I don't play

Thanks for your help!

Sigma has really priced this new lens competitively now. You can get this lens at Abes for $1258 after aaloyal and loyalty15 codes. That's almost 50% off B&H price of the 70-200 MKII IS ($2374).

I've shot with both the Canon MKII IS and the Sigma OS and the Sigma is certainly a good performer. I would get it hands down over the non-IS.

If you have the $$ for the MKII IS it's fantastic, but the new OS lens with FLD glass is an excellent lens at a great price now. I may have some crops and comparison shots of the two lenses laying around, just need to dig them up and find the time to do it

I put the Sigma non-OS on my 7D yesterday and thought it was amazing, but I would want the OS for my uses....

The Canon mkII is out of my range as well. I'm trying to decide between a new Sigma f/2.8 OS or a used Canon f/4 IS or a used Canon f/2.8 IS mk1??

LightRules wrote in post #11769278
Sigma has really priced this new lens competitively now. You can get this lens at Abes for $1258 after aaloyal and loyalty15 codes. That's almost 50% off B&H price of the 70-200 MKII IS ($2374).

I've shot with both the Canon MKII IS and the Sigma OS and the Sigma is certainly a good performer. I would get it hands down over the non-IS.

If you have the $$ for the MKII IS it's fantastic, but the new OS lens with FLD glass is an excellent lens at a great price now. I may have some crops and comparison shots of the two lenses laying around, just need to dig them up and find the time to do it

I'd be very interested in seeing those. I've considered this option as well.

For the same money, the Sigma is a no-brainer.

Not sure its a no brainer I have the 70-200 2.8 Non IS and its an amazing lens. I never used the Sigma, how is the autofocus and build of the Sigma compared to the Canon? The Canon is rock solid and very fast and accurate with autofocus. What do you plan to shoot? Would IS be a big benefit to you?

IMHO the Sigma has the advantage of being black - not getting mugged or hassled for having "pro" White L lens gear is worth it to me.

I've been very pleased with mine (other than getting slightly screwed by the recent price drop) but I didn't compare head to head with the Canon 70-200 II OS as it was out of my price range plus my wife would obviously notice a different colored lens!