opinions on two telephoto lenses

[mdwsta4]

i'd really like to pick up a telephoto lens; preferably a 70-200. i'm torn between two lenses at the moment. the sigma f2.8 70-200 IS and the canon 70-200 f4 non-IS.
the sigma is about $300 more, offers on lower f-stop, and has IS. however, i have heard numerous complaints about build quality; specifically focusing and paint chipping.
canon L glass is generally excellent and i love the quality my 17-40 f4L produces. downside is it only stops down to f4 and it does not have IS. another 'downside' is the white color (i know why canon does it, but it's obnoxious).

does anyone have experience with either of these lenses? part of me thinks of just sticking with canon then later down the road upgrade to the f2.8 IS lens (which is about $1700), but use this for starters. another part wouldn't mind testing the waters with another brand and seeing how well they stack up.
opinions are always welcome. :)
cheers

[rootshell]

I had the Sigma 70-200 2.8 for about a year. My wife had the Canon 70-200 2.8 L during this time. We'd shoot similar conditions (high school, night football) and the color/clarity in her pics were just better. I found myself borrowing her lens. The auto-focus on the Canon was significantly faster. Basically, I found myself trashing more pics when I used the Sigma, then when I used the Canon. Again, this is just my experience, and specifically pertaining to high school football (dim lit, semi-fast action). Long story short, I eBayed my Sigma and now own a Canon 70-200 2.8 L

Sample Sigma Pic
http://nick.rocknroll.org/images/20051210224417_600_img_4422.jpg

Sample Canon Pic
http://nick.rocknroll.org/images/20061002191445_img_4829.jpg

[Saralonde]

I don't have any experience with the Sigma, but as you can see from my sig, I have the 70-200mm f/4 L(non IS). I am very happy with this lens. It is sharp, somewhat light (compared to the others) plus it came with a lens hood, not always the case with Canon. And don't forget the price which was a definite consideration for me., as well as the fact it weighs less. It would be nice to have IS or 2.8, but as I said, price was a factor. This lens is not great in low light, but if that is not an issue it shouldn't be a problem. The f/4 is fine outdoors. I've use it as a portrait lens and for distance.
I've read good things about the Sigma, but like I said, no personal experience. I don't necessarily believe in sticking strictly with Canon lenses, I do have a Tamron I love. As long as you research well there are good lenses by Tamron, Sigma and Tokina, as well as some Canon duds :rolleyes: .
Hope this helps. It's always good to learn as much as you can before investing.:)

[mdwsta4]

thank you both. i am trying to stick on a semi budget with this one ;) i don't see myself using it indoors all that often, but you never know. if it keeps me happy for a year or so it will have done it's job.

[Saralonde]

Let us know what you get.:)

[ronin]

The Sigma, unless they managed to slip one by the majority of photographers out there, does NOT have IS (or OS as their version is called). I had one as my first 70-200 a few years back and thought it was a very nice lens although it wasn't as sharp as I would have liked wide open at 200mm. Whether or not you like the rough black/gray build that Sigma puts on their EX line is personal preference really. I liked it and thought overall it was pretty well built. I have seen photos of used lenses on sale with the paint flaking that you mention but since I normally baby my lenses I never encountered that problem.

In my experience with Sigma, their quality control is less reliable than Canon's so if you do set your mind on one, you may need to go through a few copies before you find one that's acceptably sharp and don't have focus issues.

I've never had the Canon 70-200 f/4 although from what I've read about it it seems to be extremely popular because of its sharpness and size/weight. If you're not going to use this range much indoors, then this may be a better choice.

Alternatively you may want to take a look at the relatively new Canon 70-200 f/4 IS. It's about the same size/weight as the non-IS version and some online reviewers have called it possibly the best Canon zoom ever made. Unfortunately you'll need to pay a premium for it as it comes in at about twice the cost of its non-IS brethren. But I'm enamored with IS so I think it's worth it. =) Getting consistently sharp shots at 200mm with a non-IS lens is tough unless you're podding or stabilizing in some way. IS helps in alleviating that limitation.

Anyway, I do have a quick & dirty comparison of a Sigma 70-200 and Canon 70-200 IS here (http://www.hitokiri.com/blog/archives/2005/12/breakin_out_the.php) from awhile back and another quick comparison of the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS with the Canon 70-200 4 IS here (http://www.hitokiri.com/blog/archives/2007/02/pixel_peeping_7.php).