Canon 70-200 2.8L IS USM (old version) OR Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG OS HSM?

[tlake55]

I am just an amateur photographer. I like to shoot sports (indoors and out), my kids playing (indoors and out), wildlife, and just stuff. I have saved up about $1500...looking at the 70-200 zoom and want the 2.8 aperture for the speed and low light. I am looking at purchasing the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS USM (OLD VERSION, not the new II) or the Sigma 70-200 EX DG HS OSM...the Canon lens used is about the same price as the Sigma would be new ($1500). How similar/different are they in speed, color and clarity of pics, sharpness? Any recommendations of which would be a better choice (and why)? Any help, comments, or recommendations would be GREATLY appreciated

[ednorm]

Tlake55, I have neither of the lenses you mention, but, I can tell you that with two older same model Canon lenses I own, one with the Optical Stabilization, the O.S. lens performs much better in all situations, low light, handheld and action. The O.S. compensates for shake and is just a wonderful addition. Here is a site online that compares lenses, it has both the models you are asking about and it does all the tests concerning the issues you are asking about. Its dpreview, Lens Reviews: Digital Photography Review its a great site and I find it very helpful. Check it out!

ed

[tlake55]

Both the Sigma and the Canon I am referring to have Optical Stabilization...Canon just calls it IS and Sigma calls it OS. Both also have their version of the Ultra Sonic Motor (Canon), Hyper Sonic Motor (Sigma). Both have the same zoom range, and the same aperature (2.8).

[steinr98]

It has been proven over and over- with no question that the Camera Mfg lens is usually quite superior to third party lenses. I belong to a camera club of 800 members and the top fellows have proven time and again- if you own a Nikon- buy Nikon! Canon owners buy Canon. If and this is a big if- you are not a nut about sharpness and contrast, you can get away with the off brands. The reports you read are not always accurate ( and I won't go into that one). If it is a big question of $$$ Then one has to give in once in a while and buy the best one can- But in this case, you can buy the brand name! and my suggestion is to do it!!

[smc1377]

A week late, but hopefully you're still reading this.

I would go with the Canon for one reason...you can limit the focus range from 2.5m to infinity. This makes a HUGE difference in focusing speed. You mentioned you want to use it for sports so you'll probably never need to shoot anything closer than 2.5 meters. In terms of focusing, the 2.5m to infinity range is about 1/3 of the rotation of the focusing ring. When you lock out the bottom 1.4 meters to 2.5 meters, your lens ignores about 2/3 of the focal range. Meaning, when you're focus hunting, it's lightning quick cause it only has to turn basically 1/3 of a rotation.

I hope that makes sense. I found this out the hard way. I bought a Sigma and if my lens has to focus hunt, the time lost rotating the full focal range is HUGE in terms of shooting sports.

I've never officially timed it, but for the Sigma lens to focus hunt from one end to the other and back seems like a little over 1 second. For the Canon lens to focus hunt from infinity down to its 2.5 meter limit and then back to infinity seems like half a second. In sports, that makes a huge difference.

In case you're still confused by what I'm talking about, notice the switch on the Canon lens where you can either choose 1.4m - infinity or 2.5 - infinity? That's the deciding factor I'm talking about.

[tlake55]

Thank you for the input, it has been very helpfull. I have decided to go with the Canon, but boy is hard to find...the used ones on Ebay are going for almost as much as the new ones (the old version of the 2.8 IS USM, NOT MarkII)? The good used ones are going for about $1700 and the new ones are going for around $2000?? Guess I will keep looking, and saving

Thanks again

[karen_s]

It's worth the saved $$$s if you can wait. I invested in the 70-200 2.8 IS about two years ago. I wasn't so sure I should spend that kind of money on a hobby but I did and I have not regretted it in the least. The lens is so versatile. I mostly shoot my dogs in action but have shot some sports, some landscapes, and even some portraits. (It's actually quite a nice portrait lens.) I loaned it to a friend the other day to shoot soccer and when he returned it he said "THAT, is a nice lens". If he didn't have four kids, he would buy his own

And as smc1377 points out, the option of limiting the focus range can make a big difference. I use it a LOT! I probably wouldn't buy a lens for action that didn't have it. I take it the SIgma doesn't have it?

As for price, L lenses hold their value. Thing is, if you buy a used one and in two years turn around and decide to sell, you won't lose much. Cheaper lenses tend not to hold that kinda value over time.

[tlake55]

Originally Posted by karen_s

It's worth the saved $$$s if you can wait. I invested in the 70-200 2.8 IS about two years ago. I wasn't so sure I should spend that kind of money on a hobby but I did and I have not regretted it in the least. The lens is so versatile. I mostly shoot my dogs in action but have shot some sports, some landscapes, and even some portraits. (It's actually quite a nice portrait lens.) I loaned it to a friend the other day to shoot soccer and when he returned it he said "THAT, is a nice lens". If he didn't have four kids, he would buy his own

And as smc1377 points out, the option of limiting the focus range can make a big difference. I use it a LOT! I probably wouldn't buy a lens for action that didn't have it. I take it the SIgma doesn't have it?

As for price, L lenses hold their value. Thing is, if you buy a used one and in two years turn around and decide to sell, you won't lose much. Cheaper lenses tend not to hold that kinda value over time.

Well, I found a used Canon on Ebay and decided to buy it ($1500)...I have been second guessing spending that kind of money, like you this is just a hobby, but your post has made me feel better about the cost. I have rented this lens and I know it is fabulous, but it is still a lot of money. But like you said too, it should hold it's value so IF it doesn't work out for me I shouldn't lose a lot trying to resell. I am a little concerned about purchasing off Ebay...I did as much checking as I could on the seller so I am keeping my fingers crossed. Thanks for your input

[karen_s]

You are welcome. I hope the ebay purchase works out for you. Sounds like a very good price. My guess is that you will really be liking it once you get a couple great shots of your kids at their games.And if not, you just might be able to turn around and sell it for more