The final choice!

[RichTbiscuit]

Ok, so i've got a bit of a dilemma choosing the last lens that i'll be buying for a while. Ive recently traded in my 35mm f2 prime and my 55-250 canon lenses and traded them up to the 24-70mm F2.8 L which is an absolutely stunning lens. However this leaves me without a longer length lens.

I currently have;

Tamron 10-24mm wide angle
Canon L 24-70mm

And I'm looking to get a 70-200mm lens to compliment these other two. Obviously I would love to be able to shell out for the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L but it's omgosh expensive and heavy and massive to say the least. So I think I've narrowed it down to;

Sigma 70-200 F2.8
or the Canon 70-200 f4 IS L

My concern is obviously that as I do mostly hand held stuff the lack of IS on the 2.8 is going to lose me a lot of the shots due to shaky-hand syndrome. The Canon is a bit more expensive but then I would get the L optics that are supposedly amazing.

Does anyone have first hand experience with either of these lenses that could recommend one or the other?

[Gemm]

First of all, as far as I can remember, I don't think Sigma was THAT different in size and weight compared with Canon 70-200 f2.8. (I've owned them both)

I've never used the f4 version but I think it will win in terms of AF, for both accuracy and speed. Also my Sigma wasn't as sharp wide open compared with my Canon. (It was still totally acceptable sharpness but not at the level of L lens sharpness; I often found myself shooting at f4 rather than f2.8 with my Sigma to get the best out of it)

But if you NEED f2.8, there's absolutely no substitute. Sigma still is a fantastic lens for the price. Hope this helps.

[Dogsey]

Just to throw another spanner in the works (possibly) I've got the Sigma 100-300mm f4 and find it very good, at least sharp right across the board (above f4 it becomes very sharp), fast and quiet focusing makes it ideal for wildlife as well. I've seen a couple of reviews that rate it as Sigmas best zoom lens. The only thing I would have preferred it had is IS as I find it tricky to handhold at 300mm, but if you stay above 1/320th then that shouldn't be too much of a problem anyway.

[Simpo Two]

Spanner #3: Sigma is lanching a 70-200mm f2.8 OS in a few months.

[RichTbiscuit]

Hmm.. any idea on the price range?

At the moment I'm leaning towards the Canon f4 IS at the moment as I feel the IS would be more benificial. 200mm is long enough for everything I do at the moment but the 1.4 extender is always an option as well.

[RobDickinson]

I have a sigma 70-200f2.8 HSM EX, from about 2003.

If you realy realy want/need 2.8 go for it, else get the f4 canon, a lot smaller and lighter and the Is one is super super sharp.

[john185k]

Possible rachet spanner - I own the tamron 70-200 f2.8.

Produces great clarity, not as fast as the canon (escpecially in low light) however I got mine a year ago and it was 500 quid new, about a third of the canon and 200 less than the sigma

[Simpo Two]

RichTbiscuit said:

Hmm.. any idea on the price range?

I'd have thought the thick end of £1,000. It's on my shopping list

Mind you if I had to choose between fast glass and electronic skullduggery, I'd choose fast glass. IS/VR/OS won't help shutter speed, won't help freeze subject movement and won't help AF aquisition in low light.