70-200mm Canon F4 vs Sigma F2.8

I'm looking at buying a 70-200mm but can't afford the Canon F2.8 I'm traveling to India want a long lens but can't decide which is more important - Canon glass or the speed of 2.8. Any advise?

In the reviews, many people actually like the sigma, some have used both. I would suggest looking at those review. I have held but never used the canon f2.8 and it was a bit on the heavy side. I decided on the canon f4 70-200mm. It's pretty light for the size and I enjoy using it but if you are looking for speed the sigma sounds good to me. much more cost effective than spending all that extra money for the canon.

magoo

I shoot with the sigma f2.8, and it is relatively heavy. Other than that I love it. Both are great lenses, however.

I had the Canon 70-200 f/4.0L once and loved it. Sharp, sharp, sharp. Colors snapped, resolution and "liveliness" of the photos was outstanding. I traded it for its big brother the 2.8. Sometimes I wish I still had my f/4, though. It is sooooo light and rides so easy on the camera. I recommend it without reservation. Never used the Sigma, so I have no comment on it.

I've got the canon 2.8. So sweet. My dream lens.
If you can swing it, go for it. Otherwise I'd go for the canon f4. The sigma's are nice but they have their drawbacks. The optics are generally good and I believe the 2.8 gets fairly high marks in that department. Focus speed is slower and noisier(not much) and the finish rubs off quite easily(though they do look good - I wish Canon would make the 2.8 in black).

Basically, if you buy the canon you won't regret it.

[QUOTE= I wish Canon would make the 2.8 in black).[/QUOTE]

I believe the florite lens elements are very heat sensitive, thus the white color for the big zooms, long primes, etc. The heat of the sun could damage the lens elements if the lens were black. That's what I read somewhere, anyway.

You may also want to consider resale value. For instance Canon L glass is guaranteed to fetch top resale dollar if you take care of your lense, the Sigma... is less of a guarantee. You could then buy the f4 L this year and trade up to the 2.8 next if you wanted to without loosing much money. As for the optics, I've heard the f4 L is even a bit better than the f2.8 L wide open; I have the 2.8 L because I need a fast shutter speed for sporting events. Sigma glass is good but their consistency, focus speed, and durability fall short of Canon L quality, that is why they are cheaper.

I own both the sigma 2.8 and the Canon 2.8 . I never touch the sigma now that I use the 2.8 Canon, so much quicker focusing, tack sharp pics, Heavy? Not to me. Also the sigma searches like an old tired dog in low light, the canon doesnt have much problem with it all . I also like the canon has the limiting switch so it searches much less even in good light.
Tyler

All,
Thanks for the input. I found a used Canon 70-200 f2.8 without the IS and splurged!!!

Thanks for the help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

All,
Thanks for the input. I found a used Canon 70-200 f2.8 without the IS and splurged!!!

Thanks for the help.

---

Congratulations. I had the non IS version and you will not be disappointed. It is a fabulous lens and until lately was the default lens on my camera 70 percent or more of the time. Be sure to post some pics later :D .