Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 vs Olympus 50-200 2.8-3.5

[rubeel]

Anyone used this ??

i know we had a discussion about this earlier but i am curious if the olympus was a better lens, i have read some forums and some have said the oly was better over sigma, although i am very much inclined towards the sigma for price and aperture, i have a 50-200 availible used here in my area for 700$ which is not a bad price.

sorry for picking your brains

[Greg McCary]

I found a review of the lens. Sigma makes great glass. I have never used Sigma but some of the pictures I have seen i am impressed.
http://www.photographyreview.com/cat...8_3128crx.aspx

[Jaedon]

The only advantage I can see is that the sigma is f2.8 all the way through to 200 where the only lens move up a third stop.

I use the sigma 70-200 f2.8 ans I find that if I can stay away from max aperture and max focal length that there is consistant sharpness in the images. When shooting wide open I find there is a constant softness but I love the lok and feel of the images from this lens no matter what.

Here's a sample of what I mean about the softness

Granted this is f2.8 at "ISO 800 so there's a bit more noise... but the image just is not as crisp as I would like.

[Atomic2]

I was the one who started the discussion on this matter a LONG time ago, and have yet to make up my mind!

Jaedon, can you tell me if the images at 200mm F3.5 are sharp?