Any opinion on the Sigma 70~200 2.8EX HSM Lens for Canon vs the Canon 70~200 2.8L? The price of the Sigma is very very attractive........:)

-- Dennis Chiu (dennis_chiu@hotmail.com), July 23, 2001

Answers

I haven't used either one.

From reading other people's comments over the years, I get the general impression that most people think that both lenses are very good, but that the Canon may have a slight edge in both AF speed and sharpness.

-- Steve Dunn (steved@ussinc.com), July 23, 2001.

Hi Dennis,

I have been the lucky owner of both. I have to admit that both lenses are excellent. I still own the Canon lens. If you had to buy one I would recommand you to buy: -the sigma if you do not really need the slightly faster AF speed or if you don't want to be noticed and looked at in the street. -the canon if you are doing sport photography or if money is not an issue. Indeed AF is faster and you even can improve AF speed by selecting the AF range (switch from 1.5m to infinity and 3m to infinity). Another advantage of the Canon lense is that its minimal focusing distance is 20 or 30 cm shorter

-- Brieuc van Hecke (bibi_76@hotmail.com), July 27, 2001.

If you have the money to purchase the Canon f/2.8L, then you will probably also have the money to purchase the new f/2.8L IS -- it incorporates the third generation Image Stabilization mechanism that will allow hand-holding down to 3-stops! Imagine getting sharp images at 200mm @ 1/60 sec. without a tripod!

The question really comes down to cost. The Sigma lens is very well rated (although picture color is slightly warm -- the optics placed right behind the Canon in quality, the hypersonic motor is quiet but not as fast focusing as USM and tends to focus hunt more), but the lens goes for half the cost of the Canon. Are you willing and able to spend $700 to $1000 more for a mechanically/technologically superior lens?

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 06, 2001.

Also consider the Canon 70-200 F4L. As good optically as the faster Canon lenses, it is very much smaller, lighter and cheaper. Mine worked out at $507 after rebate. This is CHEAP for an L series lens, especially one of such highly rated optical quality

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), August 07, 2001.

Thanks all, What about reliability of the Sigma lens? U know it is Sigma......

-- Dennis Chiu (dennis_chiu@hotmail.com), August 07, 2001.

I've not heard any reliablity issues with this lens. The worst complaints I've heard are flaking fo the EX finish, and some photographers feel the optics are too warm in color.

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 14, 2001.

I've owned the 70-200/2.8 HSM. I sold it not because of performance or reliability problems, but because of its weight. The only nit I have with the lens is that Sigma didn't put a red plastic 'dot' on the barrel to help align the lens to the camera. Instead the a red circle is painted on the inside of the mount. It's tough to see in dim light. If you absolutely need an extra stop of speed, then go for the 2.8. If you want to save $$$, buy the Sigma used (KEH has 'em for sale now and then). I took a pretty good loss on the sale of my Sigma - they just don't hold their value.

I bought the Canon 70-200/4 and I'm very happy with it (the $100 rebate makes a good deal great). But Canon was very slow about sending me my rebate check.

-- Jim Hicks (jhicks992@aol.com), December 23, 2001.