hello all,I am currently upgrading my kit with an 300 2.8 and a new 500 f4is, i already have a 17-35 2.8 and 35-350. due to lack of more money I was considering selling my old 35-350 (a superb but slightly slow lens)and try to pick up the sigma 28-70f2.8 and 70-200hsm f 2.8s second hand. anyone have any coments on these sigma lenses in comparison to the canon verions?

-- allan michaud (allanmichaud@hotmail.com), December 03, 2001

Answers

dont do it man!!! trade that 35-350 for either the canon 28-70 or 70- 200 f/2.8. maybe the 28-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4? i would not trade in that nice piece for the sigmas because that sigma 28-70 is loud and not up to par optically with the canons. same with the 70-200 but quieter due to hsm but still not as fast as usm. i know so many people who traded in there sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for the canon 70-200 f/4. what is it you are photographing? is that extra stop of light really worth it? isn't the 35-350 good enough?

-- Jeff Nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), December 03, 2001.

I take the opposite view. The 35-350 is a great lens, but it's a bit slow optically and isn't all that sharp at the long end anyway.

The Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 isn't great either. Not bad, just not great. It's acceptably sharp but not tack sharp. Focuses fairly quick but not super fast. Certainly it's not up to par with the Canon equivelent, but about as good as the 35-350 in this range and the Sigma focuses faster. It doesn't offer full time manual focus (FTM), but keep in mind the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 is about a third the price of the Canon 28-70 f/2.8

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM, however, is nearly as good as the Canon equivelent. It doesn't focus quite as fast, but is still quick. It would be hard to tell the difference in optical qualities. Certainly it's as good as the Canon 35-350 in this range. You can always add a 2X TC to get you to the 400mm range, and the quality is still fairly good. It does offer FTM. Since the price is about 2/3 the Canon, it's just a matter of deciding how much you want to pay for that last bit of perfection.

I, for one, would rather pack & shoot with the two Sigma's than the one big Canon.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), December 05, 2001.

i don't think the sigma 28-70 focuses faster than the 35-350 because it doesn't have hsm. it is loud and quite distorted at the 28mm end...

-- Jeff Nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), December 05, 2001.

thanks guys, I think I have found the best answer for the moment, I could just about stretch to a 2nd hand canon 70-200 2.8 and a canon 50mm 1.4usm, then try to find a canon 28-70 at a latter date. I must admit I don't know what came over me even considering swaping the canon for a couple of sigmas, even if its a little limited in qualitly at its extreems.

-- allan michaud (allanmichaud@hotmail.com), December 06, 2001.

hey, keep that 35-350 man. use it to your advantage when you go on trips and don't want to lug around a set of fast lenses.

-- Jeff Nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), December 11, 2001.

I love this lens and would hate to sell it,however,its pretty poor at the 350 end unless you have heaps of light and although I'd like to keep it I can't help feeling that I could do much better with a pair of 2.8's. I'm also looking at the old 80-200 L with the new 28-70L as a possiblity, although, as I mainly shoot wildlife the new 70-200 is obviously the one I would like. Is the AF speed of the 80-200 really that poor, I generally find that I'm shooting in such low light that AF is a waste of time anyway.

-- allanmichaud (allanmichaud@hotmail.com), December 12, 2001.