Canon or Sigma 70-200

[docsmith2k1]

Hi All,

Some advice please. I want a good quality fast 70-200 zoom for my Canon 20D. The obvious choice is Canon's own 2.8IS model but typical price is £1300. Sigma does a 70-200 f2.8 also with a decent macro function but an average price of £800.
I have had the chance to play with both and like the IS on the Canon, and the macro function on the Sigma.
My question is to those who have experience of these lenses, is would I notice a difference in quality between these lenses. Generally I like the nice punchy contrast and sharpness of the Canon lenses, but never having owned a Sigma lens I don't know if they will produce the goods?

Andy

[denno75uk]

Hi Doc,

I got the Sigma a few months ago and have been really pleased. For some examples it 's easier to have a look at my flickr. All of the car ones (except the Aston badge and F1 engine) are using it as are the most of the flora/fauna shots. Should be tagged anyway. As far as sharpness goes I have no issues.

I haven't used the Canons but did try them on in the shop where I got the Sigma for comparison. If I had the cash maybe I would have gone for the 2.8 IS, but it sure is alot more expensive and noticeably bigger and heavier. The Sigma, by comparison, fits nicely in my Slingshot 200 with room for my other stuff, binocs and charger. Sigma did come with a very substantial tripod ring, hood and very good bag. Don't know how this compares to the Canons.

As a footnote, I got mine from an independent dealer in Leeds for £600 incl my 75-300 USM II. Would have done it for £650 otherwise. Alot less than the £800 you quote. onestopdigital in HK do it for around £550 and alot of people on here shop there trouble free.

[Brammers]

Sigma 70-200 gives great shots from what I've seen. But I know I'd want IS... Is it worth £500 more? This is the reason I got my IS in my camera! I'd say yes - get the IS version. They'll both be fantastic, but IS is just great.

[docsmith2k1]

Denno some really nice shots despite the name of your weblink The shots certainly appear sharp , and don't lack vibrancy or contrast.
On balance I suppose I would find the IS more useful than the macro on this type of lens. Just need too save up for a few months more

[tomson]

The Canon 70-200 is a fantastic lens and if you ever shoot in less than ideal lighting conditions then the IS is invaluable. If you can afford it go for it - I paid £800 and something for my used one.

[denno75uk]

Originally Posted by docsmith2k1

Denno some really nice shots despite the name of your weblink The shots certainly appear sharp , and don't lack vibrancy or contrast.
On balance I suppose I would find the IS more useful than the macro on this type of lens. Just need too save up for a few months more

Cheers.

Certainly agree with you about the ISvMacro thing. I think Macro is a bit of a stretch for the 45cm min focussing distance of the Sigma. I knew that the predominant use for my 70-200 would be fast movement and good light so not spending the extra cash for IS was a bit of an easier decision. That and the fact that saving the money for the Sigma was a hard slog. I haven't the self discipline to save for the Canon .

Edit. Where in Liverpool do you go shopping for your gear? I get back rarely, especially for shopping, but It would be nice to know where to send the Family at Christmas.