Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

[JerseyJay]

Wow. What a lens.

http://www.pcphotoreview.com/Channels/PhotographyReview/images/products/product_83422.jpg
It blows 80-200 AF-S Nikon and Sigma 70-200 2.8 APO EX HSM. Both lenses were on my to-get list. I was set on Sigma but it looks like I change my mind or at least get a headache on daily basis.

See reviews:

http://www.pcphotoreview.com/35mm,Zoom/Canon/PRD_83422_3128crx.aspx#reviews

[meriadoc]

but you have nikon :p

the IS version is on my list :)

[benny]

I love both this lens and the IS version, though I don't use it as much anymore.

By the way, screw on a Canon 500D or 250D close up filter and this lens double up as quite an acceptable macro lens.

Jay, too bad it does not mount on the Nikon.

Cheers,

[DarthV]

I'd take internet reviews with a few grains of salt... blows those lenses away? I doubt it... probably less than 5% difference in the performance and a much higher cost. Being weather sealed is a nice plus for the Canon, though! You'll see a lot of reviews of the Sigma saying that it has a yellowish cast to the color, but it might actually be that the Canon lenses are more blue while the Sigma and Tamrons are slightly warm. It all depends on what you're used to ;)

But it also depends on your budget... the canon is out of my pricerange...the sigma is just inside it... so I'll be getting it over the slower canon f/4L.

[JerseyJay]

You are perfectly right. People speculate and blow things out of proportion. As of today, I'm purchasing Sigma 70-200 2.8 APO EX HSM in next few weeks.

[meriadoc]

I'd take internet reviews with a few grains of salt... blows those lenses away? I doubt it... probably less than 5% difference in the performance and a much higher cost. Being weather sealed is a nice plus for the Canon, though! You'll see a lot of reviews of the Sigma saying that it has a yellowish cast to the color, but it might actually be that the Canon lenses are more blue while the Sigma and Tamrons are slightly warm. It all depends on what you're used to ;)

But it also depends on your budget... the canon is out of my pricerange...the sigma is just inside it... so I'll be getting it over the slower canon f/4L.

Most places for internet reviews are fishy, but there are a few (and not dpreview) that i'd honestly take as good advice.

As for the difference? There is a difference between the nikon, canon and sigma lenses around this length and speed - and speaking color, and quality - the canon does outperform both the nikon and sigma counterparts. It focuses faster than the sigma one - and is REALLY freakin silent!

I thought my sigma 12-24 was silent - but if you don't have the focus beep turned on in your camera, you'd think it hadn't focused.

-- L

[kross]

the IS version will be my xmas present this year..... still a long way to go i guess.... :lol:

[Ibn]

You are perfectly right. People speculate and blow things out of proportion. As of today, I'm purchasing Sigma 70-200 2.8 APO EX HSM in next few weeks.

Jay, I thought that you had a Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR IF already?

[hir0]

i believe this thread is from last year. i'm having the same issues right now in choosing a lens. can someone please choose for me? lol. i'm trying to decide between the 70-200 nikon vr af-s and a sigme 100-300f4 from a guy on FM for $600.

[Ibn]

Gah...just looked at the date of the posting and it is indeed from last year...

Hir0, thought that I saw your name on the FM forums as well. Guess, this confirms it since you're looking at the 70-200mm as well. As for which lens, depends on how much you have to spend and how long you're willing to wait (also what you want you're shooting). If you have more a bigger budget than mine, then go for the 70-200mm. With a 1.4x TC, you'll end up with a 98-280mm lens (basically the same focal range and aperture as the Sigma) that's sharp (many have this combo).

For the price though, the Sigma is also a good deal. You're more likely to find a Sigma FS rather than the Nikon, since everyone which has shot w/the Nikon doesn't want to part with it.