# 70-200 F/2.8 - Canon non IS vs Sigma with OS



## ottor (Oct 13, 2011)

*Both about the same price *...... I originally thought that a stabelized lens is the ultimate, but - someone said to me that I didn't really need IS if I shoot at 2.8.. Huh? I didnt' ask for an explanation as it was a passing comment, but - could that be true? - I was going to get the Sigma 'with' the stabelized feature, but - If it's not really necessary for lower lighting settings, I'll get the Canon..

Recommendations ??? - I have about $1500 to spend at this time, ..

tks,

r


----------



## Derrel (Oct 13, 2011)

CANON, non IS, so that your $1500 investment will stay worth within 15% of that amount for the next eight years...

If you buy a Sigma, which I have done, buying it used so that somebody else takes the huge depreciation hit, is a smart move. The non-IS Canon 70-200/2.8 is optically, a little bit better lens than their first-gen 2.8 stabilized lens, which has now been replaced by a better, Mark II, design. I have not been impressed with any Sigma's wide-open test results. Ever. Doesn't matter what model or era either; that is in my opinion. One of the MAIN differentiators between a Sigma-priced lens, and a camera-maker priced lens; the camera makers are much more willing to design to an optical STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE, whereas Sigma, specifically, seems to me at least, almost always been more concerned with meeting a PRICE POINT. Same with Tamron on their "new" 70-200/2.8: decent optics, but the autofocusing speed is reminiscent of the speed of a glacier moving down a mountain side...slow, and steady wins the race, right???

You're currently living in southern Idaho...great place, great people...if I were to use an Idaho analogy, the Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS is like the Boise State Broncos football team...whereas the Sigma is more like a Vandals squad...in a GOOD year, mind you... you're living in Idaho...you know what I mean...now, for the SAME ticket price, which team do you wanna go see???


----------



## ottor (Oct 13, 2011)

Derrel said:


> CANON, non IS, so that your $1500 investment will stay worth within 15% of that amount for the next eight years...
> 
> If you buy a Sigma, which I have done, buying it used so that somebody else takes the huge depreciation hit, is a smart move. The non-IS Canon 70-200/2.8 is optically, a little bit better lens than their first-gen 2.8 stabilized lens, which has now been replaced by a better, Mark II, design. I have not been impressed with any Sigma's wide-open test results. Ever. Doesn't matter what model or era either; that is in my opinion. One of the MAIN differentiators between a Sigma-priced lens, and a camera-maker priced lens; the camera makers are much more willing to design to an optical STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE, whereas Sigma, specifically, seems to me at least, almost always been more concerned with meeting a PRICE POINT. Same with Tamron on their "new" 70-200/2.8: decent optics, but the autofocusing speed is reminiscent of the speed of a glacier moving down a mountain side...slow, and steady wins the race, right???
> 
> You're currently living in southern Idaho...great place, great people...if I were to use an Idaho analogy, the Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS is like the Boise State Broncos football team...whereas the Sigma is more like a Vandals squad...in a GOOD year, mind you... you're living in Idaho...you know what I mean...now, for the SAME ticket price, which team do you wanna go see???



Seeing as I have tickets to the BSU/Air Force game, I'll take the Canon.... ;-) Actually - I found a *used* Canon IS version II for $1800 ... Might be worth hitting Momma up for a $300 loan !!! Then, I get the best - and it's advertised "like new"... !!

THANKS!

r


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2011)

"We're in the red zone, we got 1st and 10 at the 12 yard...coach sez Canon Mark II for $1800 used is the play on two...break..."


----------



## analog.universe (Oct 14, 2011)

I'd totally jump on an IS Mk II for $1800  :thumbup:


----------



## Overread (Oct 14, 2011)

If you can get hold of a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII go for it! It's an outstanding zoom lens and beats pretty much every other 70-200mm out there for canon fit.


----------



## LaineAp (Nov 19, 2011)

I think you should meet (face to face) some more advanced (knowledge-wise) professionals and ask them the topics you would like know about more in just a friendly chat-like conversation, over a coffee or sandwich, in a free and friendly atmosphere. Before you invite someone, be sure that you have seen his/her work and are sure that you, yourself, think that he is qualified enough to talk to, so to say, respect his/her work.  also, prepare a list with questions you'll ask. 

Once you've got the answers, or even if you have not yet.. go and see eBay. I mean, there you can find loads of great cameras for a nice price, shipping worldwide! Also, if you are thinking a used camera is ok for the first one to have.. go for it, but be sure you know in exactly how good of condition the camera itself is! 

Hope this helps, at least a little bit!


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 19, 2011)

I opted for the Sigma OS version of this lens. I personally feel it is much closer to the MK II version of the canon lens, so it was well worth it. 
If you are shooting at a shutter speed above 1/200 for a steady shooter or 1/400 for a not so steady shooter the OS/IS is irrelevant to you. 
Is it necessary? NO!!! There were amazing photographs LONG before there was IS/OS/VR/VC whatever. 
I've never taken a huge hit with my non  canon brand lenses. I had a Tamron 70-200 that I bought for $700 and sold for $650 when I bought the sigma. They used to depreciate significantly and their build quality reflected why. Nowdays? the off brands are changing. Try buying a used 70-200 f/2.8 OS sigma used. You are at DAMN NEAR retail. Same with the other lenses of the off  brands that are well respected. Now the not so fantabulous ones? Yeah. LOSS. 

Everything in this album was shot with the sigma OS version PhotoReflect - CLake Sports Photography


----------

