is it worth 600 dollars

zapman29 · Aug 25, 2008

ok i was going to get the sigma 2.8 but all i have is canon and really want an L lens.. so for my needs the 70-200mm is the lens of choice for me. its between the 2.8. but is is 2.8 IS really worth the 600 more bucks? if it is then I will get but i am not sure.. i have ready post about the sigma and 70-200mm but 600 bucks is nothing to sneeze out... any sugestions and help is appreciated..

Big Mike · Aug 25, 2008

I depends on when, where and in what situations you will be using the lens. IS is a great technology and can mean the difference between sharp and blurry shots but it's not going to make all of your shots perfect.

One way to look at it is: if you don't get the best of the best, and you make a compromise, are you going to regret it later? There will come times when you will wish that you had IS (if you don't have it)...but how often do you think that will come up? And do you think that you would ever upgrade in the future?

For a lot of people, it comes down to getting the best tool available, then you never have to thing about 'what if'.

keith204 · Aug 25, 2008

I am a big fan of the Sigma. However, if you have the money & can justify the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS, then I'd say go for it. At least for me, it's a nice feeling just to know I have the best of the best...whether it's technically 'worth it' by dollar value or not.

icassell · Aug 25, 2008

That $600 can buy you another lens! I think you'd like the Sigma, but maybe you can rent the Canon and see what the IS does for you.

D40 · Aug 25, 2008

I probably posted a reply to your question in the other thread but hey

I love my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, I got it for $902 from B&H and I love the range and quallity. It actually has a great feel to it, not at all plastic feeling but not a metal lens. If I had the money for the Nikon version then yes, it is a better lens with the VR (IS for you), but for half the price the Sigma is excellent. Maybe one day as I start making decent money in photography I will upgrade to the Nikon version but the Sigma fits the bill for now

I would say if you can save for the Canon then do so. There was no way I was going to be able to spend $1700 on a lens so my only option was the Sigma and I do like it

zapman29 · Aug 25, 2008

D40 said:
I probably posted a reply to your question in the other thread but hey I love my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, I got it for $902 from B&H and I love the range and quallity. It actually has a great feel to it, not at all plastic feeling but not a metal lens. If I had the money for the Nikon version then yes, it is a better lens with the VR (IS for you), but for half the price the Sigma is excellent. Maybe one day as I start making decent money in photography I will upgrade to the Nikon version but the Sigma fits the bill for now I would say if you can save for the Canon then do so. There was no way I was going to be able to spend $1700 on a lens so my only option was the Sigma and I do like it

wow you make its so hard to decide. its a good argument. i mean adorama has the sigma for 800 bucks... thats 900 bucks less than the canon L... i mean is it really worth 900 bucks? i mean i want the L but mainly for optics I dont really care about the the weather, metal frame,, if the sigma can give me that then I would be happy..

I wish i could rent but i am living overseas and dont have that opurtunity to do.. oghh well back to decision time..

zapman29 · Aug 27, 2008

Well after all that stuff I was in such a dilema I had settled for the sigma. But the wifey being the best just told me to get what i really wanted cause she knows that I will not be happy until I do.. so I got the the CANON 70-200MM L 2.8 IS... I cant wait for it to get here....

Thanks for all your help and advice...

tempra · Aug 27, 2008

You'll love it - just make sure you work out on your arms and back if you're gonna be handholding for a long spell.

Montana · Aug 27, 2008

Post back after trying it out. I have exhausted myself reading reviews on Canons 4 different 70-200's. I want the 2.8 IS myself, but it is a lot of clams. LOL

As for handholding, I have been out trying to handhold my 50-500 Sigma on my 40 w/grip. That way the 70-200 will fill light as a feather. LOL

Derrick

keith204 · Aug 27, 2008

Montana said:
Post back after trying it out. I have exhausted myself reading reviews on Canons 4 different 70-200's. I want the 2.8 IS myself, but it is a lot of clams. LOL

As for handholding, I have been out trying to handhold my 50-500 Sigma on my 40 w/grip. That way the 70-200 will fill light as a feather. LOL

Derrick

IMO the only three reasonable options in the 70-200 range (Canon) are the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, Canon 70-400 f/4L, and Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Either get a good value, or go all out.

icassell · Aug 27, 2008

keith204 said:
IMO the only three reasonable options in the 70-200 range (Canon) are the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, Canon 70-400 f/4L, and Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Either get a good value, or go all out.

The Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 is another option

zapman29 · Sep 5, 2008

Well its here my Canon 2.8L 70-200mm and its a beast. . It is alot more heavier than i thought and I can imagine what it will feel like holding for lone periods of time. This weekend I will get to use it.. We have Feria here in our town.. Hopefully i can have some nice ones to post.