70-200mm??? Please rec-mend!

[Canosonic]

I am looking forward in upgrading my Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 to a more descent model, as this lens is horrible at 300mm when shooting without a tripod. First I a laid on the sigma 70-200 f/2.8, but ... wait a second? How about those famous white Ls? I checked a review, and thought that it's better to instantly jump to them, rather than having to waste first 600$ then another 1200$. SO, here is what I think:
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 - lacks image quality, but price fits me !

Canon 70-200 f/4 - L for a little more than a sigma. Something fishy.

Canon 70-200 f/4 IS USM - This sounds to fit me too. Just have to save for an year for a new one.
​

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 USM - No IS? But fast.
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM - TOO EXpensive!
Any personal recommendations? Please give me something! Maybe all pro's are soon going to go and sell there 70-200s , as canon is about to announce some kind of new hybrid-IS 70-200 lenses?
Thanks in advance.

 

[SpeedTrap]

I shoot with the Nikon 70-200 F2.8VR and I love it, it is one of the best lenses in my bag, and even though they have come out with a new one, I am not selling mine, so I don't think you can count on Pros selling just because a new one is out.
We all invest in our glass so we don't have to update it every 2 years.

If you really want and need it, save up for the one you want.

 

[NateWagner]

Well, I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and I have absolutely no qualms with the image quality (on a Canon). It focuses extremely fast and was a great deal for the money. At some point I do plan on upgrading to the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS, and I will sell the Sigma to help fund it (will probably lose a little bit of money, but not much).

 

[Village Idiot]

I am looking forward in upgrading my Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 to a more descent model, as this lens is horrible at 300mm when shooting without a tripod. First I a laid on the sigma 70-200 f/2.8, but ... wait a second? How about those famous white Ls? I checked a review, and thought that it's better to instantly jump to them, rather than having to waste first 600$ then another 1200$. SO, here is what I think:
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 - lacks image quality, but price fits me !

Canon 70-200 f/4 - L for a little more than a sigma. Something fishy.​

Canon 70-200 f/4 IS USM - This sounds to fit me too. Just have to save for an year for a new one.​

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 USM - No IS? But fast.
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM - TOO EXpensive!
Any personal recommendations? Please give me something! Maybe all pro's are soon going to go and sell there 70-200s , as canon is about to announce some kind of new hybrid-IS 70-200 lenses?
Thanks in advance.

You don't think right. The Sigma has great image quality for the price. It's not as good as the Canon, but it's still an exceptionally competent lens.

The Canon 70-200 f/4L is one of the best zoom lenses for the price. It's crazy sharp and has a constant aperture of f/4. The IS version adds IS.

The 70-200 f/2.8L is a great lens. I personally would pick a wider aperture over IS 8 times out of 10. They each have their uses, but I find myself needing more light rather than IS more often then not. Plus, remember that IS does not stop motion, it just corrects for camera shake at slower shutter speeds. A person running through your frame a 1/50 shutter speed will be blurred regardless of whether or not your image is stabilized.

Also, shop used. These lenses hold their values and their owners generally take very good care of them. I've seen 70-200 f/2.8L IS lenses selling for as low as $1200 with heavy use, but generally around $1400 for a good condition copy. The prices went up though, the 2.8 IS was selling for about $1600 new on B&H as the average price, but after looking today, they're up to $1,949. The used prices might have followed.

 

[Canosonic]

Thanks For the INPUT! I think i'll go in for the f4 because of the price. Maybe the one with IS USM if i'll have a spare coin (or a couple of dozens) in my pocket, because my filters from my sigma 10-20 will fit with this one (77 diam.), considering the f/4 is 67 diam.. Don't want to waste money on more filters. Thanks again!
P.S. I saw iamge comparisons, and still it seams there is a reason behind those additional ~400$ on Canon.

 

[rizomes]

I own the EF 70-200 f/4 IS USM and have been playing with the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM as well (borrowed from a friend). Both are great, amazingly sharp and have fast and accurate AF. Prior to the f/4, I owned the EF-S 55.250 f/3.5-5.6 IS which lacked all of these qualities (and was way too smooth at 250). It was worth its price though.

Depending on what you shoot most:
The f12.8 is amazing, even at grabbing moving close-ups, or low light handheld shots. The f/4 could do the trick for landscapes and generally everything static, even in low-light.

It's a lot of money but these lenses are robust and made to last. ^^
(Note that the f/4 isn't weather sealed)

 

[robbie_vlad]

I have the Canon 70-200 2.8L Non-IS and absolutely love it. I got mine for $875 and its the lens I use most. I would go that way . The f/4L is supposed to be the sharpest lens Canon makes, but I think that would only matter to pixel peepers anyway, and the extra stop is deffinitely worth it IMO. Remeber, you can stop down with the 2.8 to f/4, but you can't get f/2.8 with the f/4. In, the end, its up to you. Do you need the extra 2 stops? Do you need the IS for the f/4L?

 

[dleightley]

I shoot with the Nikon 70-200 F2.8VR and I love it, it is one of the best lenses in my bag, and even though they have come out with a new one, I am not selling mine, so I don't think you can count on Pros selling just because a new one is out.
We all invest in our glass so we don't have to update it every 2 years.

If you really want and need it, save up for the one you want.

Like the above post, I have not got this lens bu tI have used it to a great extent, one of th ebest lens in your bag. Save up and get the best, dont settle for 2nd best if you can help it.

 

[Canosonic]

I had a thought. And chose to stand by. I want to upgrade my camera first. But I'll consider investing in the tele-zoom. I guess I will regard the f/4. Thanks for the feedback!

 

[LuckySo-n-So]

Well, I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and I have absolutely no qualms with the image quality (on a Canon). It focuses extremely fast and was a great deal for the money. At some point I do plan on upgrading to the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS, and I will sell the Sigma to help fund it (will probably lose a little bit of money, but not much).

This is my exact situation, except substitute "Nikon" for "Canon."

I'm not at the point in my photography where that extra 5-7% better quality is worth almost 300% of the price of the Sigma.

 

[CxThree]

I have 2 of those you listed. I love them both. The F4L is a great lighter alternative to the heavier 2.8 lenses. I use it when I am going to be outside and will not need F2.8. It's WAY easier to carry around. Also, it's one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used.

The F2.8L IS lens rocks in every way. It's heavy and bulky, but you get use to it. It's an amazing lens, but it's pricey.

 

[Wolverinepwnes]

I shot with the Nikon 70-200 VR for a while, and it is such a magical lens, that i went and pre ordered the nikon 70-200 VR II and counting the days till I have it! so it is true that the Canons IS version is more expensive but consider the fact that this is gonna be a lens that you will have and use for at least a decade to come and its at a focal range where you can use it almost all the time. so my recommendation would be to save up and get the Canon 70-200mm IS.

 

[CxThree]

Also consider that the F2.8 L IS lens is going to be replaced with a new IS II lens. Canonrumors.com says it may be 30% more expensive.

 

[cfusionpm]

^ I've been hearing that for some time with no sound info on anything about it.

 

[MrLogic]

Also consider that the F2.8 L IS lens is going to be replaced with a new IS II lens. Canonrumors.com says it may be 30% more expensive.

Seems very reasonable if it features a new optical formula... as well. I suspect it will perform much better than the current lens, as far as image quality (and IS, of course) is concerned.