Dilemma...

[jcskeeter]

I'll try to make it simple. I have roughly $2100 to spend.

Option 1: Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (Only interested in MKII).

Option 2: Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM + Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

I don't really need a wide zoom seeing that I have the kit lens and a Sigma 28-70 2.8-4 APS-C version (not a huge fan of this lens, feels/looks cheap). But I wouldn't mind having one.

Is it worth stepping down to the Sigma version of the 70-200 to get a wide zoom L out of the deal?

Thoughts?

 

[MLeeK]

That sigma wide you have is crap. My kids have one. Kit lens as in the 18-55? It's about a step better than the sigma, but not the hottest.
What will you be using the 70-200 for?
I have the sigma because I had to compromise and I don't regret a moment of it. It's a sharp, fast and divine lens. However... if I had the funds at the time I'd probably have gone with the Canon. I use that lens more than any other lens I own. It's my sports lens, portraits, weddings...

 

[jcskeeter]

Yeah it is crap. I only use it cause I can get a stop lower than the 18-55 but it isn't great by any means. I use my kit a lot because I can get wider. That's why I'm looking at the 17-40 to step up (or should I say "leap") from my kit lens.
I would use the 70-200 for portraits and child photos and basically miscellaneous. Why would you have gotten the Canon version if the funds were there? Weight, sharpness, white lens barrel (I love the white myself)?

 

[Big Mike]

I would think that the these lenses follow the common patterns when comparing Top Canon/Nikon lenses to top Sigma/Tamron/Tokina lenses.

The Sigma is probably 80-90% as good as the Canon, in terms of image quality...it it costs half as much. So for most people, the greater value of the Sigma lens might be the best choice. However, there are those who are willing to pay for that extra 10-20% of quality.

There are other things to consider as well. I believe the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS, is weather sealed (most, but not all, L lenses are). I'm not sure about the Sigma. Build quality of L lenses is very good. Top end Sigmas feel pretty good, but maybe not as good. Auto focus & stabilization may not have the same performance. I can't comment of these particular lenses, but I know that the difference between a USM lens and a non USM lens is very noticeable.
Resale value...On average, a Canon L lens will hold it's value much better than any Sigma/Tamron etc.

And yes, vanity/pride is often part of the decision. For a Canon shooter, sometimes it just feels good to have that red ring on the front of your lens and/or to have the big white telephoto.

 

[jcskeeter]

I think I would be happy with the Sigma. I won't be shooting with it 8 hrs a day on crucial paying jobs so that 80-90% will cover what I need. A couple of the things you pointed out Big Mike aren't deal breakers for me. You did mention the USM, the sigma has HSM. I would assume these are similar features?