i would really like to get a decent telephoto lens and spending double for the canon L equivelant just isn't in my budget.

i can't remember if anyone here actually has this lens and can give me some feedback.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-200mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0009V13XS/sr=1-1/qid=1170353926/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-8463361-7768455?ie=UTF8&s=electronics">click</a>

<img src="http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B0009V13XS.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1117754933_.jpg">

in my opinion

Not the best quality but not bad wide open... the Sigma 70-200 2.8 @ F/4 would definitely be sharper the canon 70-200 Wide Open. Dont get me wrong the 70-200 F/4 is a great lens, but White doesn't make it better..

Try Sigma4less I have bought from them before.. If you are in NY you can pick it up from them

other than it's a canon. double the cost, higher aperture, and more obtrusive 'white'

Any Sigma lens is a crapshoot - focusing accuracy could be spotty.

My Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 had to go back to Sigma the day I took it out of the box becouse it misfocused. They replaced the flexboard and One Shot AF was fine, but in AI Servo tracking it was never as good as Canon's 70-200 2.8L.

That funky Sigma EX dark gray finish peels off very easily leaving bare metal exposed.

Lastly, should you experience focusing issues, if both your camera and lens are Canon, you can send both of them in and Canon will do their best to make it perfect. If your lens is Sigma, both Canon and Sigma have an option of blaming it on each other.

That said, Sigma lenses are not all that bad all and certainly worth considering as they are cheaper, or, in the case of 120-300 2.8 simply unique (no Canon counterpart).

Just pointing out potential issues...

and I've never been all that pleased with them.

F/4 vs F/2.8... 2.8 is nice to have, but I find that you're usually using a tele-zoom outdoors in plenty of light.

Double the cost? You do get what you pay for. Canon L glass is pricey, and it's worth it.

More obtrusive white? That's just an odd complaint. It's white for a reason. (How good of a reason it is, now that's debatable...) ... and you won't see any pros shying away from the obtrusive white lenses.

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 costs about the same as the Canon 70-200 f/4L - doesn't it?

their lenses are grey market and are covered by Sigma for 1 year, instead of normal 4 years warranty

Canon has 4 70-200 L lenses. Here they are with B&amp;H prices:

Canon 70-200 f/4L - $579
Canon 70-200 f/4L IS - $1,059
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L - $1,139 (this is your Sigma's counterpart)
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS - $1,699

you mean to tell me they actually introduced the 2.8L w/o IS and I didn't know about this until now?

I kept wondering if they'd ever do it.

Ive been ordering from them lately. they seem to have some of the best prices. heres the canon<ul><li><a href="http://abesofmaine.com/viewproduct~id~cn7020028l.htm">abes of Maine</a></li></ul>

I had the 70-200IS, but the weight was difficult to manage with a bad left wrist, so I bought a used 70-200f4, and it's terrific even wide open. $450 used.... I know, it's not fair to compare used to new, but money is money, and if you're on a budget, this is one lens thats easy to find and tough to beat.

And a little black primer will fix that other problem...if you really want. :-)

I want the IS.

I knew that.

I don't know what I was thinking.

In fact, I do... I've been waiting for a 24-70 2.8 IS to come out.

How I got the two mixed up? I dunno. It's been a long week.

Sorry! ;)

and not much time to enjoy / learn more photography.

I'm not 100% certain where in my house my 30D is at the moment.

yeah, they aren't L glass, but they don't cost as much, and for my needs they work fine.

with 2x your effective aperture becomes f/8 and I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the 30d etc only autofocuses up to f/5.6

However, trust me - you don't want to use a 70-200 zoom with a 2x converter. Image quality will be below mediocre

it's the electronics that often misbehave.

So consider yourself lucky :)

still not stellar, but not bad either

one's black
the other is white

one's short
the other is long

but they are f2.8...that must be it!
:-P

Yes, I am yelling at you! I saw your AWOT post asking if you should buy the lens or pay of the CC.

Dumped it as it was too heavy to HandHold... Going to get the 300 2.8L

the canon f4 for just under <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Cameras/dp/B000053HH5/sr=8-2/qid=1170424389/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/105-8463361-7768455?ie=UTF8&s=electronics">$600</a> and that does not have IS.

the IS version is almost &lt;a herf=http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Lens-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000I1X3W8/sr=8-3/qid=1170424389/ref=pd_bbs_3/105-8463361-7768455?ie=UTF8&amp;s=electronics&gt;$1100&lt;/a&gt;

while the 2.8 canon version with IS is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-2-8L-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00006I53X/sr=8-1/qid=1170424389/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-8463361-7768455?ie=UTF8&s=electronics">$1700</a>


for whatever reason i thought the non IS f4 was more expensive than $600. i figured the IS and one lower f-stop would be beneficial with the sigma.

with plenty of light. i would also think the IS would be beneficial since i can be stubborn and not take my tripod with me.
however, if i can find an f4 canon for around the price you paid, i would probably go that route.

one thing after reading so many reviews about the f4 is that people love it, but always seem to ditch it after a while for the 2.8 and the IS version.

I use it and won't sell it until I find a great deal on a used Canon 70-200L F2.8 IS. For the price of the Sigma, it's a great good deal.

The people that buy the versions with IS or f2.8 are usually less interested in budget, and more interested in fulfilling a specific need. So the question you have to ask yourself if which group of people do you belong to? If it's both, the Sigma is your best compromise. If it's one or the other, the choice is clear.

but i'm definitely on a budget so i supopse the best bet would be to start off small and when i'm in a position to upgrade i can.

Unless you're a pro there is no need.

Granted, they don't have the bells and whistles, or bullet proof construction, but the images are good...

<img src="http://photography.kris-hansen.com/football/kearsarge-2006/kearsarge06_127.JPG">

<img src="http://photography.kris-hansen.com/football/kearsarge-2006/kearsarge06_141.JPG">

<img src="http://photography.kris-hansen.com/football/kearsarge-2006/kearsarge06_169.JPG">

I took these with my el-cheapo Sigma 70-300 f4/5.6.. Like sub $200 lens.

about me being anything but a pro or something ;)