Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM for Canon

[Airbear232]

Hi,

 

I'm interested in anyone's experience feedback with the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM.

 

We're about to go on a trip and I've been interested in getting a new lens either a 70-200 ro 70-300. I have a Canon 7D and was looking exclusively at Canon L products. I was down to the 70-200 f/2.8L USM, 70-200 f/4L IS USM, or the 70-300 f/5-5.6L IS USM. I was talking to someone at 42 st and he recommended the 70-200 f/4L IS USM over the 70-200 f/2.8L USM because of IS. He then suggested I go with the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM as it is comparable to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM at about half the price. Granted it is a little less sharp and not weather proof but I'm interested in getting opinions from anyone who has had experience with the lens.

 

Cheers,

Aaron

[pierces]

Hi,

 

I'm interested in anyone's experience feedback with the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM.

 

We're about to go on a trip and I've been interested in getting a new lens either a 70-200 ro 70-300. I have a Canon 7D and was looking exclusively at Canon L products. I was down to the 70-200 f/2.8L USM, 70-200 f/4L IS USM, or the 70-300 f/5-5.6L IS USM. I was talking to someone at 42 st and he recommended the 70-200 f/4L IS USM over the 70-200 f/2.8L USM because of IS. He then suggested I go with the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM as it is comparable to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM at about half the price. Granted it is a little less sharp and not weather proof but I'm interested in getting opinions from anyone who has had experience with the lens.

 

Cheers,

Aaron

 

I have a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG and have been very pleased with its performance. I went through the same process as you and determined that 95%+ of the performance for 50% of the price made decent economic sense. Besides, a $6 pack of Op/Tech Rainsleeves give better weather-proofing than the built-in kind and you'd have to use a LOT of them to make up the $900 difference!

 

Dave

[awboater]

I have a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8, which is about the same size, but actually a bit lighter. Having said that, these lenses are huge. I don't take my lens on cruises, but rather use it for specialty purpose photos - hockey games, etc.

 

When I am on a cruise, I prefer a 18-200mm f/4~5.6. While it is not as fast as the f/2.8, it is a lot easier to carry around on vacation.

[chipmaster]

You sure you need a 2.8 lense?

 

When I go on vacation its always a superzoom or cropping for me, except Alaska of course :D

 

2.8 for low light or sports is a must but if you don't need it that is a lot of $, weight and bulk that comes for little value. Make sure you need the 2.8 lense or the F4 and or variable aperture will likely be good enough.

 

Hi,

 

I'm interested in anyone's experience feedback with the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM.

 

We're about to go on a trip and I've been interested in getting a new lens either a 70-200 ro 70-300. I have a Canon 7D and was looking exclusively at Canon L products. I was down to the 70-200 f/2.8L USM, 70-200 f/4L IS USM, or the 70-300 f/5-5.6L IS USM. I was talking to someone at 42 st and he recommended the 70-200 f/4L IS USM over the 70-200 f/2.8L USM because of IS. He then suggested I go with the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM as it is comparable to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM at about half the price. Granted it is a little less sharp and not weather proof but I'm interested in getting opinions from anyone who has had experience with the lens.

 

Cheers,

Aaron