Anyone got/ used the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM? (canon)

[ice]

Hey guys!

Been wanting to get a 70-200mm for awhile and did have my eye on the canon 2.8, but the sigma is just so much cheaper, and i've looked at online comparisons, and thought i'd get some owner/ user opinions.

Would there be anything drastically important that would make you choose the canon over the sigma? I am sure it's cheaper for a reason, though i can't see what it is.

Any help would be appreciated

Thanks, Imogen

[Gemini2261]

The Canon is the last lens on my wish list. I read r/v's of the sigma & the r/ver had to send it back 2x for warranty work before they could r/v it. There are ppl on here that have had to do the same with other new sigma lenses 3x's

I am sticking with Canon, there is no comparison in the quality, you get what you pay for. I think it pays to save up & wait to get the Canon if you can. Here is a r/v from Digital Rev you may like to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6XCaqamsZQ

[Jimboshep]

I owe the sigma.....and love it. Never had any problems with it.

[Gremlin]

Ive got the non os version on a Canon had no problems with it, does great bokeh and the autofocus is very quite and fast!

[MarkChap]

The Canon is the last lens on my wish list. I read r/v's of the sigma & the r/ver had to send it back 2x for warranty work before they could r/v it. There are ppl on here that have had to do the same with other new sigma lenses 3x's

I am sticking with Canon, there is no comparison in the quality, you get what you pay for. I think it pays to save up & wait to get the Canon if you can. Here is a r/v from Digital Rev you may like to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6XCaqamsZQ

Are you seriously suggesting that anyone could/would/should base a purchasing decision on that ??

I own the 70-200 f2.8 OS Sigma, great lens, I also own 2 other Sigma lenses and have never had a single problem with any of them.

If you look hard enough you will also be able to find evidence of owners that have had to send Canon lenses back for warranty on numerous occasions.

The Sigma lens is NOT and never will be a Canon L series hand assembled, weather sealed lens, but I am pretty sure it doesn't even pretend to be.
It is sharp, it is quick and accurate to focus and the OS is good for at least 3 stops.

[sportsshooter]

Been lucky enough to use all the 70-200's on the market,
I've found the Sony & Nikon the best, but have to say the Sigma's are very under-rated.
Very quick, just as sharp at ƒ11, its only issue is at 2.8, I would say at 5.6 you're on par with the Canon mark I, the Mark II is a touch sharper at 5.6

[FB Hunter]

I hired and tried both the canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS2 and the sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM before buying.

I bought the canon, it is more expensive but I found it to be faster and sharper. I love it, it is now my primary lens.

[Gremlin]

could i wager that the non os version also has its advantages? I bought that one as i have to use a tripod, mono most of the time cos of an injury the day i was using it however i forgot it, and the pics still turned out sharp and the ppls that were given the pics loved them, having said that, I wouldnt say no to canon l series anything, even the coffee mugs!
I say that as another lens the tamron 17-55(i think it is) I have the non os version of that too and some on here even suggested it was better, and i found that sharp as a tack also, but couldnt also be my eyes too!

[soulman]

I don't have the Sigma, but another thought might be the f/4 IS version of the Canon. Unless you really need that extra stop, and I don't think a lot of people really do, you can pay much less for an outstanding lens that is very compact and much lighter. Mine is one of the sharpest lenses I own, on par with the 100mm f/2.8 L macro.