DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5368 times:
Barring the obvious increase in aperture, has anybody here tried both the Sigma and Canon lenses? If so, which would be better quality-wise? I'm still thinking I'll have enough cash by the end of the summer for the 100-400L but at this point I'd like to have a backup plan just in case, and I'm wondering if the extra stops is worth the buying of Sigma over Canon L?
Erwin972 From Netherlands, joined May 2004, 500 posts, RR: 44
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5346 times:
I used to have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 - that is one fine piece of glass.
You will appreciate the 2.8 part! The extra stops saves your life in the more difficult conditions, and the narrow depth of field is very nice. You can also attach a Sigma 1.4 or 2.0 teleconvertor without any problems. Gives you a 400mm 5.6 and the AF still works.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5276 times:
I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8, and as mentioned it is a very nice, fast lens. You need to get a long f2.8 lens at least once in your life. You WILL notice the difference having the extra stops, and you can use it many places where the Canon F4 will have to go in the bag.
But, knowing where and what you shoot, I'd continue saving for the 100-400L.