£1000 mistake?

D

Dramy33

Messages
286
Name
Amy
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm thinking of buying the Sigma 70-200mm 1:2.8 EX DG OS HSM for sports photography and to expand my zoom capabilities. I don't have a FF camera yet, just a Canon 450D, but plan on upgrading in a few months.

I'm pretty sold on this lens, but if anyone has major problems or regrets with this lens, could you let me know?

Thanks!
 
I've got an old sigma 70-200 that i got new about 7 years ago, it was my first proper lens for motorsport. It still lives in my bag now. A little short for bikes, so i ended up adding a 100-300 f4 to my bag when i got a bit more serious. But its a good little thing!
£1000 seams a little expensive to me, there are quite a few 70-200's on e-bay for around £500. I've never used IS or OS for motorsport. So you could save a few quid by getting a second hand lens.

HTH
J
 
I am sure many people have this lens and are happy with it. I bought the version for my Nikon and took it back the next day and swapped it for another. They were both soft at 200mm. I ended up buying the Nikon 70-200vr and it was so much sharper across the whole focal range.

I am not saying the lens is bad, but check it out before you buy it.

If you can get a good used one, I would go for that, but again, check it works properly.

Allan
 
Cheapest according to Camerapricebuster is £950, but for that kind of money I'm not sure if I'd rather ditch the OS (from what I've heard not as useful for sports) and get the Canon 70-200 f/2.8.

I can't say I've heard bad things about the Sigma though.
 
tibbsey said:
Cheapest according to Camerapricebuster is £950, but for that kind of money I'm not sure if I'd rather ditch the OS (from what I've heard not as useful for sports) and get the Canon 70-200 f/2.8.

I can't say I've heard bad things about the Sigma though.
Click to expand...

Or still save money and buy the non OS version (the EX HSM II) which I have and it's superb! I paid about £600 new.
 
i dont know if anyone on here has used the OS yet, Rob was supposed to be testing one at one point.. i think you can track him down on other forums?

otherwise yes, i say good things about the older non-OS "macro" version. 2nd hand will give you even more saving £450 odd and with example shots reduce the chances of a duffer.
 
To be honest (though I don't shoot sport, so could be missing the 2.8 being useful) I would go for the Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM It is a tiny bit cheaper (it seems) and is one hell of a sharp bugger, with good IS, and being L will work if you full frame...and does hold its value pretty well :)

EDIT - price comparison was with the OS version of the Sigma

EDIT 2 - Even though I read sport and wrote sport I was for some reason thinking of motorsport (I dont know why)....for some general sport stuff I can see the 2.8 being handy.
 
I would go for a used 70-200 IS Canon

2.8 is useful as then it takes a TC better, given that 200mm is often a bit on the short side.
 
Mpbphotographic have a used 70-200 f2.8is and the f4is version in secondhand at the minute, if youre in the uk.
 
Again, thanks for all the replies and advice. I'm going to have a look at the OS and non-OS sigmas and the non-IS canon tomorrow for a play. If there is no real difference with IS vs non-IS for sport shooting--where does the real value lie in any IS/OS option?
 
Dramy33 said:
Again, thanks for all the replies and advice. I'm going to have a look at the OS and non-OS sigmas and the non-IS canon tomorrow for a play. If there is no real difference with IS vs non-IS for sport shooting--where does the real value lie in any IS/OS option?
Click to expand...
Where you need to handhold at a low shutter speed and panning as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top