I'd stick to f4 if i was you, 2.8 isn't worth 1k more(considering weight aswell).

The f4 isn't mine, it belongs to the school, and also, I'm probably going to get a Sigma 2.8 II if I do get a 2.8 version.

Also, the weight is no big deal for me. On the off chance that I'm using it without a tripod or monopod I'm usually fast enough to get the shots I need.

This post was edited by kratos on Jan 18 2011 09:00pm

I'd rather have f4 canon 70-200 than f2.8 sigma

That's why I got the 4.0. The 2.8 would have been SWEET for depth of field, taking indoor soccer type of shots. I tried my 4.0 in the indoor... thought it was pretty bright in there (brand new building) NOT even worth it.

I went with the fact that I'm not going professional, and that it's just a hobby, that I'd use the extra 1k towards maybe another lens, or something else. I just couldn't justify it. I am waiting till it gets warmer outside to use this lens more, I can't wait.

I'd say unless you are doing some serious indoor photos, get the 2.8.... but it would probably only be worth it if you're making money from your basketball shots :D. I found that I'd be using the lens more outside than inside anyway.

This post was edited by Chantal7 on Jan 18 2011 09:25pm

Imo with a lense like 70-200 the only thing you could need is a wide angle.
When i'm going to change to canon i will only use the 70-200
Imo the 2.8 doesn't justify 11xx 12xx euro more.
I find it hard to believe you can't shoot sports even with the 4.0.

This post was edited by Verdena on Jan 18 2011 09:31pm

I can shoot sports with the 4.0, just not INDOOR ones. I have tried... it was a sad day for me. ISO 1600 and shutter was too slow, sigh! But outdoor would be awesome. What is an outdoor sport? Lol

I'm not that much into sport photography anyway. I want to capture nature outside, like animals or birds would be fun and a challenge.

I have to agree with the wide angle, I use mine all the time. I will probably find myself switching from wide angle to 70-200.

hard to say between 24-70 and 24-105. 24-105 lets 1 stop less light in, but it has at least 2 stop IS(at times it can even help 3 stops) and you can get higher magnification. 24-70 has slightly better iq, but a good copy of 24-105 has nearly the same iq. 24-70 has bit better build quality, but what i find really annoying with it is that it gets long when you use the wide angle and gets short when you use the longer focal lengths(pretty weird huh?). 24mm isnt all that wide on 1.6 crop sensor, so id rather go with 18-50 2.8 IS, unless i had some ultra wide angle with it.

whether you should stick to primes or not depends if you need a zoom or not. personally if i had a 1.6 crop camera i would most likely go with 18-50 2.8 IS, 28-30mm prime(canon 28mm 1.8 or sigma 30mm 1.4), 85mm 1.8 and 70-200(canon f/4 IS or sigma 2.8). if i went with the 70-200 2.8 sigma i would most likely drop the 85mm off since 200mm 2.8 is good for portraits too.

Because I want one? Haha... Primes will always out shoot zooms. So don't make it a primes vs zooms deal.

Nah for sports I would use a 70-200.

Get a 35 mm. Best prime for both Canon and Nikon.

You're the best prime for my Nikon.