I cannot agree. and the sigmas image quality is awful compared to canon.

If I remember correctly, I used 1600 iso. If you have a camera with better iso (and higher) then yep maybe! Remember, I'm using a craptacular rebel xti

yea but f/4 on 70-200 lens is something that i would never get, id rather go with a prime or even some 70-200 2.8 that has the iq of kit lens than f/4..



f/4 is a piece of shit in 70-200, no matter how good iq it would have

This post was edited by Antichrist- on Apr 25 2011 04:54pm

Lol. To each his own opinion, I guess.

f/4 wouldnt give me what i need, so f/4 lens would be useless to me half the time, i would need to also get some prime from the same range for my needs..

This post was edited by Antichrist- on Apr 25 2011 05:29pm

Personally, I use the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and I have no problems with it. The HSM motor is slightly slower when compared to Canon's 70-200 f/4 USM motor.

I shoot high school sports myself and I have compared both the Sigma 70-200 and Canon's f/4 and aside from the slight difference in autofocus speed, there is almost no difference.

One thing I have not yet had weighed in on by more than 1 person is: How imporant is IS for something like this? (assuming its on a tripod, because it will be for my use in sports.)

The IS is going to be almost pointless for shooting sports. Unless your subject is standing still, IS doesn't really help that much.

when you make building sized prints and no sharpening in post processing, canon is sharper, thats why sigma is piece of shit and canon is bestest and everyone should get canon instead.



why would someone use a tripod with a 200mm lens on sports that need to have the motion stopped?

Haha.. If I'm being paid to make building sized prints then I'll go ahead and pay the extra $1200 on the Canon version. Also, I really don't know how good of a building sized print 24 MP will make, I'm sure you would be better off with something like a Leaf back.