1 stop vs AF, sharpness, & a white lens with a red ring. I'm sorry, but unless you're a retard or shoot only sports, there is no reason not to go with the canon F4. What good will the sigma do with shitty AF in sports anyway? What good will 1 stop do if you can't even AF on a dark location, or if the image is soft as fuck? You guys seriously need some exposure lessons, realize that noise reduction is very effective, and that iso 800 vs iso 1600 noise > a blurry image.

This post was edited by onepagememory on Apr 25 2011 07:48pm

this, plus you dont use a tripod when shooting sports as it restricts your motion to much, if you too slow you miss the shots
can use a monopod tho



agree with most of this
however really wish the my lens was black and not that in you face white shit
noise reduction is on my to-learn-list

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this. For indoor sports you may want to take a look at the EF 135mm f2L. It's one stop faster than the f2.8 zooms and is at least as sharp as the 70-200 f2.8 IS II not to mention the creamy bokeh it creates.
Though I believe the best lens for indoor sports is actually the EF 200 f2L IS but it's a 6k lens

This post was edited by Futurama on Apr 26 2011 12:47am

What about the EF 200L/1.8???

those two lenses doesent have that much difference in IQ outside lab and after post processing.. i prefer black lens over white, but aesthetics doesent mean much to me. sigma doesent have shitty AF, its just not as good as canons, but its still reasonably good, also i dont shoot sports, so sigma AF would be fine with me. you know its not just 800 to 1600 iso its sometimes 6400 iso to -1 exposed 6400 pushed in photoshop to useless junk of noise. also the main thing isnt just about how much light it lets in, its more on the dof. f/4 full body portraits doesent give enough small enough dof.

i have used f/4 zoom for over 2 years and i know what sort of limitations f/4 gives on the light and when i need to use other lens.

um... really? I thought distance to background in tele lenses determined dof and were the F4 is extremely bokelicious. I guess you just want complete distortions in your dof, but even 2.8 won't offer that

This post was edited by onepagememory on Apr 26 2011 11:55am

f/4 wont offer enough, and believe or not, i know what im talking about

That's strange, I have a copy of the F4 and the 2.8 II next to me, and too often I take the F4 only because of it's weight. I usually make up for the dof and the stop by getting just a tad bit farther, and extending almost to 200.

i dont think its weird that we put more weight on different things

The only reason I'd ever buy the sigma would be because of the price. Otherwise, I'd go Canon F4. It's simply a superior lens.