So you would prefer the 2.8 over the iq?

For portraits. Yes, if you haven't seen samples of the sigma 70-200 you should. While it isn't as sharp as the f4L IS and f2.8L IS II, it's still very good almost on par with the Canon 2.8 Mark I. That was the bread and butter lens for many photojournalist still.



This post was edited by Eek on Feb 3 2011 07:13pm

people are way too concerned about IQ imo. you will get good photos even if you dont have the best lens on the market, most of the good lenses are pretty much the same as the best if you dont look at 100% crops..

ever heard about unsharp mask or high pass filter combined with unsharp mark?

This post was edited by Antichrist- on Feb 3 2011 07:13pm

Yeah i know the sigma very well, lacks same sharpness and build quality imo.
Gah too many lenses to choose from.
^^



I plan on doing crops actually, and on the second hand, why spend for something that might be worse for the purpose?
I mean if i can get a better object for the same price why not?
That's pretty much why i am asking

This post was edited by Verdena on Feb 3 2011 07:14pm

nvm..

This post was edited by Verdena on Feb 3 2011 08:16pm

Get. The. F4. If you're going to take portraits with super thin dof, you should be using a prime. NN 2.8 for portraits :\
Plus you get sexy circle bokeh.

When are you getting your 5d mark ii?

Max 2 weeks i'd say.

thought the tamron was better than the sigma
anyone tried both of these?

sigma is said to be unsharp between 2.8 - 5.6 and the tamron has a poor af but better sharpness on wide open aperture.