Which lens is better

[HavToNo]

I"m looking at getting a 70-200 zoom lens for my T2i and I'm wondering which of these three would be better. #1 Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM #2 SIGMA 70-200 F2.8 EX DG HSM II #3 SIGMA 70-200 F2.8 EX DG HSM II. The Canon lens is an f4 but I was told that it's a better quality because it's an L series lens. My number one priority is getting the sharpest pictures. Any advice would be great.

[shoturtle]

Do you need 2.8 and what are you shooting

[TCav]

Just in case you missed it, #2 and #3 are the same.

[TCav]

Actually, the Sigma, stopped down to f/4, is about as good as the Canon at it's maximum aperture of f/4.

BTW, the Sigma has been discontinued.

[HavToNo]

OOPS. #3 is the TAMRON 70-200 F2.8 DI CANON LD SP

[PeterP]

The Sigma as Tcav mentioned has been discontinued and reissued as the
SIGMA 70-200 F2.8 EX DG OS HSM
OS (optical stabilization) added and price jumped up quite a bit.

However all the lenses mentioned are good, thought I am not familiar Tamron.
Both the Canon L and the Sigma EX lenses out resolve the sensor in your camera.
So you may not see much difference between them.

I have the 70-200 f/4 L IS it is sharp, and fast at focusing,
I also have several Sigma lenses including a 120-300 f/2.8 EX HSM, it works very well but is much slower at focusing than my Canon L's.

Guess it come down to what are you shooting and how fast do you need to achieve focus.
(For bodies I'm currently using 5d mkii's and a 7d)

[HavToNo]

Thanks for the info guys. I have the Canon 55-250 kit lens so I'm guessing either of those lenses would be a big improvement. The Sigma and Tamron lenses are f2.8 and the Canon is f4 so are the f2.8 lenses better or is the Canon better because of the build quality.This is a little confusing for me with all the options out there. I like shooting wildlife more than anything and I want to keep it under $1,000 Canadian. Thanks.

[shoturtle]

think the 200 on the long end is going to be short for wildlife actually. If you find yourself shooting at 250 with your 55-250 now. They the 70-200's will all be to short. You may want to look at the 300 and 400mm lens. Like the canon 70-300L or 100-400L for your wildlife shooting.

And if they are moving subjects the canon AF system in the lens is better, they have excellent optics in the L lenses. And they are weather seal lenses. All these things can be a plus for wildlife shooting.

If you need 2.8 the sigma AF faster then the tamron 70-200.

With you 1000 dollar budget, you are kinda of tight for what you want to shoot. If you had a 1300 dollar budget, I would get the canon 70-200L non IS over the sigma if you could live with 200mm, it does a nicer job when adding a TC to get from range then the sigma that is prett soft.

[TCav]

The 55-250 has more vignetting, and the same focal lengths and apertures, the others are all better, but not by much. For its price, the 55-250 is a pretty good lens.

Among the Canon 70-200/4, the Tamron 70-200/2.8, and the two Sigma 70-200/2.8 lenses (the discontinued unstabilized one and the new stabilized one.) they're all about equally good. I'd give the Canon the edge for build, but the Tamron and Sigmas have a full stop on it for when you need it, which probably won't be often for wildlife.

200mm is kind of short for wildlife, unless you're shooting moose or bison, and/or you can get close. Have you thought about something longer? Take a look at the Wildlife Photos forum, and see what focal lengths others are using for the subjects you've got in mind.

[HavToNo]

What do you think of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. I can get it for $679.99 Canadian. Does it have any better image quality than my 55-250 or any other advantages.