Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 14, 2010, 2:00 PM   #31
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

agreed. the 70-200 2.8 IS is a waste of money for sports.
In canon the Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS or sigma 70-200 2.8 are the best options.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2010, 2:02 PM   #32
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
agreed. the 70-200 2.8 IS is a waste of money for sports.
In canon the Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS or sigma 70-200 2.8 are the best options.
Yep, but if the plan is to bolt on a TC later I wouldn't go with the Sigma.... been there done that and got soft results at the longer focal lengths.
__________________
[SIZE=1][SIZE=2]Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2010, 2:02 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

If the 70-200 2.8 is going to e a dedicated sports lens, then save the money, but if the lens is multi purpose get the IS it will help at the long end and low light.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2010, 2:09 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: "Sunny" Seattle
Posts: 390
Default

How does the Sigma lens bounce up to the Canon lens?
waoldrifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2010, 2:12 PM   #35
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

It's about 90% the lens that the Canon is, where is really suffers is approaching 200mm f2.8 (worse when using a TC) which is why I switched when I could afford it. Also the non IS version of the Canon f2.8 is sharper than the IS version so you are making a slightly bigger leap.
__________________
[SIZE=1][SIZE=2]Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2010, 2:18 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: "Sunny" Seattle
Posts: 390
Default

Thanks
waoldrifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2010, 2:18 PM   #37
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
If the 70-200 2.8 is going to e a dedicated sports lens, then save the money, but if the lens is multi purpose get the IS it will help at the long end and low light.
I would say that $600 is lot just for IS as the 70-200mm f4 non IS is the current lens so we've already gained 1 stop of light helping things out.

That $600 goes a long way towards a 135mm f2 or something else that will get more use.
__________________
[SIZE=1][SIZE=2]Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2010, 2:20 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

I agree the 135 f2L is what I would pick between the lenses listed
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:52 AM.