Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX or new Canon 70-300 IS?

[JKO]

Need peoples opinion on which one I should buy of these two lenses to go with my 350D. I am currently using Canon 17-85 IS, which I am very happy with. But I need more range. The choice is between these two lenses and they don't differ much in price (Sigma +US$ 50). The SIGMA is double of the weight of Canon so this is a con for Sigma, but what I am really looking at is image quality. The extra range of Canon lens I can live without, so this is no "decider". IS is good, but so is aparture of 2.8 (throughout the range).

I will mostly shoot nature, citylife and people outdoors.

Any comments on which one to go for?

Jan

[ReF]

if range isn't an issue, then i should say that a 70-200 f2.8 lens is a standard used by most professionals and advanced amatuers. of course, most of the pros use lenses with the same brand as their cameras, but the sigma should do well enough. with a 70-200 f2.8, you probably wouldn't feel the need to upgrade for a long time. if you go with sigma be sure to test the lens at various ranges and apertures to make sure you have a decent copy, as sigma has a quality control problem.

whether weight and size are major issues is up to you. a lens is pretty worthless if you keep missing shots because you left it at home due to the weight/size.

[Rhys]

Hmm. There's a thought. If I'd gone for the Canon 17-85 IS and the Sigma 70-200 then I'd cover in 2 lenses what I currently cover in 3 (Tamron 17-35 f2.8 and Tamron 28-75 f2.8). Oh well c'est la vie.

I have the Tamron 70-300 and would definietly recommend going for the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 instead. If you get a good copy, it'll be fantastic. My Tamron 70-300 is long and that's about it. I really only bought it as a stopgap between now and getting a 70-200 Sigma.

[ReF]

if range isn't an issue, then i should say that a 70-200 f2.8 lens is a standard used by most professionals and advanced amatuers. of course, most of the pros use lenses with the same brand as their cameras, but the sigma should do well enough. with a 70-200 f2.8, you probably wouldn't feel the need to upgrade for a long time. if you go with sigma be sure to test the lens at various ranges and apertures to make sure you have a decent copy, as sigma has a quality control problem.

whether weight and size are major issues is up to you. a lens is pretty worthless if you keep missing shots because you left it at home due to the weight/size.

i was going to edit this into my post last night but i got bumped offline :confused: :
i ended up with a canon 70-200 f4 (plus canon 1.4x TC) because it is comparatively small and significantly lighter than the f2.8 versions. i've heard a few people mention that the canon f2.8 is significantly lighter if the tripod collar is removed - it might work the same with the sigma. so far i've only missed the 2.8 aperture on the rare, unimportant occasion (you may have differnt needs) and i've really enjoyed being able to use the 70-200 f4 indoors or in close quarters - the f4 has the shortest focusing distance of the bunch at 3.9 feet, followed by the IS version at 4.3, canon's regular f2.8 at 4.9 feet, and the sigma at about 6 feet.