Sorry, the first reply didn't came through, so I do again... > --- Marco Kost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear list-members, > > > > Recently I reported about the strange behaviour and lack of > sharpness > > in the right corner of my Sigma telezoom. > > I just got a call from Sigma Germany. They told me that my > > 2.8/70-200HSM is not repairable. Bad news indeed. > > > > But now I look forward and what I would like to know is if the > Canon > > 2.8/70-200 IS is worth the extra money. I still think that the > optics > > of the Sigma is great. But I could imagine that the IS is very > useful > > to me. > > > > Anyway, my budget is limited, so I would like to hear your opinions > > about that lens. Also, I wonder if I can use my Sigma 2x converter > > with > > the Canon lens. > > > > Thanks in advance, and best regards, > > Marco
> Well, optical-wise, I doubt you would be ablt to distinguish between > them inspecting the originals, some magazines have rated the Sigma > even > slightly higher them Canon at certain zoom range withtin 70-200, > whiel > others canon was marginally ahead. I woudl say averaging they both > are > as good as it gets once called for optical quality (though some users > reproted about percieved slightly higher flare resistance of Canon, > may > be subjective though). > The diffeernce may come into consideration once you target > professional > (read hard) treating of teh lens. Although Sigma's built quality > isn't > bad either and actually quite good and I bet it wuold caome though > somewhat harsher the normal conditions, however, Canon is really > built > for hard abuse. There were two reports from pro users that used this > sigma outdoors in winter once it was about -10-15 dgrees outside and > both have experienced the lens freezing autofocusing after less then > hour of work. Was really frustrating. Next day one of them rented > Canon > 70-200/2.8L and happily burnt aobut 7 rolls the very next days in > similar conditions - lens performed flawlessly. > I had Sigma in Minolta mount for about two years and cannot say it > was > the most used lens at that time (just because I mostly using > 28-70/2.8 > as a main lens) but after just a few times shooting with Sigma on > tripod I noticed the paint begun to chip out nearby the collar > attachment. > 70-200/2.8L finds way to my EOS-3 quite often but the finishing as > just > like new - no signs on paint, nothing. > Canon seems and feels to be much more sealed also. > A while ago I tried Sigma on Canon and HSM was apparently as good as > Canon's USM (very silent and quick responding), though I heard > numerous > reports from actual sport shooters that USM is still faster. > > In a nutshell, I would say optically tyou would be fine with either > of > them, but if it comes to really harsh conditions (prolonged usage in > cold, shooting in racetracks full of dirt, desert sand storms, so > forth...) I would go with Canon. > > Moreover, now you can easily track a nice 70-200/2.8L (non IS) used > in > Minst conditions for just abotu 20% more then would cost you new > Sigma. > I went this way and picked up by 70-200/2.8L for less then 800 US$ > while the lesn was really like new, I wasn't able to figure any signs > of use, no matter how closely I inspected. > > Regards, Alex __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
