> Never mind that virtually every other person who has used both > has said the Canon EF 70-200 2.8L IS is sharper and much faster focusing and > that IS simply clinches the decision.
Bold statements Chip. But ... go on, be honest ... how many people in the world have *actually* given both lenses an extended & fair side-by side trial? Two? I bet a non-IS lens is faster focussing than an IS one: or even the Canon one with the IS turned off will respond faster (?). OK, devils advocacy maybe (I would never buy another Sigma lens) but an awful lot of what is quoted as fact is just opinion. > Never mind that almost every lens > test seems to show the Canon EF 70-200 2.8L IS as clearly superior to the > Sigma 70-200 2.8HSM. Shouldn't we believe him? In a recent post someone claimed the Canon IS was sharper then the non-IS version: I thought lens tests had shown otherwise? I've had Sigma lenses which lens tests had shown to be optically as good (well, almost) as Canon but which in my hands produced worse results. Either the tests were flawed or the lenses handed to the testers were atypical of the production bunch. Canon lenses are the best (IMO) but actually, when it comes to it, procedural factors (how you use the lens) are dominant in determining the outcome. A badly focussed Canon lens is worse than a focussed practica every time ;o) Camera shake will kill every image. Award-winning images have been taken on cheap lenses. Bob * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
