Upload & Sell: Off
| p.2 #4 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS |
I vote for the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II as well! If anyone wants to sell me one in my $900 price range, let me know. :-P
Yeah, I know that good glass is worth saving up for, but the ~$2,000 is completely outside of my price range. Up until now, my most expensive lens was around $600, so this lens is definitely "saving up" for me.
Scott, I quite agree with your point of "if you're stopping the Sigma down to f/4 for sharpness anyway, then you may as well save the weight and get a Canon f4, which is sharp wide open," which is one major reason I'm shying away from the Sigma. I think most of the time this lens will be a portrait lens for me, not a wildlife lens, which is why I really want to go for the f/2.8 over the f/4.
dkmiles - I'm planning on buying either lens used, so returning it would be difficult. However, it does look like I could probably resell either of the lenses for about what I paid for them if it didn't work out. I really wish I could just rent both the lenses, but no one locally (Denver, CO) seems to rent the Sigma and the price of shipping to rent online just isn't worth it to me.
Thanks for all the feedback!
there is nothing wrong with shooting portraits at f4, in fact f2.8 is sometimes a trade off in dof. I've shot thousands of portraits with a 70-200 f4 IS, it's fantastic. the price and the weight of the 2.8 zooms are real turn offs for me, so if I want shallow dof or just need the speed I grab a 135L or 85 1.8.