Help - Lens query

eeyore2502

I have an EOS 1000D I currently shoot mainly rugby with a Canon 70-300 F4-5.6, which is ok for bright days but on the darker days or evening its not enough.

I am now looking to upgrade:

Option 1
Sigma 70-200 F2.8 Non IS (new)

Option 2
Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS (second hand)

Which one would be the better buy? Thanks

Duchovny

I would say Canon

Gambler

What's the price difference between them? Is it a toss up money wise between the two? If so I would think the Canon is probably the better buy..

Duchovny

Well you have the IS in the Canon and as you know Canon tele-lens are very good so i would go for Canon.

eeyore2502

The Sigma is a little over 600 new online and the canon is 850.00 second hand. Its not the money, I am just panicking that I spend a few hundred and regret the choice!

Gambler

Well if the money isn't an issue then it's down purely to the quality between the two, unfortunately that's way over my head

SBPhoto

Both lens are very good, I have owned both. The Canon for me has outstanding quality, faster focusing and better build, the IS is a great advantage also. The Sigma is good but if you have the money the Canon is better.

eeyore2502

Thanks, I am still new to all this but the differance between the Sigma F2.8 and the Canon F4 is this a hugh differance???

Ricky91t

I love my sigma 70-200 , Seriously pleased with it,I can't really see how the canon can improve(and in like 10 years time when i buy a canon i'll do a side by side test :pac: )

eeyore2502

Richard just had a quick look at your site and I see you have photographed rugby have you used the sigma or the rugby?

Doctor Tunes

I have the 2.8 IS and I love it. I know if I bought the Sigma I'd regret it later

Ricky91t

eeyore2502 wrote: »

Richard just had a quick look at your site and I see you have photographed rugby have you used the sigma or the rugby?

If you're talking about the munster training session,they were all shots on the sigma with a canon 20D,My first time using the lens too,It's a great lens but the 200mm reach can be abit short,so you might want to budget in a 1.4TC for the lens too,makes it an f/4 but still has good image quaility(well ballymans images did)

PCPhoto

another option to look at could be the 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS) Canon SECONDHAND ..... prob around the same price as the sigma.

Personally I would say go for the Canon - but thats just my preference.

Ricky91t

PCPhoto wrote: »

another option to look at could be the 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS) Canon SECONDHAND ..... prob around the same price as the sigma.

Personally I would say go for the Canon - but thats just my preference.

Just noticed he was looking at the IS Model of the canon which is usually more pricy...and i'd imagine IS would be pointless for most sports shots,Unless you're shooting some photos of the stands or something...

Borderfox

The Canon would be better in terms of IQ (slightly) and build quality (very much so)

Ricky91t

One thing to add is after a while you'll notice your 1000D's FPS lacking abit,but atleast it's got an unlimited buffer so you can keep shooting till your card is full,That was one of the downsides with the 20D imo,so you should be ok for a few monthes anyway

eeyore2502

Ricky91t wrote: »

One thing to add is after a while you'll notice your 1000D's FPS lacking abit,but atleast it's got an unlimited buffer so you can keep shooting till your card is full,That was one of the downsides with the 20D imo,so you should be ok for a few monthes anyway

I only have it since December and I already want to upgrade but can't afford to upgrade lens and camera so going with the lens for the moment.

Thanks for the help.