Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO IF HSM - estimated price?

[nightwolf75]

harlo!

does anyone know the latest price for this lens? the last i check it was selling for ard $1.4k, 3-4 mths back. nowadays, i dun see this lens on sale here anymore too. well... for canon mount anyway. i'm doing my sums, so need some reference point.

TIA!

[sequitur]

no idea.. but as a good gauge it should cost about as much as a 70-200 f4.. or maybe slightly more.

[yymun]

Just check with AP on 31 dec was $1535! nikon mount. I think should be around the same!

[sofunny]

that lens not worth so much, in fact it is much cheaper when it just released few years ago.

[sam_always]

it was 1.4k something at MS color a month ago... why price suddenly increases so much...

[mervlam]

Originally Posted by sofunny that lens not worth so much, in fact it is much cheaper when it just released few years ago.

just released a few years ago?? you sure??

this lens has been around for 7 plus years

[imaginary_number]

It's an excellent piece of glass at a really affordable price, especially in the 2nd market. Probably that's why you don't see 2nd hand sets that often.

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by imaginary_number It's an excellent piece of glass at a really affordable price, especially in the 2nd market. Probably that's why you don't see 2nd hand sets that often.

probably so. oh well...

sam_always - thanks for the info! looks like the price actually went up! florence quoted me $1.4K 3-4 mths back.

thanks folks! looks like i have to redo my sums again...

[USM]

The Sigma 70-200mm was selling at $1,200 two years old. Price has increased due to increase in demand for this lens.

At the current price of $1,400++, why don't you consider the Original Canon 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS at $1,600 2nd hand.

Canon beats the Sigma flat.

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by USM The Sigma 70-200mm was selling at $1,200 two years old. Price has increased due to increase in demand for this lens. At the current price of $1,400++, why don't you consider the Original Canon 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS at $1,600 2nd hand. Canon beats the Sigma flat.

true... but i was considering 2nd-hand. the sigma 2nd-hand is abt $800+.

anyway, if i buy new (and dats a big IF), i'll get the sigma becos its more affordable. i've got a 2nd-hand f4L. getting the 2.8 is more for low-light situations. still, i'm only in the thinking stage. may just save myself the troubles and hunt for a 85/f1.8 in the end.

[kiwitan]

get the 70-200 F4 L. it's lighter and cheaper than the Sigma 70-200 f2.8

Originally Posted by nightwolf75 harlo! does anyone know the latest price for this lens? the last i check it was selling for ard $1.4k, 3-4 mths back. nowadays, i dun see this lens on sale here anymore too. well... for canon mount anyway. i'm doing my sums, so need some reference point. TIA!

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by kiwitan get the 70-200 F4 L. it's lighter and cheaper than the Sigma 70-200 f2.8

errmmm... kiwitan, see my post b4 urs.... i already have the f4L.

[Garion]

Originally Posted by USM The Sigma 70-200mm was selling at $1,200 two years old. Price has increased due to increase in demand for this lens. At the current price of $1,400++, why don't you consider the Original Canon 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS at $1,600 2nd hand. Canon beats the Sigma flat.

I wouldn't think so. If its the non-IS, I wouldn't say the Canon is better than the Sigma, both are almost optically equal, the Canon just slightly better. I have used both before and the Sigma is an excellent lens, very sharp, its only a little soft when wide open, but sharp when stopped down a little. The colours the Sigma produces is a little on the warm side, the Canon is more neutral.

Between the Sigma and Canon non-IS, and if I am on a budget, I would take the Sigma. Of course if you have the dough go for the Canon IS and don't look back.

nightwolf75: I've asked before at TCW, the grey Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 set is selling for abt $1280. The warrantied set is prolly around $1350 thereabouts, do check with the main shops (i.e CP, AP, MS Color) for the latest prices.

Its a good piece of glass (the Sigma) and if you are on a budget (i.e. around $1,000), I heartily recommend it. What can I say, I just got it 2nd hand (again).

[icecold]

Yoz... NW75...

If you ever want to try out this lens (Sigma 70-200 F2.8) before committing on buyng...... Let me know... can loan it to you!!! me not using for the next few weeks...

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

[sequitur]

lol save the trouble and get a 85/1.8, 135/2, 200/2.8

solves a lot of problems right ?

(not money problems though haha)

[Denosha]

Got mine 2nd hand from TCW at $1050 about 6-7 mths ago. Was only 3mths old in mint condition and TCW still gave me 1 yr shop warranty. Never looked back. Excellent piece of glass for the $$$. Tried out my cousin's 70-200 F4L abit and immediate observations were: 1. The F4L feels like 1/2 the weight of the Sigma 2. The AF is slightly faster than the Sigma. Didn't shoot anything with his lens but so far i've been very happy with my Sigma.

[USM]

Originally Posted by Garion I wouldn't think so. If its the non-IS, I wouldn't say the Canon is better than the Sigma, both are almost optically equal, the Canon just slightly better. I have used both before and the Sigma is an excellent lens, very sharp, its only a little soft when wide open, but sharp when stopped down a little. The colours the Sigma produces is a little on the warm side, the Canon is more neutral.

That's the point. Sigma is quite soft when shoot wide open compared to Canon. You buy either of these of lenses is because of the f2.8. Most lenses are quite sharp when stop down such as f8, so no point comparing.

What's the difference betwen the IS and non-IS in terms of optical quality? They are almost identical except that IS allows you to shoot 3 stops slower.

[dkw]

Originally Posted by nightwolf75 i've got a 2nd-hand f4L. getting the 2.8 is more for low-light situations.

Its only 1 stop. Frankly, I don't find f2.8 fast enough for low light.

Originally Posted by nightwolf75 may just save myself the troubles and hunt for a 85/f1.8 in the end.

Better strategy I think.

Cheers,

[imaginary_number]

Originally Posted by USM That's the point. Sigma is quite soft when shoot wide open compared to Canon.

My experience tells me that the Sigma 70-200 is sharp even when shot wide open.

Same thing this review said as well:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/mg0600-1.html

[nightwolf75]

hi, folks!

first thing first - Blessed 2005!

gesshhh.... din know i would spark of a canon vs sigma zoom lens war here...

icecold - yeah! when we get back to office on mon, will contact u?

garion - thanks for the info. yes. my thots are the same as urs. the reason for me considering sigma is pricing. IMO, i dunno if its worth it paying the extra for IS. i had a IS lens once. while useful, there's a few limitations to IS which i'm not comfortable with. so, i think i rather pay for wat i need rather than i dun need. however, all things being equal, canon L-lens does give better images.

sequitur - i WISH i had the $ to go primes...

USM - well, other online forums did comment abt the softness at 2.8. however, i guess this is true for all zooms at the lowest f-stop. i think i can live with it, as long as its not overly soft to the point that PS cannot save.

dkw - it matters! i shot low-light events b4. another CSer using the 2.8 can shoot at ISO 200-400. me at 4 need to go 800 and 1600. u can imagine the noise levels...

thanks for all the info! but pls hor... dun start a flame war. i just need to know the street price for new lens and price for used lens.