Hello all, I need to ask you guys and girls a serious question. I'm trying to decide weather or not its worth the extra money to get the canon lens over the sigma lens. They're both 70-200mm and have a 2.8 aperature. Please give me all your opinions.

-- Joseph Jackson (bbelger@swbell.net), September 19, 1999

Answers

Well, all of our opinions would be a bit too much. This is a basic third party lens debate. Does it really matter that much to you. THe cost for the Canon vs. its better image quality. Some might say there is no difference; you might say that. Other might say there is a big difference; you might say that. It all depends how much you think you photography needs the best quality your money can shell out.

Of course, this assumes you need the pro zoom as well and not a couple quality primes.

-- Chris Gillis (cagillis@concentric.net), September 19, 1999.

If you are Bill Gates, I'm sure it's "worth it" to pay the extra few hundred dollars for the Canon.

If the difference between the Canon and Sigma means you won't be able to eat for a month, you probably shouldn't buy either one.

It's a personal decision. The Canon is better in many ways (compatibility, focus speed, resale value to name just 3). If it's worth it to you, it's worth it. If not, it's not.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), September 20, 1999.

Another thing to consider, and one that contributes to the higher resale value of Canon lenses (or Nikon, Minolta et al for that matter) is their superior mechanical quality. They will, in all probability, last longer. This has historically been an advantage of origonal manufacturer's lenses over after market products. Is it important? It depends on how much/often you will use the lens and how long you want it to last. You pays your money and you takes your chances!!

-- Joseph A. Dickerson (jadphoto@aol.com), September 30, 1999.

If you are truly serious about getting the best shots, buy the L. Although I haven't owned the 70-200 variants, I have had both of these lenses in the 28-70 guise. Optically they are so close it's not an image-quality issue - the Canon perhaps has the edge but maybe that's wishful thinking - the Sigma is bitingly sharp also. Build quality & the value of FTM & USM are all it comes down to; at this price, do you want to be thinking about resale values? Even if you buy the Sigma, throw it away in 5 years, you've probably lost less than the depreciation on the Canon. Buy the lens for use, not for resale - buying no lens is the best answer for resale value ;-)

My own story is that I bought the EX, it was a great lens, allowed me to take some *seriously* razor sharp images, but ultimately its manual focus seized up and I went for the L, which is an equally sharp lens but built better, with a better balance (on my EOS 5) and with USM and FTM. Nice. Worth 4x the price? Probably not, but then over the lifetime of the lens, this shouldn't matter too much.

-- John Clark (zk03@dial.pipex.com), October 18, 1999.