Sigma APO 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras | 
 enlarge | Brand: Sigma
Category: Photography
List Price: $949.99
Buy Used: $799.00
You Save: $150.99 (16%)
Rating:  6 reviews
Media: Electronics
Batteries Included: No
Shipping Weight (lbs): 3
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 3.7 x 3.7
MPN: 568-101
Model: 568-101
UPC: 085126568542
EAN: 0085126568542
ASIN: B0009V13XS
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Features:
| • | 70.9 in. Digital Telephoto Lens | | • | Auto and Manual Focus, Inner-Focusing System for Unchanged Lens Length, Hypersonic Motor for Quiet, High-Speed Focusing, Inner Zooming System | | • | Ideal for Digital SLR Cameras | | • | Works with Canon Cameras, Digital and Film Cameras | | • | High Optical Performance for Entire Zoom Range, Dispersion Glass for Color Correction and Clarity, Advanced Coating That Reduces Ghosts and Glare | | • | 7.2 x 3.4 x 3.4 "; 2.8 Oz. |
|
| Accessories:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 1 more reviews...
 Outstanding Lens August 28, 2007
S. Engelhaupt (Ohio, USA)
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
I have owned this lens of a few months now and could not be any more happier. The only other 70-200mm lens I would get would be the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Definitely a keeper.
Sigma APO 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras April 11, 2007
Kurt Schumacher (lake elmo, minnesota United States)
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
I am very happy with this lens. I am by no means a professional and couldn't justify the cost of the comparable Canon lens, but I am glad I bought this, and so far have been very happy with the picures and the performance
Exceeds Expectations December 5, 2006
John Bots (Pleasanton, CA USA)
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
After 2 years of struggling to take nightime soccer pictures with an old Sony 5MB with 1.7x magnifier lens, I took the leap to get a new camera (Canon Rebel XTi) and this lens, based on significant research on internet. This lens was billed as being able to deliver good low-light sports pictures, without spending $1,600 on the Canon 70-200 F2.8 "white" lens.
I'm pleased to report that this lens performed outstanding. I was still learning on the camera/focusing, but I went with manual settings on the camera (1/125, ISO 1600, F2.8) and the pictures were awesome. Of course some were blurry as I swung the lens from side to side, but when I picked a spot and focused, waiting for the action to come into the spot, the pictures were great. My wife commented that I should have got this 2 years ago. I would highly recommend this lens.
Could not be happier with this Sigma Lense August 7, 2006
S. Wallace (Las Vegas, NV)
20 out of 21 found this review helpful
I bought this lense for my new Canon 20D because I did not want to spend $1200 on the Canon equivalent and was not enthusiastic about walking around with the white "you must be a professional photographer" Canon lense. I could not be happier with its performance. I have used it indoors at volleyball tournaments and dance competitions (very low light), and outdoors at baseball games. I've even seen it on the official photographer's camera at some events! I did end up buying a monopod because it is not the lightest lense, but what wonderful pictures it has produced. Some have even commented that my photos are better than the professional ones offered at the event.
I love Canon, so I don't have anything against their L-Series lenses. I know they are worth the money for those that have it. But for those of us that are simple "weekend warriors", this Sigma lense is a prince!
 Don't be tempted by the low price February 13, 2006
foto_man (Maryland)
33 out of 70 found this review helpful
I made the mistake of trying to save money when I switched from Nikon to Canon. I bought this and Sigma's 17-35 f/2.8-4 DG EX while building my new system. I ended up selling my Sigma lenses to buy a Canon 17-40 f/4 L and a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L lens. Sigma lenses are very tempting because they cost much less then Canon or Nikon lenses. Unfortunately they are cheaper for a reason. The images produced are much softer, the lens itself is not as sturdy, and it doesn't focus as fast. If you have to go bargain basement they are not that bad. They are really just expensive consumer lenses not cheap pro lenses. If you are trying to work as a professional you have to go with brand name lenses. They don't cost more just because of the name on the lens, there are major performance benefits.
|
|
|
