Best 70-200mm for the money
580175
The lens is great. Auto focus is fast and doesn't seem loud at all to me, I think some of the people who feel it is must be shooting funerals. Very sharp and not as heavy as I thought it would be. For the price difference with the Nikon you can't beat this lens.
3689203
If like me you've been thinking about buying a Nikon 18-200mm lens or something the same length from other manufacturers I'd say think again.  You've probably already got the 18-75mm range covered with the lens that came with the camera body, so save your wallet and get the 55-200mm instead.

Pros
* Great price
* Quiet operation
* Great range
* Image stabilization

Cons
* Plastic (this is an all plastic bodied lens, so it doesn't feel as sturdy as the metal framed Nikon lenses
* It is a zoom, so the long range can mean slow focus from one end to the other, but if you want rocket fast focusing buy a high price prime lens and not a budget zoom. (Didn't impact me at sport events)
3653265
This will be a review that won't get bogged down in camera terms and will just be in real world speak.
I bought this lens over a year ago here used , my first used lens buy at Amazon and I was worried about what I would get.

This lens didn't let me down.
People love to compare it to the 70-200 L lens that is $100+ more new or used but being on a limited budget I needed the most bang for the buck and after reading hundreds of reviews went for this lens.

The build is nice , solid and it takes sharp photos that are clean.
I used it on an Rebel XTi body that had over 250,000 shots on it and I have done 25,000+/- using this lens- most are keepers. The only bad ones are ones I misfocused on or forgot to turn the IS back on after being on a tripod.
 99% of the time I use manual focusing , so I seldom used the autofocus features but when I have , if there has been good lighting , it focused quickly and most the time correctly.

I have had a couple friends try mine and both have been happy enough to sell off their old 70-200L F4s to buy a new copy of the 70-300 - mainly because of the extra reach it gives you.

I love this lens and while I have recently up graded my camera body and walk-a-round-lens (24-105 L ) I am planing on keeping this one in my kit for years to come
3820824
If you can't afford to buy L glass, this is the way to go.  I debated for a long time between this one and 24-105L and finally decided to get the 28-135 instead.  Mounted on my 40D, I get results that are very close to my prime lenses.  Not as sharp, but close.  I've yet to have problems with autofocus, even in dark room and the USM autofocus is great.  The only downfall of this lens is the construction - the lens is a bit wobbly and the zoom creep is present if you point the lens down.
10150
My 70-200 VR 1  is fast nice, quick focus, best lens I ever owed so far.very bulky heavy but well worth it. I will by another if i could afford it. I purchased this lens from amazon,very fast delivery. I just recently brought a filter for the lens. I practiced with the lens it is very good shape a few scratches but who care, Very nice images while!!!!!!!!!!
2556665
I have been using this Sigma lens for about 6 months, and it is definitely worth the money. Sigma has some questionable equipment but the 70-200 delivers great performance at a reasonable price. The lens is slightly soft at f2.8 but f4 and up is really sharp. I also have shot some studio shots at f8 and it's amazingly sharp. Bokeh is superb and don't forget the additional range if you are using a crop sensor from about 100-300mm.

The lens is slightly heavy but this is expected with high quality glass. My reason for buying this lens is the excellent performance for the price. The Canon L version is a beauty, but I think most people are mesmerized with the Canon L look and forget to look for what is more important; that is the quality of the glass. My friend has a Canon L version and I cannot tell the difference between the two when comparing shots. The Tamron version is really not an option in this comparison because it just doesn't perform.

The feel and look is professional and solid; the inner focusing mechanism is outstanding, hypersonic focus is amazing. This is a great alternative to the outrageously expensive Canon 70-200 L.
1209355
I ended up returning the lens and biting the bullet for the 24-105 F4. The difference is significant enough to return the 18-105 and pay the extra money. It gets the job done, but the edges are soft and anything above 70mm begins to degrade in quality.
3957419
As sharp as the 24-70mm L f2.8 II.  at 50mm, if not better.  The 24-70mm lens is  $2200.-+.  This was $300.- at 2014 Jan. new.  Color (and contrast) maybe not as good as the 24-70mm f2.8 II. on landscape pictures. But still pretty good. That is the only lens from Canon, that is not an  "L"  lens in my bag. (It is very light).
2008421
The MIR and sale gave me the push I needed to buy this lens. It's still a lot of money to shell out for one piece of glass but it just covers so many areas it's worth it. One of reasons I purchased the 2.8 over the 4 was future considerations, the ability to add the 2x converter + a crop body will yield 600mm+ @ 5.6 with this lens. The converter can be had for less than $500 which makes it a no brainer unless you have the budget to afford some of the higher dollar tele's. Unfortunately, I do not!

I've only had the lens for about two weeks now but everything from it so far has been nothing short of great. I'm using it on an older 40D body and the AF is still incredibly fast. The images have been crisp/clear with great color. As everyone has already mentioned the lens does weigh a good bit however it's not terrible. I went on a 3hr (5-7 mile) hike/walk with this thing attached to my camera body the day after I received it and was fine. Sure it's heavy, but I wasn't lugging around a tripod because I was able to handhold most all the shots I took that morning.

Bottom line is, if you need/want the 2.8 abilities you'll have to deal with the weight and cost. If you can get by with the f4, save yourself the money and weight and just go with the f4. Personally I could have got by with the f4 for the normal 70-200 range however with the rebates and sales over the holidays it made the 2.8 much more attractive when considering the addition of a teleconverter. Make sure you do your homework, rent/borrow or test these before you purchase and buy the right thing once.
3467295
Well, I finally decided to spring for the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8. For under $30,000 I couldn't pass up the deal. I know, carrying a 37lb lens around may seem like a chore, but the savings in gas to drive to photo shoots more than compensates for it.  I actually do most of my Florida and Georgia area outdoor wedding and landscape shoots from my rooftop now.  The IQ is tack-sharp even wide open at 1000mm (w/ 2x converter, obviously) The issue I had, was when the FBI and Homeland security showed up at my house.  I was shooting a wedding in downtown Orlando, which is only about 30 miles away, from my roof.  The house was surrounded and guns drawn on me.  You see, I live near enough to a major airport that the neighbors mistook it's green color and imposing size as some sort of ground to air missile launcher.  I would strongly consider coloring it a light color to minimize thermal expansion during the day, and marking the side "Not A Stinger Missile". Also, it is a nice walk around lens for family trips to the zoo. Low light performance is superb.  Most photos can be taken without flash, on a moonless night, following a massive power outage, by simply lighting a fart during the exposure.  Experiment with differing brands of beans, as it affects the color temperature of the raw shot.
3636487
I've had this lens for a few years, having used it on a Nex-7 and then the A6000. It's pretty good, especially if you restrict the zoom to no longer than about 150 (which is over 200mm on the 35 format). Photos are fairly sharp, good color, good contrast, though I do pretty much always sharpen them and increase contrast afterwards. Pushing the lens up to 210 can give you some fairly soft images, depending on how far away your subject is, and it doesn't do particularly well in low light. The super lightweight nature of the lens is possibly it's biggest advantage--this thing is incredibly light and compact for what you get.

I'm heading to Havana (probably once in a lifetime trip) in a couple of months, and I'm troubling over whether to bring the A7 w 24-70 Zeiss and Sony 70-200 (super sharp!) on the A6000, or leave the 70-200 behind for this one. I can get good images from the 55-210 if I follow the above rules (and still have the same reach as the 70-200), with half the weight of the better lens. But the 70-200 is...sharp as razor blades, and I won't be able to reshoot these images,...so it's convenience vs. aesthetics. I'll be walking miles and miles each day, so weight is crucial, but it'll be miles and miles through Havana.... Ah, sweet First World worries....
1359884
I finally pulled the trigger and purchased the 70-200 f/4 IS for my Canon 5D Mark II. I had been battling back and forth between the very expensive and very heavy 2.8 IS and wondered if I would regret getting the f/4. Prior to my purchase, I rented a 2.8 IS from Samy's Camera and had it for the weekend. I shot a great event. (you may see the results on Flickr (look for my acct: Techfrog, and look for the set called Pacsun Ballyhoo). The event was two days long and I got to shoot everything from great bands to Tony Hawk riding his board on a giant ramp, to thousands of people having a great time.

When I got to Samy's, my intent was to rent the f/4, to see if I would be okay with the results, but they were all rented out, and I took the 2.8. If you bothered to see the images yet, you'll see that they were laser sharp. The beads of sweat on the musicians tell the story. Also, if you're at all interested, I took 90% of those shots at f/4 (not to confuse, but it was the 2.8 lens, set to f/4)

What I ultimately discovered with the f/2.8 IS, is that it was far too heavy to be practical in a long shoot. I kept wanting to put it away and popping on my 50 f/1.4 prime. I'm a 200lbs. guy, and I was just tired of holding it. Since 70 - 200 is such a usable focal range, I really needed to think hard about the decision. Of course the obvious differences are both weight and price, but saving money is not reason enough if it will not suit you and get the shots you want.

It's been said in other reviews, and I agree, if you take mostly indoor, low light events, you may have to shell out the cash and deal with the weight of the 2.8. For me, I made a decision that the lighter, much less expensive f/4 IS was the better choice for me. I am amazed at how small and light it is. You can carry it on your camera all day long. Shot wide open or stopped down a bit is slightly sharper than the already amazing 2.8 version. I'm sure in time, I will also get the 2.8 IS so I'll have both, but so far, I'm very happy with the f/4 lens and have a lot of the prior reviewers to thank.

In reality, you will be happy with either lens, but as my title suggests, there is compromise in either. The 2.8 gets you speed and consequentially more bokeh, but at a high price, and it's quite a beast to carry. The f/4 lens is not as fast, but it's much cheaper, much lighter and actually its a bit sharper.

In the ideal world, we could all afford both lenses to suit the day's purpose, so choose what's best for your situation. You won't be disappointed in either.

Lastly, you may notice I made no mention of IS vs. non-IS. This is basically because the technology IS offeres makes it a no-brainer for me
2989041
The bottom line is if you do photography as a hobby then maybe a tamrom 17-50 will be better for you or a 28-70. The difference in image quality is not that different depending on the situation. I find the image quality of the cz to be about 25% to 30% better but what your really paying for is the rugged mostly metal body and ssm motor. I have already had to return my tamron 3 times with issues that had nothing to do with image quality. This cz lens has cause me to get a cz 135 and now I am saving up for the 85mm and may even get the 50mm. When I do a event my pictures come out almost perfect so there is very little to do when converting to jpeg in lightroom 4. Time is money so it will pay for it self so its worth the price. I here sigma is good but I have never owned one so I cant comment on it. The one thing I don't like abot the lens is the rubber grip that collects dust and rubs on my jeans when hanging from the strap. I also don't like that its a external and not internal zoom.
3984104
I do have a 18 to 200 mm lens and two primes 35mm/1.8 and 50mm/1.8.  My camera is a D7000.

EDITED 07-14-13:
I enjoyed this lens and it produced some awesome pics on our camping trip.  It focuses very sharp in Autofocus.  It has a manual focus/auto focus switch, and the manual focus ring is the quarter inch ring IN FRONT OF the 1" zoom ring (as simple as it sounds, I have to refrain from explaining how long it took me to recognize it).  It works great with the built-in flash of my D7000 (no vignetting/shadowing).  The 'normal position' (shortest length of the lens barrel) is at 35mm.  The lens gets longer as you zoom down from 35mm to 18mm or zoom up from 35mm to 55mm (the barrel moves out from 35mm zoom/focal length position).  Furthermore, the G-option designator in the lens means that there is no aperture ring, but that the aperture is controlled by adjusting the sub-command-dial on the D7000 (other cameras may be able to control through the main control dial, not sure, because they do not have the sub-command-dial in the front).  VR is indeed not necessary on this lens in my personal opinion, so this is a great economical high quality lens for the money (~$120), but the latter statement is dependent on your application,needs, preferences.

Original Review:
The reason why I bought this lens is that sometimes I need just this focal range and I do not want the 18 to 200 mm lens (much bulkier, and with the build-in flash you get vignetting).  Furthermore I use this lens in well lit places and outside, so the speed doesn't matter as much.  However, this lens produces great pictures indoors with flash if needed.  Even though I prefer natural light and the 35mm 1.8 when I know I shoot indoors (no flash necessary).

I bought this lens as a non-VR lens because I really don't need VR in this range.  The 18-200mm does need VR, especially above 55mm.  I think it's something to really think about (as I did) whether you really need VR since it doubles the cost of this lens.  Also the lens system is more complex with the VR, and Nikon dropped the ED glass element in the newer VR version.

Without VR makes this lens very reasonable at ~$120, is of very good quality for what it is (not outstanding, but very good), is very robust, and if something were to happen, it's relatively cheap to replace ($120 versus 18-200mm at $850).

If you are a pixel peeper you will hate this lens, but if you judge your pictures by the picture and your composition, you will love this lens.

Therefore, considering cost, performance, quality, and the fact that it is light and has the most needed focal range, I have to give it 5 stars.
3382680
I just acquired the a new Sigma 150-500mm lens for not much more than what they go for used...Super Value...especially with case  / straps accessories & 4 year warranty. I am a hobbyist and shoot with a Canon 70D. I also have a Sigma 105mm Macro and am very happy with it... so when considering a long telephoto lens.. I gravitated toward Sigma. Build quality of the 150-500mm is very good and the quality of images is excellent and surpassed my expectations. As long as you known how you will use any lens and understand its parameters you should have reasonably good results with your purchase. This was a very good choice for me and I am sure for many others...!!
3391114
Is this the greatest lens ever? No. Is it the greatest for the price? It just may be.
After deciding on going the four-thirds route to break into digital photography, I bought a used Olympus camera bundle with kit lenses (the older 14-45mm and this 40-150mm). It looked like I was going to be taking mostly indoor candid shots, so I researched and compared the 14-45mm and 14-54mm lenses. Based on what I read, I scraped up some money and bought the 14-54mm lens, and it's great, a clear step up from the kit 14-45mm. OK, that was a few hundred dollars well spent.
Knowing that the 14-54mm was from the higher level line of lenses, and comparing the prices between the 14-54mm and the 14-45mm, I had low expectations for the 40-150mm lens, since it had to suffer comparisons to the 50-200mm f2.8-3.5. Prices were so low and availability was so high for it, I thought it might be "average" at best. I figured for my intended purpose (shooting outdoor activities in daylight, some indoor sports in a gym), this probably wasn't going to be too bad.

Now I can say that as someone that's not trying to earn money from photography, I was very pleasantly surprised. I can't readily imagine where I'd want to pay what was then roughly 8 times ($125 on ebay vs $900+) as much money for the 50-200mm as opposed to using this 40-150mm f3.5-4.5. This lens is at least "good" by any measure, but -for the price-, and how I use it, this thing is awesome.

I'm sure the 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 is a better lens, but considering how I use it, I can take that price difference and buy a 70-300mm f4.0-5.6 lens and still have lots of money left over. I still can't take that low-light telephoto shot, but for how I use it, it doesn't matter that much. For another $100, I could add a katzeye and use manual focus with great effect.

If I was trying to earn money from photography, I could easily justify the investment in the 50-200mm lens, but as an "amateur", or even "enthusiast", it's hard to justify that 1 lens costing nearly half of all of your equipment.

With regard to the newer kit 40-150mm lens, I realize that Olympus had a need to shrink the 40-150mm lens to match it up to the compact cameras they introduced in the newer E-400/500/600 series, but this older lens works better for me because of it's speed and low cost (though I'm sure that the price will creep up over time as availability decreases)

What lead me to four-thirds cameras was the value of the lenses. Taking into account the cropping factors (2x for four-thirds, 1.5x for APS-C, 1.0 for full frame), trying to find equivalent lenses in terms of range and speed for the other formats on a particular mount (Canon, Nikon, Sony Alpha at least) becomes pretty expensive. A lens like this makes it easy to feel comfortable spending _less_ money on desirable equipment.
2215569
I have both this and the canon 70-200 2.8 II And I always chose this over the canon. I love sigma!