Ok, I have limited funds but I need to get a 70-200 lens.
I have a canon 5d and I am trying to decide if I should get the 70-200 2.8IS by Canon or if I should go with the 70-200 2.8 Sigma with the Macro...
Does any have any experience using the Sigma lens? How good is the Macro? If the macro is good then this would kill 2 birds with one less expensive stone.
If I go with the Sigma, eventually I will upgrade to the Canon..
What do you all think?

We have them both and use the Canon IS2.8 over the Sigma every time. The only time we use the Sigma is when we both need a 70-200 at the same time or we are in different locations. We will upgrade to a second 70-200 as soon as we can cost justify it.

I would recommend that you buy the Canon lens, even if you have to wait a little longer to save up the extra money.

As far as macro goes buy cheap extenders to use with one of your primes, like a 50mm, for macros. That setup is easier to handhold and maneuver than the bulky 70-200


Frank

The sigma will get the job done. The Canon will get it done better. If you're flexible and know your gear you can get amazing shots with each. The canon is better build quality and sharper wide open.

Also I don't know much about Canon macro's but i know with my Nikon the "macro" ability of a lens is no where near in any sense as good as a true macro lens.

i always buy the best i can afford... and i save until i can buy the best...
canon 70-200 IS
hands down

+1
Get the best you can afford, or save for the best.
If you need to save a little more in order to get the Canon IS. I have the IS and know it's wonderful, but I can't speak about the Sigma... just what I've heard from other people about the Canon non-IS: ---some people say they wished they would have put their money toward the IS instead of the 70-200 non-IS.

When I need to put something on my Visa credit card, I make sure I can pay off my card within 3 months... that's MY personal way of doing it, but basically-- just be smart if you are going to use a credit card, otherwise, I've heard it's very easy (and can believe it!) that photography equipment expenses can add up VERY quickly and people can get into some debt. SO, as Robin said, get the best you can afford, or save for it... don't waste your money on equipment you won't be happy with. (Not that the Sigma is awful, but the Canon IS is better, and I'm sure everyone here who has it will tell you it is worth the money!).

canon.....

Alrighty, thanks everyone! Looks like the Canon is the next one!
My husband is going to love this

I shoot with the Canon and absolutely love it's quality... my vote is for the Canon as well! (with IS)

I know you made up your mind, but I thought I'd chime in anyway. I have the new Sigma 50-150 2.8 on a 40D, which with the crop factor is around the same range as the 70-200 on a 5D. The 70-200 2.8 IS is definitely on my "to buy" list, but I'm just getting started and money is tight. I looked at the cost of renting a 70-200 vs buying a month-old used sigma on craigslist and it just made more sense to start with the sigma. It's difficult to squirrel money away into a 70-200 fund if I have to pay for rentals at each wedding. Because I didn't pay retail for the Sigma, I think I will be able to sell it for close to what I paid for it when it's time to step up to the 70-200. It made sense on paper and so far I've been impressed with the Sigma - I like it a lot more than I was expecting, to be quite frank.

Canon 70-200 2.8IS. Couldn't love this lens anymore. It will change your photography =) Start saving, hehe.

the 70-200 2.8 IS is a dream lens for its focal length.