Instruction: Generate an answer to the question by utilizing the information contained in the document.

Input:
Question: Does the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 come with a case?
Document: I think most of the buyer will say: what about Nikon f/4 version. These are about same price but f/4 is smaller and lighter with one to two feets shorter focus distance (this is pretty important) and 5 stops vrIII option, but i have f/2.8 option and 4 stops OS function (actually the OS works pretty good and fast). Even Sigma f/2.8 is more softer than vrII and f/4 (come on!! everyone know f/4 is sharper than f/2.8 and that's why i do f/3.2 at most of the time).Conclusion: Its worth for the price (since the price dropped) and it is not a bad choice on 70-200 2.8 lens.
I was fully expecting to see softness at f2.8, weak edges and poor contrast. Well, if you have to A/B photos with theEF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS IIat 100% to see the difference (and you do), then the Sigma has already won the first round. Seriously, this lens is quite sharp at f2.8 (especially from 100-200, which is at odds with some review MTF charts), and then at f4 competes with pretty much anything.
I must admit I was caught on Sigma after being satisfied by their 50-200mm which had tried out in June. That lens had good color rendition, Image sharpness & auto focus speed.I was contemplating waiting for Tamron 70-200 f/2.8mm VC lens which was announced at Photokina, however could not resist the temptation of Sigma after experiencing the 50-200mm. Also what better time to capture colors other than season of Fall!! !This Sigma [ASIN:B003HC8VA4 Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD Large Aperture Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital DSLR Camera]] has not disappointed until now.
I just have no need for it. I convinced myself prior to buying this that I wanted the best, and this is certainly it. But after playing around with it for a few weeks, I realized that I don't need the f/2.8 and I don't need the weight.I ended up with the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS USM. It's a nice lens, way lighter, less conspicuous, and reportedly sharper (though I can't tell the difference). I also tried the 70-300 f/4.0 - 5.6, and it was OK, but felt too cheap.
Honestly, I had this lens for less than 24 hours so take it with a grain of salt. Got this at a liquidation joint for under $900 plus sales tax so thinking that it is a steal. I have always wanted the the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 but I guess I am not a professional and I think I could even sell this on eBay at a higher price ... that said, I would give it 5 stars just from the images I shot.Tried it out and it is a clear one notch ... or more ... above my AF-S Nikkor 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G VR ED.
But for my style of photography - hanging out with friends, photographing family, fly-on-the-wall type stuff - it was just too damn big. Every time I pulled it out, I felt like Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds, casually and awkwardly unsheathing out my huge pipe. I also have a bad back, and I'll be damned if 3.5 pounds at a weird backpack angle doesn't wear me out. Your mileage may vary on this point, but for me, the cost/benefit didn't make sense.On the subject of f/2.8 - I don't have kids, I don't have indoor soccer games to photograph, generally no indoor events where speed at this focal range would be useful (e.g., a house - you have to be across a large room or down a hall for 70-200 to make sense on an APS-C)...
!PS - I use Hoya HMC UV Digital Multi-Coated Slim Frame Glass FilterUpdate - 10/06 - I had chance to photograph my sons soccer games both in morning & evening. During both the games, Auto focus was found to be sharp, accurate, silent & the lens did not hunt. Also note that the evening games was under floodlights & I did not notice flare in the any of the 200 odd snaps taken. All in all, I am extremely satisfied with the performance of this lens & am now revising the rating to 5 stars & also plan to test out the Sigma 17-50 mm f/2.8.
The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is a fantastic piece of kit! Pictures sharp at 2.8 through all focal lengths and fast focus. Great buy!
I really struggled between this lens and the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens but after a lot of research I decided on the Sigma lens and I'm not sorry. It is extremely sharp and I am very pleased with it. I'm using a Canon 7D and when it came down to it I couldn't see paying an additional $1,000 for the Canon brand.
I took several photographs at around 1/25 shutter speed with the OS on and with the OS off (hand held both times). My handheld photos without the OS were sharper than those with the OS. That should never happen.I was very unhappy with the results and ultimately returned the lens. I have two other Sigma lenses and they work flawlessly. Unfortunately this one just didn't cut it; I will end up purchasing the more expensive Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 ii.
Answer: Yes