sigma 70-200mm vs Canon 70-200mm...VA, DC photographers...

MissB

Oh my goodness Im going search crazy... back to my old fail safe dgrin I just learned about sigma lenses... the price tag is much prettier than canon. I am dreaming about the 70-200 2.8... but the price tag makes it out of reach for sometime... sigma looks like they have version on this lens but I haven't been able to get a sollid comparison answer... is canon pricier because of the brand name..or is it actually and noticeably better??

Also, I am in northern virgina and I would like to rent one to try either sigma or canon... any suggestions of a brick and morter location here...(trying to avoid shipping costs) or local photographer that might be willing to loan me theirs for a short time?? I would be happy to pay for the time borrowed. thank you!!!

Becky

Art Scott

Canon.....I have never owned or used..so I cannot attest but as for the Siggy's.......I have realy loved all of the ones I have owned....currrently getting ready to sell a Siggy 70-210 f2.8 APO....even tho this is a pre EX model it was top line and sharp as a tack even handheld..........and i bet the newer lenses are even lighter...............

ziggy53

Becky,

I tested 2 copies of the Sigma APO 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM (the model just before the current "Macro" version) and I found an odd "ringing" in high contrast areas at f2.8. I wound up going with the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (not IS) and I have been very happy with the performance. My honest recommendation is that the Canon lens is demonstrably better than the Sigma at f2.8.

Others have been happy with the Sigma so it could have been a QC issue.

If you don't need the faster AF of the Canon USM, the Tamron 70-200mm, f2.8 Di LD IF Macro is supposed to be very nice.

Lens tests that you can trust for the Canon and Sigma are at:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos

My own tests, with access to the full resolution original images as well as crops:

http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/gallery/1269595_pDgrL#59578773_cXsde

My test assessment:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=24116&page=5

MissB

ziggy53 wrote:

Becky,

I tested 2 copies of the Sigma APO 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM (the model just before the current "Macro" version) and I found an odd "ringing" in high contrast areas at f2.8. I wound up going with the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (not IS) and I have been very happy with the performance. My honest recommendation is that the Canon lens is demonstrably better than the Sigma at f2.8.

Others have been happy with the Sigma so it could have been a QC issue.

If you don't need the faster AF of the Canon USM, the Tamron 70-200mm, f2.8 Di LD IF Macro is supposed to be very nice.

Lens tests that you can trust for the Canon and Sigma are at:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos

My own tests, with access to the full resolution original images as well as crops:

http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/gallery/1269595_pDgrL#59578773_cXsde

My test assessment:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=24116&page=5

wow, there is a brown hue in all of the sigma shots.. is that the lens coating they claim helps prevent ghosting and flair?? I don't think I like that!

ziggy53

MissB wrote:

wow, there is a brown hue in all of the sigma shots.. is that the lens coating they claim helps prevent ghosting and flair?? I don't think I like that!

The Sigma lenses are known for producing a slightly warmer cast than Canon lenses. I don't find it objectionable at all.

I own and enjoy Sigma lenses, just not the 70-200mm lenses.


I did find that the Sigma 70-200mm lenses I tested worked OK at smaller apertures, but I needed a lens of that length and range that could work wide open. The EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM is working very nicely for my application.

If you don't need f2.8, the Canon EF 70-200mm, f4L USM (with or without IS) is a splendid lens at f4 and it is quite a bit lighter than any 70-200mm, f2.8 lens can be. I use a 70-200mm, f4L IS for part of my travel kit which is also useful for outdoor events.

MissB

all of this imput is wonderful!!! Maybe you can direct me to an all purpose fast lens that I could use in low light situations such as wedding ceremonies... I have a few evening weddings coming up in the next 3 months and I am nervous about it. I generally work with available light really well... and often use my 50mm 1.8.. but im sure they don't want me in there face the entire day...lol. So I was looking for something similar to my 1.8 that I could stand back a bit and play "fly on the wall". I have never used my flash with any regularity...as I don't like the light the flash gives off. ... i guess I should probably practice huh How do you use the flash to keep the "flattened out" look from happening...or from black mass shadows. My common sense tells me to move the flash at an angle...and to suppress it with some sort of filter... I don't know much about artificial lighting.

anymore great suggestions?? Products??

ziggy53

MissB wrote:

all of this imput is wonderful!!! Maybe you can direct me to an all purpose fast lens that I could use in low light situations such as wedding ceremonies...

anymore great suggestions?? Products??

For a Canon crop 1.6x camera (Canon 40D for example) and a wedding venue I would use:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM as the primary lens and either:

Canon EF 50mm, f1.4 USM or EF 135mm, f2L USM during the ceremony (along with the 17-55).

I would add the EF 70-200mm, F2.8L USM for longer shots and during the reception if I had to be some distance from the action.

I would use one of the 10-20mm(ish) zooms for some of the establish shots and when there really isn't room to shoot without.

Add a decent flash (or a few) and a few flash modifiers and you're good to go.

I do highly recommend one of the 1D/1Ds series bodies for weddings, with appropriate lenses, as they focus much better in low-light, they are much more responsive overall and they have dual media card write capability for security and redundancy.

Airedrifter

Where are you in the area?
I could let you use a Canon.

I haven't used the Sigma so I don't know what to say about that.

I have progressed through the Canon 70-200s.

I had the F4 first. It is a great lens. Mine was spot on sharp sharp sharp.

It was stolen. I replaced it with the 2.8 with no IS and used it all Summer for whitewater. It too was a great lens. Then my daughter's swimming season started. She made NCAA Nationals that year and I traded in for the IS. It is a fantastic lens.

I wish I could afford the F4 too, for whitewater, as it's not nearly as heavy.

I don't let it out of my sight, so you'll have to be super trustworthy for a borrower. I'm in Leesburg.

Darren Troy C

I own the Sig 70-200mm 2.8 Macro. It's a fantastic lens. Laser-beam sharp and the macro is extremely useful. I shoot a D300 and if I had the money, there's no question I would be shooting the Nikkor VR version. But regardless, I am extremely impressed w/ Sigma's newest 70-200mm 2.8.

MissB

Im going to test drive the canon 70-200 2.8 in a few weeks thanks to a fellow dgrin member.... and if the general functionality works for me... I think I might go ahead and get the sigma..unfortunatly price is still an issue for me seed business.

MissB

Tamron vs Sigma
okay.. so if im going to choose an off brand lens... which is better for the 70-200 2.8 sigma or tamron??

Cygnus Studios

MissB wrote:

okay.. so if im going to choose an off brand lens... which is better for the 70-200 2.8 sigma or tamron??

I currently own the Nikkor, Sigma and Tamron and without a doubt the Sigma is the easy choice.

MissB

wow thats a lot of lenses!!! thanks for the imput!!

kini62

I'd go for a used Canon even if it costs more over a Sigma any day. With a Sigma lens chances are it will need to go in for "calibration" more than once for it to work even half as good as the Canon.

Sigma and Canon do not get along, that, and IMO and IME Sigma lenses are total a POS.

If you aren't shooting a lot sports the Tamron lens has much better IQ and it's not a Sigma so it plays much nicer with Canon bodies.

You can find used Canon 70-200/2.8 non IS lenses in the $850ish range. Well worth the extra couple of hundred over the Sigma.

Gene

MissB wrote:

Oh my goodness Im going search crazy... back to my old fail safe dgrin I just learned about sigma lenses... the price tag is much prettier than canon. I am dreaming about the 70-200 2.8... but the price tag makes it out of reach for sometime... sigma looks like they have version on this lens but I haven't been able to get a sollid comparison answer... is canon pricier because of the brand name..or is it actually and noticeably better??

Also, I am in northern virgina and I would like to rent one to try either sigma or canon... any suggestions of a brick and morter location here...(trying to avoid shipping costs) or local photographer that might be willing to loan me theirs for a short time?? I would be happy to pay for the time borrowed. thank you!!!

Becky