Sigma vs. Canon 70-200 f/2.8

ddbruce

I have used the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, with amazing results, but I have also used the Canon version. I cannot seem to see any difference, other than the price. Anyone who owns one (or both) please let me know that the up- and down-sides to these lenses are.

Thanks!

angevin1

ddbruce wrote: »

I have used the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, with amazing results, but I have also used the Canon version. I cannot seem to see any difference, other than the price. Anyone who owns one (or both) please let me know that the up- and down-sides to these lenses are.

Thanks!

I don't own either. But what you did, to me at least, is where the rubber meets the road. You compared both and found them equally good.

ziggy53

I tested 2 copies of a previous version of the Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8 EX HSM and, while it tested fine at smaller apertures and at close range, at distance and at f2.8 the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM is just much, much better.

My Sigma saga, with some sample images, starts around post #25 of this thread:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=24116&page=2

In fairness some people have had very good luck with the Sigma zoom.

I have absolutely no regrets about purchasing the Canon and it continues to serve me well.

ThatCanonGuy

I faced the same decision last year, except for me it was Sigma 2.8 vs Canon f4. The Sigma is a few hundred more (at least the non-OS version). I went with the Canon.

Advantages of Sigma: f/2.8, stealth black.

Advantages of Canon: I've heard it has slightly better AF, build etc. Also, it's made by Canon, who knows their EF mount better than Sigma. AF was important to me, so I went with the Canon. I have no regrets (that is a human expression).

Plus I love white lenses, I don't care what people say about all that stealth stuff, if people comment on it then tell them how wonderful it is. I'm tired of all that rubbish about targets for stealing, I like cool expensive-looking Canon stuff.

Sorry, that was my fanboy side D

I'd rather have the Canon for its AF alone, since most of my applications require fast AF tracking. But the Sigma's no slouch.

choudhrysaab

ddbruce wrote: »

I have used the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, with amazing results, but I have also used the Canon version. I cannot seem to see any difference, other than the price. Anyone who owns one (or both) please let me know that the up- and down-sides to these lenses are.

Thanks!

if i were you and both lens compared equally then i'd go for the one that saves me money. i can purchase something else with that.

Brett1000

ddbruce wrote: »

I have used the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, with amazing results, but I have also used the Canon version. I cannot seem to see any difference, other than the price. Anyone who owns one (or both) please let me know that the up- and down-sides to these lenses are.

Thanks!

I would also say if you've used both and find no differences then go with the Sigma.

travischance

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

I faced the same decision last year, except for me it was Sigma 2.8 vs Canon f4. The Sigma is a few hundred more (at least the non-OS version). I went with the Canon.

Advantages of Sigma: f/2.8, stealth black.

Advantages of Canon: I've heard it has slightly better AF, build etc. Also, it's made by Canon, who knows their EF mount better than Sigma. AF was important to me, so I went with the Canon. I have no regrets (that is a human expression).

Plus I love white lenses, I don't care what people say about all that stealth stuff, if people comment on it then tell them how wonderful it is. I'm tired of all that rubbish about targets for stealing, I like cool expensive-looking Canon stuff.

Sorry, that was my fanboy side D

I'd rather have the Canon for its AF alone, since most of my applications require fast AF tracking. But the Sigma's no slouch.

borrowlenses.com

The difference is in two years the Sigma will stop working and the Canon will not. Plus I believe the Canon has faster auto-focus but we don't carry the Sigma version any more; too many problems.