Canon or Sigma?

DanielB

i finally have enough money to buy the Canon 70-200 f/4L. now. do i go with a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, for just 100 more?! or should i go ahead and get the Canon?:dunno read many reviews on the sigma and people say its sharp as a tack. is the 2.8 really that much better for what i'll be shooting?? (football games, portraits outside, some wildlife)

thanks guys:thumb

Daniel

JimM

My thought is the difference between 2.8 and 4 is pretty large, that is an important stop. I would keep checking the reviews.

DanielB

JimM wrote:

My thought is the difference between 2.8 and 4 is pretty large, that is an important stop. I would keep checking the reviews.

i know. what i'm asking is, is the 200 or so dollars really worth it? and should i go for the sigma. because as always i could just sell it and buy a Canon later.

any thoughts?

ziggy53

Daniel,


I have an older Sigma f2.8 that isn't very compatible with Canon digital SLRs, but when it's good, it's very good.

I suggest you get the Sigma if you plan to do any night shooting. The extra f stop helps with shutter speed and stop-action.

Good luck and let us know what you do.

ziggy53

3rdPlanetPhotography

Go for the sigma my friend. If you can go from f4.0 to f2.8 for $100 bucks I'd jump on that. I have a Sigma lens and a Sigma flash. Top notch! Love them both.

:

DoctorIt

the newer Sigma's have none of the problems Ziggy was referring to. The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is an awesome lens. Not as good as the Canon 70-200 f/2.8, but at less than half the price, its a virtual bargain. I opted for the longer reach of the 100-300 f/4 Sigma, and its been one of my favorite lenses. I don't shoot much in low light with it, but I do know that faster aperture is always better.


Sigma's hold their value well enough that you can sell it when you're ready to upgrade to the fast Canon L w/IS.

graeme_7799

Personally, I would go for the sigma 2.8 lens instead. Its a stop faster, uses good glass (obviously not quite as good as the fluorite in the L lens from canon) but none the less is a stellar performer. the color fringes between these two lenses is virtually indistinguishable unless you are using the 16 megapixel monster from canon. i've tried these lenses on my 20D and loved the results.

In favor of Sigma: Stop faster, faster shutter speeds possible

In favor of Canon: fluorite element eliminates all fringes and color abberations

spartan123

I own the Canon 70-200L f/4 & 2.8L IS and my son has the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM. The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 easily holds its own against the Canon lenses. This is one of Sigmas sleeper lenses.

I have had no problems with the lens on any of my Canon cameras be it film or digital.

leebase

Do you understand that "one stop" means "twice the light gathering ability"? When you are shooting sports that extra stop can indeed come in handy.

I have the Sigma -- love it!

BTW, in addition to "low light" -- you have the nice "narrow dof" of f2.8 which helps separate your subject from the background (blurs the background).

In favor of the Canon? Smaller size, $100 cheaper. Not better photos (not that lens anyway). The Sigma is one heavy piece of glass. Worth it, IMO.

Lee

DanielB

I really would go with the sigma. but right now. i REALLY need extra reach right now... so i'm going with the Canon for now. and maybe when i work up 200 or so. i'll sell the Canon and buy up a Sigma. but ya never know


thanks to all you guys

Daniel

Red Bull

I had thought about going for the Sigma, but decided not to....didn't have the money.

I would say wait until you have enough money for either of the lenses and THEN decide. Otherwise you will be stressing about something that you don't have the money for.

My 70-200 f/4 has been ordered.

leebase

DanielB wrote:

I really would go with the sigma. but right now. i REALLY need extra reach right now... so i'm going with the Canon for now. and maybe when i work up 200 or so. i'll sell the Canon and buy up a Sigma. but ya never know

Nothing wrong with that. The Canon f/4 is a nice lens, you may find that you never want or need the Sigma. We all have to choose within our means.

Lee

DanielB

ahhhh sigma, no canon, no sigma...no canon!

i'm just gonna save up until i can buy either, then decide. but from my stand-point at the moment. i'm goin with Sigma. from all the reviews i've read, and my test experience with it. its got B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L Bokeh. and thats what i love . soooo i'll let you guys know if i change my mind.:D *again*


thanks,

Daniel

graeme_7799

i wish sigma had a OS version of their 70-200... that would be nice.

pediwent

I have the Canon and absolutely love it. Sharp even wide open at f/4. I've heard the Sigma is a little soft at f/2.8 (though at least it has it available). You can do a search on "canon sigma 70-200" and come up with a number of reviews including some sample images shot from both lenses.

The conclusion seems to be that image quality between the two is so close as to be negligible. The Canon is supposed to be a hair better on focus speed, accuracy and noise, though again the difference is pretty negligible. It comes down to whether you need the extra stop at the expense of having a large, heavy, and slightly more expensive lens. The Sigma is considerably heavier and larger than the Canon, which means it'll be less comfortable to carry for extended periods and more difficult to handhold. But if you're shooting lots of low light or high action shots, the extra stop may be the difference between getting the shot or not.

One other note, I know nothing of Sigma's customer service, but I had to send the Canon in to get recalibrated (it was backfocusing slightly). They were prompt, courteous, and repaired the lens quickly at no charge. Not solely a reason to buy Canon, but a consideration nonetheless.

pediwent

graeme, I've had my eye on Sigma's 80-400 OS lens and have heard terrific things about it. As soon as I have an extra $1000 laying around (which means not in the near future), I'll pick one up as it seems like a no-brainer against the more expensive Canon 100-400 competitor. It's great to see Sigma integrating OS into it's lenses (and doing it well, from what I've heard) and it'll be nice to see them extending that feature to a broader selection.

binghott

when i was making my 70-200 purchase i had to go through a similar process. i knew i wouldn't be happy with the f4.0 and i just wasn't comfortable with going 3rd party at the time. i wanted to feel what every "L" lens owner feels, knowing that in your hand, you have the best lens you can get. i managed to get the cash for the canon 70-200 f2.8L and it was worth every little penny, it has such a great feel and the pictures are stunning. it's the second best equipment purchase i've made - the best is my tamron 28-75 f2.8, that thing is just incredible and a complete steal.

in my opinion, i haven't tried the sigma, you should keep saving up for the canon 70-200 2.8L, it really is that good. you're 14, you should take some time to learn how to use all of your equipment some more before you make that leap.

i hope that helps

John Mueller

Does Ben have one you can check out:D
I owned both the Sigma 2.8 and Canon 2.8.The Canon was a tad better on the color end and bokeh.
Price wise the Sigma wins.

DanielB

John Mueller wrote:

Does Ben have one you can check out:D
I owned both the Sigma 2.8 and Canon 2.8.The Canon was a tad better on the color end and bokeh.
Price wise the Sigma wins.

'fraid not. i've checked every camera store around. NO ONE carries it. :cry they all have to order it, and then if they do, and i decide i don't like it. well. lets just say they might be a little disgruntled. Not even the Wolf Cameras around locally carry it! jeez. whats a boy to do. lol.

miketaylor01

Sigma.. but im a little biased
I own the Sigma 70-200 and it is by far my favorite lens. Absolutely incredible. I do have to point out though that im a little sigma biased as I shoot with an SD9 and can only shoot sigma lenses, but I do have to say it has never ever let me down. I bought mine used off ebay a year and a half ago, there may be one on there you could get for a steal. Dont be afraid of going "third party" as someone earlier said. Sigma lenses and equipment are top notch. Im sure L would be the best overall for you if price was no issue, but for the price you cant beat sigma lenses.

Poindexter

My Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with 1.4 TC came in last Friday and I've been playing with it all weekend - great lens

It is heavy though. I look at it like this, as I was going through the same debate you are:

vs. the Canon 70-200mm f4L it gives you the extra low light and stopping ability and really isn't "that much more". The f4L is much lighter in weight, if that is a consideration to you.

vs. the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L it is a little bit less and not as "screaming" (my term for white lenses) when out in public. For the same price you can pick up a teleconverter for the Sigma.......and dinner.

vs. the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS is IS really worth almost $1000 more?

vs. the Canon non-L's 70-300mm don't even kid yourself.

SportsShots

I have always stuck with the "L" series lenses. I know that sometimes money is the deciding point even at the sacrifice of quality. IF you are shooting sports, indoor, and/or at night, you will need the 2.8. A 2.8 lens will usually make the difference between a good picture and an awesome picture. Save and wait.

davev

pediwent wrote:

graeme, I've had my eye on Sigma's 80-400 OS lens and have heard terrific things about it. As soon as I have an extra $1000 laying around (which means not in the near future), I'll pick one up as it seems like a no-brainer against the more expensive Canon 100-400 competitor. It's great to see Sigma integrating OS into it's lenses (and doing it well, from what I've heard) and it'll be nice to see them extending that feature to a broader selection.

I'm taking this thread off to a side road for a minute.

I have the Sigma 80-400os. I have read reviews that say it's the best thing
ever. Well, after owning it for a year, I'm not so sure. On still objects, it can
hold its own. On moving things, (BIF) it can be a challenge. The Canon L
has the USM, the Sigma does not. Yes, it makes a difference.
The other thing that I have read about this lens is that it is sharp wide open.
Mine isn't. I shoot at F8, period. I've tried wide open, it isn't good. Maybe
it just my lens, and not all of them.

My shots with this lens are here: http://www.pbase.com/davev/sigma

Now, back to Daniel.
The Canon L lens will hold it's value better than the Sigma.
The 70-200L F4 is a very good lens. I had one and sold it for $20 less
than what I bought it for. If I were to sell my $1000 Sigma lens, I'm sure that
I'm going to lose 150 to 200 dollars.

Get the Canon F4. You will be amazed at how good it is.

P.S. I have a Tokina 400 F5.6 prime. I don't know how this worked on a
film camera, but on my digitals, it is the worst lens ever. It focuses fast,
the pics are fairly sharp wide open, But the CA or Purple Fringe or whatever
you want to call it, is horrible. It dominates the photo.
Stay away from at least this Tokina.

marsmark

I went through this decision about 6 months ago. Compared the Canon 70-200 f4L and f2.8L (tested IS too, but that was out immediately on cost), the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, and the Tokina ATX 828 80-200.

The Tokina came well recommended, but exhibited horrible purple fringing - even on areas with only average brightness and contrast.

The Sigma compared very favorably to the Canons. I couldn't tell the difference between the Canon f4L and the Sigma f2.8. The Canon 2.8L wasn't really any sharper, but I think there was a slight improvement in image brightness (barely).

In the end, I really wanted the extra stop of the 2.8, but couldn't justify the extra $$ for the Canon, so I went with the Sigma. I've been quite happy with it. Other than weight, which has already been mentioned, the only drawback I've experienced really has to do with the 2x teleconverter I bought with it (Sigma). Wide open, the shots come out somewhat soft. Still not bad, though.

-Mark

ziggy53

I just got the Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8 yesterday and it looks like a keeper. I didn't have time to really run it through its paces, but my immediate perception is that with just the center focus dot, on a Canon XT, the focus is fast and accurate and the sharpness at f2.8 is what I would expect from a lens of this caliber, very very nice.

The lens also seems to work well with E-TTL flash, which is not the case with other of my lenses.

ziggy53

ziggy53

The new Sigma 70-200mm lens turned out to be a dud. It couldn't resolve anything close to infinity.

I'll return the lens and ask for another copy as an exchange. I am encouraged by other's experience with this lens, so I hope to get a good one.

I'm out of town right now, but when I get back I'll post examples to show how bad it was (especially compared to a 10 year old Sigma 70-210mm, f2.8.)

ziggy53

DanielB

ziggy53 wrote:

The new Sigma 70-200mm lens turned out to be a dud. It couldn't resolve anything close to infinity.

I'll return the lens and ask for another copy as an exchange. I am encouraged by other's experience with this lens, so I hope to get a good one.

I'm out of town right now, but when I get back I'll post examples to show how bad it was (especially compared to a 10 year old Sigma 70-210mm, f2.8.)

ziggy53

ouch,:uhoh sorry to hear about that ziggy. I have indeed settled on the Sigma 70-200 but i'm still saving my pennies.:D

one question though, how is it that i've seen these for nikon mount sell for the same as the 70-200 f/4L but when i look at them for canon mounts i see them going for 650ish

DoctorIt

DanielB wrote:

ouch,:uhoh sorry to hear about that ziggy. I have indeed settled on the Sigma 70-200 but i'm still saving my pennies.:D

one question though, how is it that i've seen these for nikon mount sell for the same as the 70-200 f/4L but when i look at them for canon mounts i see them going for 650ish

duh, 'cause F-mount is cooler.

next.

DanielB

you can dream all you want erik but it isn't gonna change the bare facts.

Canon > nikon

DoctorIt

DanielB wrote:

you can dream all you want erik but it isn't gonna change the bare facts.

Andy said we could use more of this type of stuff, so in the interest of boosting ratings:

Oh Daniel, you're showing your age. What with your abundant smileys and colored fonts. Hang around you enough and I may end up like Rutt, abhorring all smileys. I may start browsing text-only.

PS. Nikon rulz, Canon droolz.

PPS. I have a 70-200/2.8 and you don't.

PPPS. So there.

graeme_7799

If I'm not mistaken, Sigma released an HSM version of their f/2.8 lens. If that is the case, then go for the Sigma. One stop faster, maintains super fast focussing and like some people said, is less "noisy" because of its white exterior.