Buying question: Canon 70-200/2.8 vs. the rest

Manfr3d

Hi!

While being happy with fixed focal length lenses,
I am now seriously considering to buy a fast 70-200mm
lens for backpacking in order to save weight and gain
some more versatility when photographing. I try to use
a tripod whenever possible so the new lens defenitly
needs a tripod collar. After researching I narrowed
my selection down to the Canon 70-200mm/2.8 L USM
and the Sigma 70-200mm/2.8 EX HSM. The Canon 70-200mm/4.0
is only 100 bucks cheaper than the Sigma after buying
the seperatly sold tripod collar for it, so it doesnt make
much sense. My question is now: is the extra 400 bucks
worth the step from the sigma to the canon? What's
your recommendation?

Any advices on this are very welcome.

Chase

Manfr3d wrote:

Hi!

While being happy with fixed focal length lenses,
I am now seriously considering to buy a fast 70-200mm
lens for backpacking in order to save weight and gain
some more versatility when photographing. I try to use
a tripod whenever possible so the new lens defenitly
needs a tripod collar. After researching I narrowed
my selection down to the Canon 70-200mm/2.8 L USM
and the Sigma 70-200mm/2.8 EX HSM. The Canon 70-200mm/4.0
is only 100 bucks cheaper than the Sigma after buying
the seperatly sold tripod collar for it, so it doesnt make
much sense. My question is now: is the extra 400 bucks
worth the step from the sigma to the canon? What's
your recommendation?

Any advices on this are very welcome.

You might find the IS extremely valuable if you decide to go for the canon one....when you start shooting at f8 and f11, that nice high shutterspeed all of a sudden drops into un hand holdability if you are using it for landscapes. Personally for me though, I find that the canon 70-200 2.8s give the most gorgeous colors straihgt out of the camera of any lens I use. The sigma is no slouch from what Ive seen, it just doesnt quite stack up in terms of colors....so you have to ask yourself if 400 dollars is worth colors and no threat of compatibility issues as sometimes happens with sigmas......

Check out the review section of www.photozone.de ..... some great lens tests on there.

ziggy53

Manfr3d,

I tried 2 copies of the Sigma earlier this year, and found both were undesirable at 200mm, infinity and wide open. I wound up buying the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L, non-IS version and, I have to admit, it is the one lens I feel is really worth the extra money.

(Other folks are very pleased with the Sigma, and it tests well, so it might have been a QC problem.)

Color and contrast are just beautiful and the thing is sharp as I need from f4 through f11. f2.8 is usable for all but the most critical work at large sizes. Bokeh wide open is very nice, but I've seen some better.

The 70mm end is very useful as a portrait lens. Be aware that at the closest focus distance (but not right at the limit), my copy is soft. I have to give it plenty of distance to work well.

Mounted on an XT, the lens has so much mass that I feel the mirror slap is reduced considerably.

You mention backpacking and these are very heavy lenses, both the Sigma and the Canon, that most will tire of. Then again Ansel packed a large format camera into the Sierras with a large tripod to boot, so it's a "relative" thing. (Take a large-ish "relative" with you to carry stuff, and you'll be fine. )

Some tests here:

http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/gallery/1269595

Note especially the crops of the stop sign and the street sign. You will see a slight "ringing" image in the high contrast areas on the Sigma test.

Best,

ziggy53

Manfr3d

Thanks for the reviews link Chase.
In the beginning of my research,
the IS feature was really tempting
indeed, but I couldn't justify the
extra expense. After all I still
love my tripod : and I will still
need it for the other lenses in my
bag.

Ziggy, you are right about the hefty
weight of these lenses, but I will be
able to leave the 85, 135 and the 200
at home, and not have to switch lenses
as often. Sure I could instead carry
a 70-200/f4 but then f4 makes the lens
again, less versatile. It's all a trade-
off, I guess.

Finally, the color and contrast you both
mentioned are important enough for me to
go for a Canon. Reading the review from
photozone it (again) showed that the non-IS
version is resoulution wise a bit better
with its less optical elements, when used
on a tripod. And this is the way I'll be using
it most of the time. :

Thanks for your advices!

gus

Manfr3d wrote:

The Canon 70-200mm/4.0
is only 100 bucks cheaper than the Sigma after buying
the seperatly sold tripod collar for it, so it doesnt make
much sense.

It does if you read articles & talk to owners of the 70-200 f/4. Its regarded as possibly canons sharpest zoom & that backed up with canons great use of high ISO...it makes it one amazing lens. At the risk of copping the heat from 70-200 sigma owners...i have never been impressed with what i have seen from it.

Manfr3d

gus wrote:

It does if you read articles & talk to owners of the 70-200 f/4. Its regarded as possibly canons sharpest zoom & that backed up with canons great use of high ISO...it makes it one amazing lens. At the risk of copping the heat from 70-200 sigma owners...i have never been impressed with what i have seen from it.

That's actually true.

I was more focusing on the extra f-fstop that the Sigma offers for a
100 more. Meaning that the f4 I didn't make sense for me in that case.

Cameron

Manfr3d wrote:

That's actually true.

I was more focusing on the extra f-fstop that the Sigma offers for a
100 more. Meaning that the f4 I didn't make sense for me in that case.

The other difference is that the Sigma weighs 565 grams more (~1.2 lbs!). So, it's $100 more and 1.2lbs more for 1 extra stop. To many it IS worth it but weight/portability matters more to some than others - it's a trade-off as you mentioned previously.

Just to compare weights:
Canon EF 70-200 f/4: 705g (1.55lb)
Sigma AF 70-200 f/2.8: 1270g (2.79lb)
Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8: 1310g (2.88lb)
Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS: 1470g (3.23lb)

claudermilk

I can only add positive comments on the Canon offerings. I've used several copies of the 70-200/2.8 IS, and one of the f4. Every one of them was a spectacular lens (and one was a well-used rental to boot!). The IS version is currently at the top of my to-get list based on my experience with the borrowed/rented ones. There is a significant size & weight difference between the f4 and f2.8 IS--this won't stop me from hiking that monster around though.

ScottMcLeod

I guess I'll be the first to talk anything good about the sigma...

I bought mine last week for about 800$CDN, and haven't turned back since. Mine's an older non-DG version, but i'm convinced it's a damn sharp copy.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=309505

Everything that's non-wide was shot with the Sigma, at 1/20-1/90th of a second.

In my head, I can't tell myself that the Canon can do 600$ better than that. I can't possibly imagine what 600$ worth of better quality on those images would be, especially when the lighting is limited like that.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=34154

Check out shot #5 (shot #6 was ruined by my stupidity and not paying attention to shutter speed)

But hey... it's your money. If you want to dish out an extra 600$ for a red ring and white body, be my guest. Canon'll love you for it.

gus

Manfr3d wrote:

That's actually true.

I was more focusing on the extra f-fstop that the Sigma offers for a
100 more. Meaning that the f4 I didn't make sense for me in that case.

Do you understand ISO ?

Steve Cavigliano

I'm with Scott on this one. Not about the $600 difference. I believe the non-IS Canon is only about $300 more.

Like Scott, I really like my Sigma 70-200. The color and contrast are just fine IMO.

Here's a gallery of large size images, taken with the Sigma.

http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/gallery/1220621

Steve

Manfr3d

gus wrote:

Do you understand ISO ?

ISO doesn't give me shallow DOF.

ziggy53

ScottMcLeod wrote:

I guess I'll be the first to talk anything good about the sigma...

I bought mine last week for about 800$CDN, and haven't turned back since. Mine's an older non-DG version, but i'm convinced it's a damn sharp copy.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=309505

Everything that's non-wide was shot with the Sigma, at 1/20-1/90th of a second.

In my head, I can't tell myself that the Canon can do 600$ better than that. I can't possibly imagine what 600$ worth of better quality on those images would be, especially when the lighting is limited like that.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=34154

Check out shot #5 (shot #6 was ruined by my stupidity and not paying attention to shutter speed)

But hey... it's your money. If you want to dish out an extra 600$ for a red ring and white body, be my guest. Canon'll love you for it.

Scott,

To be clear, I was not running down the Sigma. I really wanted to have one so that I would have some extra money to purchase something else. (I had gotten a Christmas gift of cash that would have more than covered the Sigma. The Canon cost a bit more than the gift.)

I have an older version of the Sigma, around 10 years old, that only works at f2.8, and it doesn't focus as fast as current offerings. The glass itself is amazingly sharp.

I'm glad that your lens is sharp and I'll bet that I just got a couple of duds.

Thanks,

ziggy53

ziggy53

Manfr3d wrote:

ISO doesn't give me shallow DOF.

... and sometimes that extra stop means the difference in shutter speed as well. In HS football, many of the smaller fields are at least one stop less light at night, and I really wish I had something around f2.

You won't regret the f2.8 version except for its weight.

ziggy53

gus

Manfr3d wrote:

ISO doesn't give me shallow DOF.

Thats ok...just that sometimes we get newbies coming to the board that have read enough to be able to speak a bit but have little idea about what they are saying. Its better if we understand their camera knowledge prior to advising.

leebase

I had nothing bad to say about my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 -- love the lens. Until I got a 5D -- and there is signficant vignetting. Don't know if the Canon fares as badly, but for the FIRST time, I'm thinking of selling the Sigma and acquiring the Canon.

For backpacking and landscapes -- I'd get the IS version and leave the tripod at home.

Lee

ziggy53

Here is a link to some HS football I shot last year with the ten year old Sigma 70-210mm, f2.8

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=19742

and here is a link to StevenV's site with football images shot with a newer Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8

http://miltonsports.smugmug.com/Football