Canon or Sigma

ShebaJo · February 3, 2005

:scratch Please tell me which would be better, in your experience or opinion.

Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM Autofocus Lens $675 or the Canon 70-200 F4 L USM for under $600. I am reading good things about the Sigma and like the 2.8, but had decided that I would only do Canon L, wanted at least the 70-200 f/4 L...

So now I need your help...
Canon L 4.0 or Sigma 2.8?

I would love to have the 2.8, just can't afford it the $1200 or $1700 for IS now. And yes, I keep arguing with myself about waiting for at least the 2.8 L without IS.

Thanks Sheila :scratch

John Mueller · February 3, 2005

I have had both the Canon 70-200L f2.8 and sigma.
The Simga was built well and tack sharp!
For the money,go with the sigma!
Just my nickels worth.
Come to think of it,Im going to a camera swap this weekend and may pick up another.:D

Angelo · February 3, 2005

Sigma!

Mongrel · February 3, 2005

Well...
Hi,

If it were me and the choice\choices were:

#1 Sigma f/2.8 vs Canon f/4.0

I'd go with the Sigma

#2 Sigma f/2.8 vs Canon f/2.8

I'd go with Canon

Obviously the difference boils down to what you *can* or *want* to spend. I'm sure if money were no object ALL of us would go with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. But money *is* an object (well for everyone but Andy

), so it makes it a little easier!

I have a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX that I bought used. I recently started having problems with the AF on it. I called Sigma service and the lady basically said "yea, sounds like a stripped gear or maybe a belt. Send it to us and we'll take care of it." She quoted me between $40 to $60 as the 'typical' cost of this type of work and said it would include a 'checkup'. I was pretty impressed with that. We'll see how it works out.

Anyway, I have no real problem with recommending this Sigma, as it's probably *the* or one of *the* best lenses they make.

Take care...

ShebaJo · February 3, 2005

One more question... I have read of problems with Sigma Lens on a 20D, is that something I need to worry about with a new lens?

Thanks Sheila

Mongrel · February 3, 2005

No...
Sheila, as far as I know if you buy a newer Sigma you should have NO problems on your 20D. I have used my 70-200 (which is a 1999 lens), 100-300, a Sigma 1.4x APO EX teleconverter, and a 17-35 Sigma on my 20D and had no problems with them at all as far as function.

OLD Sigma lenses may not work properly on newer Canon bodies, but if the lens is still in production Sigma will re-chip them so that they will be compatible. As far as I know they do this for free.

fish · February 3, 2005

I have no experience with the sigma, but I have both the Canon 70-200/4L and the 70-200/2.8L IS. Both of them are outstanding lenses, with good color, contrast, and sharpness.

I guess if you are deciding between the Canon f4 and the Sigma f2.8, you need to ask yourself if you need the speed of the 2.8.

ShebaJo · February 3, 2005

fish wrote:

I have no experience with the sigma, but I have both the Canon 70-200/4L and the 70-200/2.8L IS. Both of them are outstanding lenses, with good color, contrast, and sharpness.

I guess if you are deciding between the Canon f4 and the Sigma f2.8, you need to ask yourself if you need the speed of the 2.8.

So...the L f4 would be better, unless speed is the biggie? Would quality of the L make up for some of the difference in speed?

Sorry to all the questions, I am new to this, tried reading, read so much, I just need real people info.

marlinspike · February 3, 2005

I've had the sigma 2.8 and have the canon 2.8. Outside of slightly faster AF, I would have stuck with the sigma if sigma could have gotten it (or the lens they replaced it with) to focus properly on my dRebel. Where it did focus it was insanely sharp, but it wasn't where it was supposed to focus. That said, it worked fine on the 20D of the guy who sold it to me and the 1D of the guy I sold it to.
Richard

wxwax · February 3, 2005

Sheba, probably best you hear from folks who actually have the Sigma. Google for reviews. Here are a few links that I found. Lots more out there.

http://www.naturephotographers.net/mg0600-1.html
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=102&sort=7&cat=37&page=1
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

I will say one thing - fast glass is better than slow glass, all other things being equal. The extra speed of a 2.8 is a big deal, in my humble opinion. But only if the image quality is good.

My slowest lens is an f4, and it drives me nuts, sometimes. Faster is always better, once you come to appreciate what it gets you in terms of shutter speed.

Do any stores in your area carry the lenses, allow you to try them?

ShebaJo · February 3, 2005

wxwax wrote:

Sheba, probably best you hear from folks who actually have the Sigma. Google for reviews. Here are a few links that I found. Lots more out there.

http://www.naturephotographers.net/mg0600-1.html
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=102&sort=7&cat=37&page=1
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

I will say one thing - fast glass is better than slow glass, all other things being equal. The extra speed of a 2.8 is a big deal, in my humble opinion. But only if the image quality is good.

My slowest lens is an f4, and it drives me nuts, sometimes. Faster is always better, once you come to appreciate what it gets you in terms of shutter speed.

Do any stores in your area carry the lenses, allow you to try them?

Thanks! The faster is always better helps. I kept fighting with the "L" vs speed of the Sigma.
I wish there were stores here! Closest is Aspen (2.5hrs on good roads) then Denver a 4 hour drive.

) It is really tough deciding via online research and word of others. Sadly, most people seem to have more money than I do.

Mongrel · February 3, 2005

Agree...
I jump back in here to backup what wxwax just said-fast glass is where it's at (for me and many others anyway).

It often seems that every lens I have, even the 'fast' ones can be too slow. There are many advantages to faster glass: brighter viewfinder, faster more accurate auto focus, faster shutter speeds, lower ISO for available light shooting, better bokeh and subject separation for portraits.

I can't speak from experience on the Canon 70-200 f/4, but by all accounts it is a great lens. Very sharp, contrasty, good color etc. But I know in my heart the way I like to use my lenses the f/4 would drive me nuts. I have an f/4 Sigma 100-300. It is a GREAT lens like the Canon f/4-sharp, good contrast, etc. BUT...it's an f/4 and there are times when I'm shooting a game on an overcast day or at dusk when that f/4 really hinders me. I tolerate it because it's pretty much a lens that is only used for one thing-field sports. Now, if I had a much more practical use lens like the 70-200 zoom, which has a much broader application than my 100-300, I'd definately want it to be an f/2.8 (or faster

).

Having said that, YOU need to think about what YOU like to shoot and let that be YOUR guide. It is quite reasonable that an f/4 lens would work for you and work very well. There is NOTHING wrong with that-nothing at all. If that is the case, by the Canon without hesitation if it will work for YOU. The Canon will be a bit lighter than the Sigma, so that may be something to consider.

As someone who has used the Sigma 70-200 EX I have no problem recommending that one either, as it's a great lens as well.

Another thing, don't allow yourself to get too worked up about this. I know I'm guilty of thinking things like this to death-analysis is paralysis. Unless you go out and blow your hard earned cash on a Wal-Mart brand lens, you really can't go wrong with either the Sigma or the Canon in this case.

DoctorIt · February 4, 2005

marlinspike wrote:

I've had the sigma 2.8 and have the canon 2.8. Outside of slightly faster AF, I would have stuck with the sigma if sigma could have gotten it (or the lens they replaced it with) to focus properly on my dRebel. Where it did focus it was insanely sharp, but it wasn't where it was supposed to focus. That said, it worked fine on the 20D of the guy who sold it to me and the 1D of the guy I sold it to.
Richard

uh oh, is this common, or was your Drebel a special case?

Michiel de Brieder · February 4, 2005

My opinion,

I've handled the Sigma once..... I own the Canon f/4.....
To be frank, f/2.8 is awesome, really, but I liked the handling, the bokeh and richness of the Canon. I have no good comparison myself for picture quality, but based on handling I'd choose the Canon...
The f/4 is perhaps a tad slow, agreed, I've thought about it while I had a D30.. Now that I have a 20D I no longer have any gripes with the f/4

Just adding to the confusion lol

marlinspike · February 4, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

uh oh, is this common, or was your Drebel a special case?

I've heard of it before, but it's not universal (i.e. there are people with dRebs and sigma 70-200 2.8s with no problems). For what it's worth, I also tried out the lens on drebels at 2 different Ritz Cameras (well, Wolf camera whatever) and it had the same problem.
Richard

evil eggplant · February 4, 2005

marlinspike wrote:

I've heard of it before, but it's not universal (i.e. there are people with dRebs and sigma 70-200 2.8s with no problems). For what it's worth, I also tried out the lens on drebels at 2 different Ritz Cameras (well, Wolf camera whatever) and it had the same problem.
Richard

I use the 70-200 f/2.8 EX with my 300d. Focuses perfectly, no problems whatsoever. The lens is a *tad* soft at f/2.8. Hardly noticable.

I recommend this lens. Built like a tank, nice fit and finish. Well worth the money.

DoctorIt · February 4, 2005

evil eggplant wrote:

I use the 70-200 f/2.8 EX with my 300d. Focuses perfectly, no problems whatsoever. The lens is a *tad* soft at f/2.8. Hardly noticable.

I recommend this lens. Built like a tank, nice fit and finish. Well worth the money.

i guess i will HAVE to test it before i get one. thanks!

Canon or Sigma

Comments