| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/22/2005 09:33:19 PM · #1 |
Which is the better choice for the same price...
sigma 70-200 f2.8
canon 70-200 f4L
I realize the canon is white (*drool*) and L glass, but is it worth the same price as the faster sigma? I don't see how the optics could be all that much better for the extra speed you'd gain...thoughts?
|
|
|
|
06/22/2005 09:37:06 PM · #2 |
well... the 2.8 has a whole extra stop! The white draws a lot more attention. It's lighter than the sigma which isn't a big deal depending how much you shoot. I think my 3lb lens is fine for handholding. Sharpness is almost a draw. Focus speed goes to the canon but the sigma is still fast, don't let anyone kid you about that. There is truer color with the canon but it's easily correctable in post if you go with the sigma. I think the sigma is a great lens and i'd push you in that direction.
ps: I'm not sure about the canon... but the sigma comes with a tripod collar too ;-)
|
|
|
|
06/22/2005 09:41:04 PM · #3 |
Out of the two, if you can get the new DG version of the Sigma, I'd go for that to get the f2.8.
I hear that the DG version allows for more accurate colors.
As for optics, I don't think you'd be able to tell them apart if you took two pics with the lenses and printed 11x14's to compare.
As for which is better for you depends on a few factors.
Do you worry about future compatibility?
Do you need/want f2.8?
Does higher weight matter to you?
Message edited by author 2005-06-22 21:42:35.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2005 09:41:23 PM · #4 |
I've never tried the Sigma, but the 1 extra stop is a nice bonus. For my purposes I did not need the extra stop. I love the Canon. It's fast, sharp and well built. Best $560 I spent.
The Canon does not need the tripod collar. The lens is really light. This was one of the questions I asked before I bought the lens. The canon tripod collar is about $100 to add.
IMO, if you don't need the extra stop, I'd say go with the Canon. You will not be dissapointed.
Good Luck!! |
|
|
|
06/22/2005 09:56:46 PM · #5 |
| I will never ever ever buy less than "L" grade glass again!!!!! (I have the 70-200 2.8 tho') |
|
|
|
06/22/2005 11:06:50 PM · #6 |
I'm not concerned with weight. I'm pretty strong and have no problems whatsoever hand-holding anything...I think I have steady hands.
I can't say I need, or don't need, the extra stop of the 2.8, but what's to say it's not going to come in handy, you know? It'd be nice to have it there.
yido mentioned future compatability...is it possible the Sigma won't be compatable with future Canon's (such as the 20d replacement or so on) -- whereas the Canon L lens will definately be compatable?
|
|
|
|
06/22/2005 11:15:05 PM · #7 |
deapee,
Old Sigma lenses have had compatibility issues with new dSLR's. They read "error 99" and the lens won't work. You can send it in and Sigma will rechip the lens for you to work with your current camera for free. Once I heard that this wasn't possible on a lens (must have been a very old one). So many years down the road, it may be possible that the Sigma may not be compatible with a Canon body and it may not be correctible.
As for having a f2.8, I've the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L lens and I like the weight and having a f2.8 for portraits. I would have gotten the Sigma but got tired of waiting for the DG version and got the Canon instead. I think I'd be just as happy with the Sigma if I had gotten that.
If I were you, I'd opt for the Sigma then, as long as possibility of incompatibility doesn't bother you. It hasn't bothered me, as I've bought two Sigma lenses for my DR.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2005 11:15:23 PM · #8 |
Usually sigma will rechip a lens for you if it's not working. I don't know if there will really be compatability issues tho...
|
|
|
|
06/22/2005 11:41:29 PM · #9 |
| the sigma is 200-300 more, i would go for the Canon...the f/4 70-200 is my next lens here coming pretty soon. |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 07:57:14 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by kjennings:
the sigma is 200-300 more, i would go for the Canon...the f/4 70-200 is my next lens here coming pretty soon. |
Which is the better choice for the same price... <-- Did you read?
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 08:00:27 AM · #11 |
sigma faster, cheaper, not as good quality manufacture.
canon slower, not cheap, excellent manufacture quality.
hmmmmmmmmmm.........thinking.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 09:21:24 AM · #12 |
I own the sigma 70-200mm 2.8 ex. Honestly I'm not a very good photographer so I dont know how good it really is. I bought it cuz I needed a zoom lens that was good. The lens is of excellent quality as far the construction. As for the usage I said I suck so I dont really know if I even know how to really use it. Still in experimental stages.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 09:31:07 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by hdogg4u:
I own the sigma 70-200mm 2.8 ex. Honestly I'm not a very good photographer so I dont know how good it really is. I bought it cuz I needed a zoom lens that was good. The lens is of excellent quality as far the construction. As for the usage I said I suck so I dont really know if I even know how to really use it. Still in experimental stages. |
You are to modest. Your portfolio looks worlds better then mine.
Anyway, back to the original poster...
If you can, see if you can test both lenses on your camera prior to purchase. This is likely possible if you are buying from a local shop, if not, then I don't know what else to suggest right now. |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 09:51:38 AM · #14 |
| One thing that might be worth considering (aside from the obvious low light and shallow DOF advantages) is that the Sigma at f/2.8 will allow you to use a 2X teleconverter and still autofocus. With the Canon f/4 you're limited to a 1.4X TC unless you focus manually. |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 10:00:51 AM · #15 |
The f/2.8 Sigma will be a fair bit heavier than the f/4 Canon, but personally I would go for the Sigma if that was my price range.
(I have the 70-200/2.8L.)
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 10:08:09 AM · #16 |
The Sigma is a nice lens - I've used that one a fair bit (all my Ryder Cup pics were taken (handheld) with that lens). With that said, how are getting an $840 Sigma for the same price as a $550 Canon? Is the Sigma used? If so, the condition it's in would be one factor to consider. Other than that, if you plan on shooting indoor sports, the faster Sigma will be far better (that's the reason my bro bought the Sigma). If you are only going to use the lens outside in decent light, I doubt you'll see much difference.
My two cents. |
|
|
|
06/28/2005 05:50:05 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
One thing that might be worth considering (aside from the obvious low light and shallow DOF advantages) is that the Sigma at f/2.8 will allow you to use a 2X teleconverter and still autofocus. With the Canon f/4 you're limited to a 1.4X TC unless you focus manually. |
not on a 1 series body tho, if there is an upgrade down the road that is...
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 02:25:08 PM EDT.
