Canon 70-200 2.8 VS Sigma 70-200 2.8

10/17/2005 06:22:33 AM · #1

Any thoughts on this?

I realize that the sigma doesn't come in a IS version.. but it is also considerably cheaper. An allright tradeoff? Any thoughts?

goc

Apple iPhone 4

10/17/2005 07:03:19 AM · #2

AFAIK, canon is much much faster
read the reviews

10/17/2005 07:09:03 AM · #3

Yes I have been reading the review, but I was looking for more thoughts.

10/17/2005 07:18:03 AM · #4

Review on Photnet
Nature Photographers
Photography on the Net
Camera Hacker
Photography review Canon

Just to name a few.

And i think you might be juming the guns a bit saying the canon is MUCH faster... especially on a rebel. It is a combination of the camera and lens that determines the focus speed. On a 1D model, perhaps you could notice a difference, but on prosumer models.. not a chance (or so what I have gathered from the reviews I have read)

Message edited by author 2005-10-17 07:18:24.

Telehubbie

Canon EOS-40D

10/17/2005 07:24:07 AM · #5

Sigma's is black. It might get mistaken for that other brand of camera that starts with an "N". ;-) Seriously though, I haven't compared much with the Sigma, but I will say that the Canon 70-200IS is awesome! There's a lot more to the IS lens than just the IS too, it's totally redesigned.

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

10/17/2005 07:24:18 AM · #6

Am thinking maybe the sigma is the better deal... but the IS on the canon is attractive. I am not sure the IS is worth the $900 differance though. However I do plan on shooting in low like, such as concerts and the like like, not to mention indoor sports.
The thing with indoor sports however, is that the shutter speed is usually high enough to counter any camera shake.

coolhar

10/17/2005 08:39:31 AM · #7

I've had the Sigma for a couple of weeks and am very pleased with it. The sharpness and build quality are great. As far as I can tell, the focusing speed is fine even thought it may be measurably slower than the Canon as some of the reviews indicate. I use mine to shoot bursts of sports action shots. I doesn't seem any slower than my Canon 300mm.

Shooting with Image Stabilization in low or marginal light situations will greatly reduce blur caused by camera movement while the shutter is open. But it will not affect exposure. You are still shooting in low light, just with a slightly steadier hand.

10/17/2005 09:15:50 AM · #8

Originally posted by coolhar:

Shooting with Image Stabilization in low or marginal light situations will greatly reduce blur caused by camera movement while the shutter is open. But it will not affect exposure. You are still shooting in low light, just with a slightly steadier hand.

Exactly, which is why shooting sports is not such a big deal with no IS, because there isn't much camera shake to start with, so the IS doesn't really improve anything.. however for band photography, it might come in handy... hmmmmmm

yido

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

10/17/2005 12:01:35 PM · #9

photozone.de has reviews including MTF charts on the Sigma 70-200 and all three variations of Canon's 70-200 lenses.

Prof_Fate

10/17/2005 12:11:53 PM · #10

Optically, I doubt you'll ever know hte difference.
If you frequent wet environments, or travel by camel, then the sealed L lens may be worth more to you. If you use it like a pro, abuse it like a pro, then spend like a pro.

My take on IS is - expensive, something to break, and of the couple if IS lenses i have held, HEAVY.

If you are in low light and at 200 zoom, then IS may be a lifesaver, elswise you'll need to keep the shutter above 1/200 or 1/250. If you are a regular monopod or tripod user, then IS matters less. If you are shooting sports or action form the sidelines in twilight, then yeah, IS would be invaluable.

The canon is not, and is not likley to be, an option for me. $900 is a chunk of change in my world. It would get me lots of photo gear that would be used more often than the IS feature (a 10-22 lens, a macro lens, backdrop, reflectors, filters, etc).

You can probably one day sell the L lens for what you have in it, while the sigma will sell for slightly less, BUT, are you planning to sell the lenses anytime soon, or change camera systems, etc? If you are keeping the lens for 10 years, the 'loss' of cash is minimal, while the additional investment is not (lose $100 over ten years in resale or earn interest on $900 over ten years...)

setiprime

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

10/17/2005 01:16:37 PM · #11

LEAF - I own both versions of the 70/200 L

I shoot horse events and indoor/outdoor sports.

My 70/200 2.8 with IS is my main lens now. The IS does matter if you are in a short-tight tracking movement, or a windy day, it can save your shot. It will get you a stop or 2 in low light. It gets hard use and just comes back for more. I shoot for money so any edge I can get, I use it !

Message edited by author 2005-10-17 13:17:02.

10/18/2005 03:15:07 AM · #12

Thanks for the posts.
Yeah it is a tough decision.

And setiprime... we should talk :) I also do indoor/outdoor sports (in norway). I would be interested in comparing setups and such things.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

10/18/2005 03:24:28 AM · #13

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Optically, I doubt you'll ever know hte difference....

Uh I beg to differ! The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is perhaps the BEST zoom ever made, sharp throughout the whole range even when wide open at f/2.8. The Bokeh is out of this world, helped by circular aperture blades and the IS is phenomenal. Even shooting sports at high shutter speeds the IS will give you a distinct advantage over a non-IS lens, not to mention IS mode 2 which stabilizes in one axis only to allow for smooth panning...

pgatt

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

10/18/2005 03:57:19 AM · #14

I think I've made my mind up on the IS but that's only my 2cents (from a currently non-dslr person)

LindaLee

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/18/2005 04:53:30 AM · #15

I've been shooting with the Sigma for over a year. I love it, get great sharp images out of it, and it is wonderful in low light.

I shot a concert with it in March, and got some great shots, BUT, the majority of the shots were not very sharp. I had the ISO at 1600, but even at that, I would have been better off with a tripod.

SO, since I shoot 99% handheld, and very often in low light, I have indeed found myself thinking that IS would be a benefit. I am now seriously in the market for the Canon, just trying to figure out how to pay for it.

(Wanna buy a Sigma???!!)

Linda

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/18/2005 08:26:54 AM · #16

While I'd love to have the 70-200 F/2.8L, I can't afford it. I have $1500 coming in to spend for lenses and the motor on 17-35 died on Saturday. The 70-200 f/4 is too slow and heavy. I have read good reviews on the new 70-300 IS (not DO) so I'm going to try that out. Yes, its not an L lens, but $650 compared to $1600...

I'm kind of mad at Sigma right now so not even considering their lens. I'd love to get Canon's 10-22 but its an S mount. When I upgrade my camera to full frame it's gonna be useless...

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

10/18/2005 09:26:03 AM · #17

I am surprised at how widespread the misunderstanding about IS is, even among owners of Canon's most expensive cameras. IS will not make low light shots look like there is more light. You need a flash for that. What it will do is reduce blur in shots that suffer from camera movement. A shot that would appear blurry and underexposed because of camera movement and low light will still be underexposed with IS, it just won't be as blurry. And the notion that IS makes a difference at high shutter speeds is preposterious. Any shutter speed of two times focal length or faster is not going to be improved by the use of IS.

Message edited by author 2005-10-18 09:48:07.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/18/2005 09:31:57 AM · #18

I am not in the opinion that people are misunderstanding what IS does. I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying when they make a statement like 'I need IS because I shoot in low light situations'

I make a statement like this because IS allows me to shoot at a slower speed and therefor makes it possible to get 'more light' out of a scene (because of the 2 stops slower I can shoot). I am not sure anyone thinks that IS somehow PUTS light into the scene by itself, or in anyway makes the image brighter.

LindaLee

Canon EOS-40D

10/18/2005 10:58:33 AM · #19

What leaf said - these are my thoughts exactly.

Message edited by author 2005-10-18 10:59:09.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/18/2005 11:22:53 AM · #20

I need IS because of the weight of the lens. If I'm in low light, I use a tripod - not a problem. I'm not looking for stop action here. If I need a 1/2000 shutter speed, IS won't help at all. But, if I can't hold the F2.8 IS for long periods of time, it would be worthless too. On a cloudy day at 200 ISO and 1/200sec at 300mm, I have a better chance of getting a decent image with IS on an F4 lens than without it. That's all. Add the extra weight of the 70-200 F/4 lens with a tele and no IS and I really have almost no chance of a decent image.

Brent_Ward

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

10/18/2005 11:33:35 AM · #21

Originally posted by coolhar:

Silly man. Just because you use a fast shutter speed doesn't mean you can't have camera movement show up. It's less likely, but not impossible. Think fast panning...

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

10/18/2005 12:12:49 PM · #22

Originally posted by coolhar:

...And the notion that IS makes a difference at high shutter speeds is preposterious. Any shutter speed of two times focal length or faster is not going to be improved by the use of IS.

Uh you got pretty steady hands that don't get tired after hours of handholding 6+ lbs of equipment and you don't pan so you don't need IS...

hankk