| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/23/2007 07:45:43 AM · #1 |
Hi all,
I'm looking at the following for my 400D:
Canon 70-200mm F/4L - $810AU
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX APO DG MACRO HSM - ~$1000AU
Just looking for general opinions as to what I should go for, the little bit of research I've done has confused me. I am somewhat of a beginner, so the lense would be a "general purpose" type thing.
Should I be concerned about the chances of getting backfocusing issues with the Canon lense?
Is the quality margin between the Sigma and the Canon lense that large?
Basically only considering the Sigma because my father works at a company which imports Sigma gear so I may be able to get it cheaper. The camera guy there told my father you would only notice the difference between a Canon and a Sigma if you blew the images up to billboard size. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but if so then it would make sense to get the cheaper lense as none of my pictures will occupy any billboards anytime soon.
Any advice would be appreciated :) Hoping to have the lense by thursday for my mates snowboarding demo. |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 08:34:27 AM · #2 |
Try here for a comparision
Compare sigma & cannon
Might be helpful
|
|
|
|
08/23/2007 08:47:08 AM · #3 |
When I owned the 70-200 f4L I quickly decided that F4 wasn't all that great and I used it at 200mm almost all of the time.
I now own the Canon 200mm 2.8 L - it's only $660.00
Primes aren't for everyone, but you can't go wrong with this lens.
Non-Canon lenses are usually slower to focus, and will hunt a bit more than a Canon lens (or a Nikon lens on a Nikon body) |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 08:51:06 AM · #4 |
It's a $1000 aus - here but still in your budget
|
|
|
|
08/23/2007 08:54:46 AM · #5 |
The Sigma is a wonderful lens. nuff said.
*edit* I can't spell
Message edited by author 2007-08-23 08:55:07. |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 09:00:45 AM · #6 |
If you shoot mostly in low light - ie indoors - get the Sigma. It will probably make you happier as it is slightly more versatile.
On the other hand, if you want sharpness, and you shoot outdoors (aka, mostly above f/5.6), in situations where 200mm is long enough, the f/4 should do ya.
I believe that where optics are concerned, the 70-200 is easily a match for the Sigma. Where low light is concerned, f/2.8 can be pretty important.
I shoot the 80-200 f/2.8L and I use it wide open a lot. Were this not the case, I'm sure I'd be happy with either of your listed choices. |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 07:54:21 PM · #7 |
Hi,
I recently bought the Sigma lens, 2nd hand from Ebay. Yes, it's the newer Macro version. I'm not sure yet if I have a bad copy. This lens gets very good reviews, but I'm not totally happy with it. I'm not sure if I'm being super critical, or if I have a bad one. I'm waiting for someone else to get one, so I can see some test shots to compare. Prior to my purchase, the new Macro version wasn't listed on DPC, so I'm the only registered user of this lens. I think there are probably others around, but they chose the non-macro version in their profiles.
This lens is certainly very nice to use. Fast autofocus, very smooth and quiet. It's heavy, but I haven't found that to be a problem yet. IS would be really really nice, but that's waaay out of my price range.
Under the right conditions, it takes beautiful photos, but I can also easily get mine to take shockingly useless photos under very specific conditions. However, I still haven't had another of the same lens to compare to.
If you do get the Sigma, I'm sure you'll be happy as everyone else is with it, and if you do get it, get in touch, so I can give you some specific test shots to compare to mine, so I can show Sigma that yours works, and get them to fix mine. :)
(Edit - I talked to  nickp37, and he seems to have the same issues with the Sigma as I do)
Message edited by author 2007-08-23 22:21:53. |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 08:19:38 PM · #8 |
I have both lenses.
They are both good, but right now I'm considering selling both for a Canon 2.8 IS. The f/4 was my first L series and I still love the lens. I mostly shoot sports, and I got the sigma for indoor sports. Together they are ok, but I wouldn't use the sigma for outdoor sports in contrasty light due to slow (compared to the canon) focus, less accurate colors (personal preference), and that it isn't as sharp as the canon, and I wouldn't use the canon in low light.
They both are very good. The Sigma is a great choice if you need 2.8 and can't afford the Canon 2.8. If you don't need 2.8, however, I would whole-heartedly endorse the f/4.
|
|
|
|
08/23/2007 09:15:07 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by thomasfuller:
Should I be concerned about the chances of getting backfocusing issues with the Canon lense? |
No. This is the most overblown phenomenon ever to see the insides of Internet forums. |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 09:28:47 PM · #10 |
| What about the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM? It's around 1000 USD |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 09:59:20 PM · #11 |
I got the 4L 70-200m from Amazon for 600 beans. Not sure where you so 800 but I would do a pricegrabber check or two.
I have to say that I do really love it.
|
|
|
|
08/23/2007 10:04:39 PM · #12 |
Your profile says planet Earth, which I'm guess is probably somewhere in the US. Note the AU after the prices he's listed. One AU is worth about .82 beans. The prices he's given are actually about 20% below most Australian retail prices, so if it's a local source, his prices are actually very good on both those lenses compared to retail. :)
Message edited by author 2007-08-23 22:05:16. |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 10:16:45 PM · #13 |
I'd have to agree with Hopper here-- having used the 70-200 F/4L -- I almost always found I was using it @200.. And sometimes wishing I had the 2.8 option vs F4.
Optically the prime 200 is said to be about as sharp as any lens on the market, and its pretty damn cheap when comparing the other 70-200 options--
Sports?
Portraits?
Candid Portraits-- I really love this shot btw!!
|
|
|
|
08/25/2007 12:28:41 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by hopper:
When I owned the 70-200 f4L I quickly decided that F4 wasn't all that great and I used it at 200mm almost all of the time.
I now own the Canon 200mm 2.8 L - it's only $660.00
Primes aren't for everyone, but you can't go wrong with this lens.
Non-Canon lenses are usually slower to focus, and will hunt a bit more than a Canon lens (or a Nikon lens on a Nikon body) |
Is this a good lense without the IS? 200 too long to go without the IS? |
|
|
|
08/25/2007 12:30:14 AM · #15 |
| If you can afford the IS version, get it. |
|
|
|
08/25/2007 06:23:49 AM · #16 |
| I have f/2.8 that I often use in lower light. I've shot 1/125, but the hit rate is pretty low (less than one in six even when I'm being careful). Best to shoot up near 1/320 IMHO. That's pretty fast. If you are being careful and you have IS, you can get away with a LOT. |
|
|
|
08/25/2007 10:04:56 AM · #17 |
I use a monopod often, but honestly I'm never thinking to myself, "man I wish I had IS".
In the future I plan to buy the 400mm 5.6L which does not have IS and I'm not worried about it at all.
Image Stabilization is expensive. It's awesome, but expensive. I can live without it.
Originally posted by bgreene:
Is this a good lense without the IS? 200 too long to go without the IS? |
|
|
|
|
09/21/2007 01:07:59 PM · #18 |
I know this thread is pretty much dead, but I feel I need to make an update/correction.
I did experiance problems with the Sigma 70-200, but I may have been a bit unfair. I've been using the sigma more lately, and I'm getting to like it! The colors are different, but since I shoot raw, that's not really much of an issue. Most of the problems I encountered came from two issues; using the sigma with a tamron 1.4TC (as opposed to the canon with the same TC), and possible (likely) miscalibration.
I recently got the 1DMK111 which has AF microajustment. After making a +18 adjustment for the sigma lens, the focus is awesome! I imagine if I had sent the lens for recalibration, it would have solved that issue with other bodies. I am noticing a slight vignetting at 200/2.8, but it's not too bad on a 1.3x crop sensor, and probably wouldn't even show up on a 1.6x.
Overall, I'd adjust my original opinion to recommend the Sigma, but be aware of the possible need to get the lens calibrated.
Originally posted by nickp37:
I have both lenses.
They are both good, but right now I'm considering selling both for a Canon 2.8 IS. The f/4 was my first L series and I still love the lens. I mostly shoot sports, and I got the sigma for indoor sports. Together they are ok, but I wouldn't use the sigma for outdoor sports in contrasty light due to slow (compared to the canon) focus, less accurate colors (personal preference), and that it isn't as sharp as the canon, and I wouldn't use the canon in low light.
They both are very good. The Sigma is a great choice if you need 2.8 and can't afford the Canon 2.8. If you don't need 2.8, however, I would whole-heartedly endorse the f/4. |
|
|
|
|
09/21/2007 07:26:12 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by hopper:
When I owned the 70-200 f4L I quickly decided that F4 wasn't all that great and I used it at 200mm almost all of the time.
I now own the Canon 200mm 2.8 L - it's only $660.00
Primes aren't for everyone, but you can't go wrong with this lens.
Non-Canon lenses are usually slower to focus, and will hunt a bit more than a Canon lens (or a Nikon lens on a Nikon body) |
ya, i use the 70-200 f/4 and find that i am always in 200. i am really rethinking going down to the 200 fixed, but i will probly get go for the 100-400. give that a thought, its bout 2wice the cash, but you get all the ranges that you could possibly need. just my 2 cents(: |
|
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: 09/14/2025 11:14:57 AM EDT.
