DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Canon 70-200 F4L or Sigma 70-200 F2.8
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 22 of 22, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/11/2011 06:05:54 PM · #1
I̢۪m looking to upgrade my Canon 75-300 mkIII tomorrow to either a Canon 70-200 F4L or a Sigma 70-200 F2.8, both are around the same price and are without image stabilisation. I have looked at the image stabilised versions which are double the price and right now I don̢۪t want to pay that kind of money.

Does anyone have experience of either of these lenses? I have read the reviews which both seem positive but if anyone out there has either of the lenses or an opinion on which would be better I would be interested in your thoughts.

The lens will be a general purpose lens and not one for anything in particular, although it will get a lot of use at Athletics meetings.
06/11/2011 06:21:22 PM · #2
If the athletics meetings are outdoors, go for the Canon. It's famously sharp and the difference in image quality will be obvious. If the meetings are indoors, then the Sigma's f/2.8 will allow a faster shutter speed to help with low light.
 06/11/2011 06:39:22 PM · #3
All of the Athletics meetings are outdoors which helps, and if the image quality is better on the Canon that would be a clear winner for me.

06/11/2011 07:00:49 PM · #4
I have used the canon lens but I only have the sigma 70-300 for comparison which is obviously an inferior lens from the get go. The canon focusing is quite smooth which I though was it's biggest asset (I was taking pictures of the traffic on an intersection. It caught people zipping past me which isn't as easy with my sigma). The quality at 200mm is also pretty good. If you don't have light issues then go for this one.
 06/11/2011 07:10:49 PM · #5
I just shot a track meet outdoors with a 100-400. The aperture on that is smaller than f/4 and I was regularly shooting at 1/2000th on ISO 1600. It was a nice day with high clouds.
 06/11/2011 08:18:32 PM · #6
Just noticed the price of the Canon tripod collar £130, a bit steep!
 06/11/2011 08:26:40 PM · #7
Originally posted by Jon_H:
Just noticed the price of the Canon tripod collar £130, a bit steep!

There's no reason to use a tripod collar with that lens. It's pretty light.

Message edited by author 2011-06-11 20:26:50.
 06/11/2011 08:41:13 PM · #8
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Jon_H:
Just noticed the price of the Canon tripod collar £130, a bit steep!

There's no reason to use a tripod collar with that lens. It's pretty light.


For the most part I agee. However, I eventually found a generic brand collar that fit mine that was much cheaper than the Cannon model. It has been helpful tripod is pretty light duty.

As for the lens itself (Canon 70-200 F4L) I love mine.
 06/11/2011 08:42:42 PM · #9
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Jon_H:
Just noticed the price of the Canon tripod collar £130, a bit steep!

There's no reason to use a tripod collar with that lens. It's pretty light.


im glad you said that, ive been reading reviews on 3rd party collars and they seem to do more damage than good.
 06/12/2011 07:16:59 AM · #10
You could consider a used canon 70-200 f2.8 IS. With the new model coming out, I'll bet many are looking to unload their old one. That is one great lens.
 06/12/2011 09:38:23 AM · #11
Not being a Canon shooter I cannot comment on the Canon lens, however I do own the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 (Pentax mount) and I'd suggest giving it some consideration. I use it mainly for sports and find it great. The HSM provides very fast AF and I don't have any compaints about the IQ. Also, there's more to having F2.8 available to you than just shooting in low light. F4 simply doesn't give the same bokeh as F2.8, and that's one of the things I'm often striving for in sports shot - isolating my subject by using a shallow DOF. Oh, and if you do decide you need a tripod collar for some shots, the sigma comes standard with one, and a nice lens hood. Here's some examples of shots from the past couple of weeks.
06/12/2011 03:31:23 PM · #12
Thanks for the opinions and helping me decide which lens was for me.

I spent about an hour in the shop and deciding was very difficult as the image quality was very good on both. The sigma was a very big and heavy lens compared to the Canon. One of the deciding factors in the end was the added bonus that my Vivitar 2x converter which is manual worked on AF throughout the zoom on the Canon where as the Sigma was manual throughout. The converter only partially works on AF on 75-300, so this was what swung it in favour of the Canon and landed the sale.

Its a pity the UK is dull, raining and overcast otherwise i would have spent the rest of the day outdoors shooting with my new toy.

I have been shooting through glass at the rain soaked Wood Pigeons on the bird feeder and compared to my 75-300 the images are far better.

I hope the better image quality can have a positive effect on my scores:)
 06/12/2011 06:17:58 PM · #13
Originally posted by Jon_H:
Thanks for the opinions and helping me decide which lens was for me.

I spent about an hour in the shop and deciding was very difficult as the image quality was very good on both. The sigma was a very big and heavy lens compared to the Canon.


FWIW, the overwhelming majority of 2.8 zooms are large and heavy. The only lightweight one I've seen is the Tamron 28-75, which weighs in at a scant 18 0z. My Nikon 28-70 is 31oz, the 14-24 is 34, and my 80-200 is 52oz. One thing to consider, is that while the weight may feel unwieldy and awkward on a 450, it feels MUCH better on a larger body. My 80-200 feels super natural with a D300+grip, balance is great. Doesn't making carrying the beast deep into the backcountry any easier, though...
In any case, congratulations on the new lens. Having a high quality zoom is certainly a joy.
 06/12/2011 06:23:58 PM · #14
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Jon_H:
Just noticed the price of the Canon tripod collar £130, a bit steep!

There's no reason to use a tripod collar with that lens. It's pretty light.


We have the tripod collar, bought it a year after the lens. Significant improvement in motion damping in a wind. Allows switching from horizontal to vertical without changing lens axis, a real plus when framing tightly with a telephoto. Worth that price? I suppose not... We paid $100 and change for ours, which I thought was a bit steep, but I've never regretted it.

R.
 06/12/2011 06:29:09 PM · #15
Out of curiosity... do all Canon's not come with tripod collars or what? My Nikon came with one, and my Sigmas all have as well. Just curious...
 06/12/2011 07:29:10 PM · #16
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Out of curiosity... do all Canon's not come with tripod collars or what? My Nikon came with one, and my Sigmas all have as well. Just curious...

My 100-400 came with a collar...
 06/12/2011 10:03:05 PM · #17
Heavy L lenses come with a collar. The lighter ones do not.
 06/13/2011 05:45:08 AM · #18
Just thinking, the ability of the newer cameras to deal with high ISO means I have to care less about f/2.8 for the reason of sheer speed, not true?
 06/13/2011 06:08:53 AM · #19
Originally posted by docpjv:
Just thinking, the ability of the newer cameras to deal with high ISO means I have to care less about f/2.8 for the reason of sheer speed, not true?


As far as speeds goes, yeah... But the larger aperture means much more accurate focusing in marginal light, and a brighter viewfinder as well...

R.
 06/13/2011 06:49:26 AM · #20
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by docpjv:
Just thinking, the ability of the newer cameras to deal with high ISO means I have to care less about f/2.8 for the reason of sheer speed, not true?


As far as speeds goes, yeah... But the larger aperture means much more accurate focusing in marginal light, and a brighter viewfinder as well...

R.


Thanks Robt, agree, I love the 70-200 f/2.8. I just thunk there are sometimes too much consideration given to some issues for which other solutions have been researched. I like new thinking, to move with times and not get stuck with the limitations of old instead of the challenges of now. For example, no doubt in my mind I would purchase the Canon f/4 long before the SIGMA f/2.8. The limitation of the f/stop is not worth the value if I consider the good practice of manual focus and ISO boost.
 06/13/2011 07:05:38 AM · #21
Again, I reiterate my previous point about aperture and DOF. An image shot at F2.8 will have a shallower DOF than the same image shot at F4. Being able to utilize a large aperture to isolate a subject against an OOF background can often be the difference between a good shot and a so-so shot. There is a reason you see so many pro sports photogs lugging around huge, expensive 400mm/F2.8 lenses. In many cases they could capture the shot just as easily with a slower lens (which would be easier to carry and easier on the wallet), but there is an associated trade off in terms of the bokeh a slower lens.
 06/13/2011 08:25:10 AM · #22
When I was shopping for a 70-200, I looked at the Sigma, but I found the AF to be slower than the Canon f4L...not by much, but enough. That, coupled with the additional size and weight led me to choose the Canon.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/06/2025 04:18:46 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 11/06/2025 04:18:46 PM EST.