| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/22/2006 02:47:17 AM · #1 |
| I'm going to upgrade to a 2.8 from my 4 and I currently have the f/4L however I know that sigma has been gaining respect in the past couple years and I was wondering how the Sigma 70-200 2.8 compares to the Canon 70-200 2.8L. |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 03:12:16 AM · #2 |
| the 70-200 2.8 is uber fantastic |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 03:27:34 AM · #3 |
i have the f/4L and a sigma 2.8 on a nikon. the f/4 seems to produce better color. also, the sigma is more prone to flare, even with the hood on.
edit: then again, stopped down lenses should have less flare, so it would only be right for me to compare the sigma at f/4 and the canon at f/4 i suppose.
Message edited by author 2006-01-22 03:28:55.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 04:18:01 AM · #4 |
I have the 2.8 IS and the sigma doesn't even come close... I know of many photographers that bought the sigma and upgraded to the canon, and now they have the sigma somewhere in the garage ;)
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 05:22:46 AM · #5 |
| Im planning to get a sigma in the next couple of weeks, the price diffence just doesnt seem worth it for me. Ive seen some before and after shots and theres not much difference if at all |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 08:28:18 AM · #6 |
I've got the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and a 2x teleconverter. I have never used the Canon 70-200 f2.8. But I think the Sigma is right there with my other L lenses in terms of build quality and the images it is capable of. The only advantage I see for the Canon 70-200 f2.8 would be if you were to buy the IS model for it's the weather sealing.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:32:31 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
The only advantage I see for the Canon 70-200 f2.8 would be if you were to buy the IS model for it's the weather sealing. |
...and IS, of course.
Message edited by author 2006-01-22 10:32:44.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:53:06 AM · #8 |
Is someone heard about the Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8 AT-X 828 AF PRO?
Just wonder
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:59:55 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Mstark24:
I'm going to upgrade to a 2.8 from my 4 and I currently have the f/4L however I know that sigma has been gaining respect in the past couple years and I was wondering how the Sigma 70-200 2.8 compares to the Canon 70-200 2.8L. |
Canon 70-200 2.8L. is one of best lens made ever
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:55:05 AM · #10 |
Can I ask why you're making the swap? I have a 70-200/4L and have contemplated it, but only really for sports jobs where I was making a little money. I really like the light weight of the 4, and you're really not going to see too much of a difference in sharpness at any given aperture...the f/2.8 is going to give you a brighter viewfinder, a little less DOF and an exra stop, but at a big price. I see you're only 17 (and thus probably not rolling in cash) and don't have a wide-angle yet. Furthermore, it might be worth it to look at a 135/2L or something instead, to compliment the zoom.
Just some thoughts... |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 12:10:50 PM · #11 |
Are you going to sell the 70-200 f/4L??? If so, post it up or shoot me a PM.
--
I wouldnt imagine we could somehow work out a swap (that is, you couldn't be talked into going Nikon, could you)?
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 12:19:15 PM · #12 |
When I bought my last lense, that was one I was looking at.
I read a few reviews and found that it cans uffer from some chromatic abberation. I already have a lense that does that, I don't want another that does the same... |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 10:33:00 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Can I ask why you're making the swap? I have a 70-200/4L and have contemplated it, but only really for sports jobs where I was making a little money. I really like the light weight of the 4, and you're really not going to see too much of a difference in sharpness at any given aperture...the f/2.8 is going to give you a brighter viewfinder, a little less DOF and an exra stop, but at a big price. I see you're only 17 (and thus probably not rolling in cash) and don't have a wide-angle yet. Furthermore, it might be worth it to look at a 135/2L or something instead, to compliment the zoom.
Just some thoughts... |
I am one of those people who cant just be happy with really good, I have to have the best. I was shooting gymnastics the other day and on the way home a traffic accident at night. an extra stop would have made a difference in both situations and to me, its worth it. theres also the factor of looking awesome with my 2.8 |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 12:55:08 AM · #14 |
both are reviewed at photozone.de
|
|
|
|
01/23/2006 03:09:58 AM · #15 |
stupid question, but how do you get a meaning out of the lense numbers?
70-200mm, means? largest wide angle is? longest telephoto is? And does it open at 2.8 throughout?
Thanks |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 04:29:25 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by crayon:
stupid question, but how do you get a meaning out of the lense numbers?
70-200mm, means? largest wide angle is? longest telephoto is? And does it open at 2.8 throughout?
Thanks |
Widest at 70, longest at 200. max aperture is constant 2.8 throughout range. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 04:31:35 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Mstark24:
I am one of those people who cant just be happy with really good, I have to have the best. I was shooting gymnastics the other day and on the way home a traffic accident at night. an extra stop would have made a difference in both situations and to me, its worth it. theres also the factor of looking awesome with my 2.8 |
You're not gonna look that much more awesome dangling a 2.8 as opposed to the 4.
It sounds nice that you can say that the price difference between the two lenses is "worth it" at your age. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 11:23:29 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
Is someone heard about the Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8 AT-X 828 AF PRO?
Just wonder |
I actually just bought one of these and it's on its way. If you're interested, shoot me a PM and I'll send you some sample shots with it. Great price and it's generally reviewed pretty well. I'm going to compare it with my Tamron 70-210 f/2.8 and see which I like better. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 11:47:37 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Mstark24:
I am one of those people who cant just be happy with really good, I have to have the best. I was shooting gymnastics the other day and on the way home a traffic accident at night. an extra stop would have made a difference in both situations and to me, its worth it. theres also the factor of looking awesome with my 2.8 |
I think you better get the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. You won't be happy with anything else.
Message edited by ursula - unwarranted personal attack. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 03:54:04 PM · #20 |
| The only reason I wasn't going to worry about the IS is because I have the 28-135 IS and I can count on one hand the number of times I have used the IS. |
|
