| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/27/2007 01:31:56 AM · #1 |
OK, I'm down to the final considerations for a general purpose long tele, for walkabout, portrait and watersports. I've gone way past my original budget to get something I like, and I have these lenses in mind...
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 Macro vs Canon 70-300 IS
(I guess the Canon 70-200 f4 L nonIS should be in here too)
The 70-300 is cheaper, further reach, lighter, has IS, and has very good image quality reviews, so in good light, cropping can greatly extend the long end before quality is a problem.
However, I'm leaning toward the Sigma. f2.8 on the Sigma pretty much makes up for the IS in the Canon, and will also give better low-light performance and nice bokeh. The 70-200 also takes a polarizer, which is important. I'll probably get a teleconverter in the future to bring it up to 280 or 400. It's heavy, but I'll have to live with that.
However, I can't shake the concerns about the image quality. Many reviews of the Sigma say it's a good match to the Canon L image quality (the same is said about the Canon 70-300IS), but the occasional comparison shot shows the Sigma with really bad results, and the Canons just blow it away - I'm hoping they just had a bad one for this particular review.
Keep in mind that I want this for a general purpose non-professional telelens. I'm going way over my budget on this lens, so I have to like it. :) Anyone got 2 cents to throw in before I make the final purchase? (or I go into indecision meltdown)
|
|
|
|
04/27/2007 02:14:18 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
04/27/2007 03:00:30 AM · #3 |
Yes, I've seen that thread. It discusses around the whole issue, but doesn't really say anything about the Sigma 2.8. If it was a question of Canons, it would be easy, because I can only afford one of the contenders. :)
No, I'm specifically asking about the Sigma, and whether it can really stand up in the same class as the Canons' image quality, as some of the stats seem to suggest, or whether the stats are misleading.
Message edited by author 2007-04-27 03:00:47. |
|
|
|
04/27/2007 03:48:41 AM · #4 |
There is a review of the Sigma here
//www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php
You may have already read it - but if you haven't.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2007 06:41:48 AM · #5 |
exchanging IS for F2.8 is not comparable. IS helps with camera shake at slower speeds. F2.8 allows you a smaller depth of field and a faster shutter speed. IS helps you shoot slow or not moving subjects at slower shutter speeds. F2.8 gives you an advantage with moving subjects. I shoot a lot of sports and animals - both moving subjects. I constantly have to watch my shutter speed with the 70-300IS and with the 100-400L IS. If the movements are fast, I know I need a shutter speed of at least 1/1000. IS doesn't really help me at that point. F2.8 would allow me a lower ISO. But, it's not too much of a difference to go from 200ISO to 400ISO (on my camera) unless I crop a lot. The exception to this is panning. Panning is helped by IS and a smaller aperture more than it is helped by a larger aperture and no IS.
Another thing to keep in mind is that tele-extenders (1.4, 2.0) add glass. With the addition of glass comes slower shutter speeds and less sharpness. The sharpness might be negligible at full frame, but once you start cropping, you can tell the difference.
Hope this helps. I know nothing of the sigma but a few people here really like it. |
|
|
|
04/27/2007 09:10:55 AM · #6 |
I love the 70-200 2.8 lens/focal length. I know lots of people happy with the Sigma (the older one). The newer one is supposedly better.
BUT when I read a review of it in (i think)PopPhoto and they have that chart where they rate how big you can blow something up for A, B, C rating, at various focal lengths? I was disappointed in the results.
Here are the test results at PopPhoto for both lenses
//www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/3057/lens-test-sigma-70-200mm-f28-apo-ex-dg-hsm-af.html
//www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/2259/lens-test-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-is-usm-af.html
Based on the charts, the Sigma has better image quality -IF that is your only concern.
But in that price range have you looked at the Canon 70-200 2.8?
//www.popphoto.com/assets/download/562003183517.pdf
At longer focal lengths and smaller apertures it beats the sigma, and is about the same price (or less) as the canon 70-300
|
|
|
|
04/28/2007 09:07:27 AM · #7 |
Thanks for the comments.
Prof, yes, I've looked at the Canon 70-200 2.8, but it's way more than the Sigma, and unfortunately well out of my price range. The Canon f4 non-IS version is around the price point of the Sigma, and it was in consideration, but f2.8 is just too tempting. :)
Dahkota, the real differences between aperture and IS were something I had not thought of in this way. You are absolutely right. IS will allow you to have a greater depth of field without blur, whereas opening the aperture 3 stops will stop blur (camera and subject), but will also reduce the DOF. Certainly worth remembering.
Anyway, I'll try to quench any further pre-purchase dithering - I'll post a report when I get the new lens. :)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/01/2026 03:17:58 PM EST.
