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

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> New Sigma 70-200 2.8f DG vs. Canon 70-200L 2.8f
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/01/2005 10:15:17 PM · #1
Hi all,
I'm trying to find out when this new DG version of the Sigma is available. Does anyone have some insider's information from Sigma on the optics, price, and/or release date? I know the difference is only in the lens coating and the grip pattern on the focus and zoom rings.
I'm also planning to buy a 1.4x teleconverter later as well, if I buy the lens and the TC, I'd be saving about $500 over a non IS Canon 70-2008L 2.8f, which is a substantial amount of money for me (about pays for the Tokina 12-24 on order from Adorama).
I'm into photography as a hobby only and plan to use the lens for portraits outside/inside (hence preference for f2.8) and occassionally use it with a TC (which will make it a f4) on a tripod for wildlife.
Should I wait for the Sigma, hoping for better optics with a same price as the current sigma without DG, or just buy the Canon when my tax return comes in?
Some body has to know an insider from Sigma or Canon (I hear another rebate is coming)?
04/02/2005 06:04:47 AM · #2
as mentioned on numerous threads about the same subject, the sigma lens is soft at f2.8 so it´s not a good lens wide open, but it´s very nice stopped down to f4, so even if you have a lens with aperture reaching 2.8, then you wont use it at 2.8.

Canon is pin sharp at 2.8 so if you need the speed then go for the canon.

I have the Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS and this lens is superiour to all other lenses I have tried.. my next lens excluded.. 400mm L f2.8 IS :)

and there is the upgrade problem with sigma lenses, they work on todays cameras but are not guarantied to work on future SLR´s, the Canon lenses are on the otherhand guarantied to work on ALL EF mount canon Cameras.

04/02/2005 12:35:14 PM · #3
Good points,
I heard that Sigma will rechip their lens for a newer camera if there is a non compatibility issue. I've heard the same about the sharpness at 2.8f, I'm just wondering how much of a difference and if that is worth about $500 difference in price, since I'm getting another lens and would like to use the money saved for the wide angle. I've never seen a comparison of the two lens at 2.8f for sharpness under same condition like Bob Atkins does on his sites. If anyone knows a link to such comparisons, I'd sure appreciate it.
04/02/2005 12:39:01 PM · #4
I have the 2.8 70-200L IS-usm also, and nothing rivals it, I had the chance to use the Sigma as a collegue of mine bought one, of course it's much less expensive and seems to be a decent piece of glass (I have only played with it, so I can't comment to much) BUT it is quite heavy and very slow to focus.....and Non IS is really not that much of an option I think.
04/02/2005 12:53:31 PM · #5
I am going to be real honest here. First you are using a low end camera, so I see nothing wrong with a low end lens. I had to do that when I was learning. Now if you plan on getting paid for your work, then bite the bullet and get professional equipment. Get the Canon EOS 1D MarkII and use L series lenses. That will do just fine for weddings and large portraits and most stock photography. If this will be nothing more that a hobby what you have is fine. You will get average results and your friends will enjoy your work. But if you want the best you need the best equipment.
04/02/2005 01:01:07 PM · #6
[quote=gwphoto] I am going to be real honest here. First you are using a low end camera, so I see nothing wrong with a low end lens. I had to do that when I was learning. Now if you plan on getting paid for your work, then bite the bullet and get professional equipment. Get the Canon EOS 1D MarkII and use L series lenses. That will do just fine for weddings and large portraits and most stock photography. If this will be nothing more that a hobby what you have is fine. You will get average results and your friends will enjoy your work. But if you want the best you need the best equipment. [/quote

I totally disagree with you statement...#1, the 300D is not "low end" it's at the lower end of the spectrum of the EOS line... (remember that it's the exact same as a 10D and as powerful as a D1x) that being said, a lens will outlast a body, so buying top notch lenses is an investment in the future, Yido might eventualy get another body from the Canon line-up...or better yet, be very prolific with a very respectable 6.3MP body. it's a lot more about the glass than it is about the body. I think this person did not ask about the quality of his camera body and did not ask to be categorised because of it, the question is valid.

Yido, I totally recommend going for the L, in the long run, you'll be happy you did.

Message edited by author 2005-04-02 13:04:42.
04/02/2005 01:04:47 PM · #7
Originally posted by Gil P:

I totally disagree with you statement...#1, the 300D is not "low end" it's at the lower end of the spectrum of the EOS line... (remember that it's the exact same as a 10D and as powerful as a D1x) that being said, a lens will outlast a body, so buying top notch lenses is an investment in the future, Yido might eventualy get another body from the Canon line-up...or better yet, be very prolific with a very respectable 6.3MP body. it's a lot more about the glass than it is about the body.


Troo :)
04/02/2005 01:11:45 PM · #8
I'm not sure anyone here has used the Sigma DG version 70-200, so I can't see where an objective oppinion would be comeing from. Maybe you should just try both if you can and see which you like better.
04/03/2005 04:16:47 AM · #9
I don't see myself doing professional photography. It is just a hobby for me to enjoy. I'm not going to use the lens on a daily basis, maybe once a week to every two weeks or so for a few hours at most. I really don't question whether a fine lens like the Canon 70-200L 2.8 is euqal to a cheaper Sigma 70-200, I'm pretty sure it's better than a Sigma. I'm just trying to find out if the extra optics and performance is somthing I'll be able to use or not before I make my decision, that's all. I think the IS version is really too much money for me to spend.
I'm mainly interested in finding out about the DG version of the Sigma lens to see if it will be a better value. I can see myself paying a bit more for the non IS version, but I'm just how big the difference between the two will be, seeing as I've never even held either of the lens and don't want to buy and return lenses repeatedly. Hence, I'm trying to get as much input as possible on both of the lenses.
I do plan on adding another camera in a year or so, probably the replacement for the 20D (30D???), so a good lens is important for me (within reason of course), as I'll probably keep them around longer than camera bodies.
Hey Canon Europe is having a rebate on some lenses, does anyone know if one is coming for the US as well?
Thanks for the input everyone.

Message edited by author 2005-04-03 04:45:52.
04/03/2005 04:42:10 AM · #10
It doesn't really matter. If you get the Sigma 70-200 and don't like it, which I don't think will be the case, the resale value on that lens is close to the retail price if it is kept in good condition. I had the original EX lens and it was sharp. The AF was not as fast as it is with the Canon L version, but it wasn't a slouch either.
04/03/2005 04:55:00 AM · #11
Originally posted by nsbca7:

It doesn't really matter. If you get the Sigma 70-200 and don't like it, which I don't think will be the case, the resale value on that lens is close to the retail price if it is kept in good condition. I had the original EX lens and it was sharp. The AF was not as fast as it is with the Canon L version, but it wasn't a slouch either.


Hey, thanks for the info,
Can you please tell me about how much of a difference in focus speed you noticed, what you thought of the lens, and why you sold it (I assume to get the Canon)???
You are right about the selling expensive optics, they seem to sell close the new price, atleast on eBay. I just don't have much time to do that, so I'd like to avoid it.
04/03/2005 05:02:46 AM · #12
I had the Nikon version. I wouldn't trade back to the Sigma from my L lens if that helps. They are both good lenses. I don't know how much better the DG version will be. It may be worth looking at.
04/03/2005 10:57:37 AM · #13
Originally posted by DanSig:

as mentioned on numerous threads about the same subject, the sigma lens is soft at f2.8 so it´s not a good lens wide open, but it´s very nice stopped down to f4, so even if you have a lens with aperture reaching 2.8, then you wont use it at 2.8.

Canon is pin sharp at 2.8 so if you need the speed then go for the canon.


No it's not, there is no lens in the world that is sharp wide open. All lenses are designed to be sharpest at around F8 irrespective of make and model.

incidentally image stabilisation reduces the quality of the lens.

I am not saying that the Canon lens is not better. I am simply pointing out that it may not be worth the extra money. It truly depends on what you're doing.
Personally I almost never shoot wider than F 5.6 and I use the Sigma 70-200. However I also have experience of the Canon 70-200 and I never shot that any wider either.

In the United Kingdom, the Canon is significantly more expensive due to the extortionate markup that Canon put on their lenses. That is the main reason that I went for Sigma.
The main reason that I might potentially ever regret that decision, and it is not yet happened, is that I often use the 70-200 for close-up shots. With the Canon 500D diopter these lenses as stunning on a tripod. Therein lies the drawback. Sometimes I would prefer that I had image stabilisation, as I do not always have time for a tripod to be set up.

The main point of the matter being that either one of these lenses would be perfectly suitable for nearly anybody. And if anyone other than a professional photographer, a professional printer or a professional artist believes that they can tell the difference between these two lenses shot around F 8 on a normal print, then I would call them a liar. I see images from both these lenses all the time (at a range of apertures) and in all this time I have never once been able to tell the difference. Please bear in mind if you attempt to argue this particular point that well over 95% of people cannot tell the difference between a print at 150 dots per inch and 300 dots per inch. No matter how often you hear people say they can.

Apart from the very few professionals on this site, either one of these lenses would be perfectly suitable for anyone on this site. And the chances are that you would never know the difference of having spent the extra money. If people argue that they shoot wide open regularly, then for all those wisecracks who do, answer me this -- why are you using the low quality nature of the zoom instead of a prime?
if you answer that prime lenses are too expensive, then the chances are that you never needed the quality of them in the first place or of the most expensive zoom that you can afford.

The days of third-party lenses being significantly worse than own manufacturer lenses are long behind us. Get used to it.

Edit --

Incidentally you still have the problem that most people would argue that lenses still out resolve sensors. If that were truly the case then you could not tell the difference between the lenses.
Therefore if you're a true top-quality pictures (don't all get a heart attack) then purchase a four thirds system. You won't get the biggest image files in the world, but in terms of sharpness that should be better than anything you can get with a Canon.

If you wish to make full use of the 70-200 don't forget that you'll also need a full frame camera, otherwise you're just throwing away resolving power. One final point -- if you want maximum image quality then you will end up using software to correct whatever image you take anyway. DXO is probably the best, and as yet does not support the Sigma, and bearing that in mind the differences between the two lenses mentioned will, eventually, be so negligible as to be unnoticeable.

Message edited by author 2005-04-03 11:03:40.
04/03/2005 11:37:27 AM · #14
@ sn4sh07:

1.) There are certainly lenses that will out-resolve most DSLR sensors wide open. They are not common, but saying they don't exist is inaccurate. The Canon 300/2.8 is one example.
2.) Incorporating IS does add elements, which can't help image quality. The difference between the 70-200 non-IS and IS versions due to the IS is so small that it is less than the variation between copies of either lens, however.
3.) If you don't shoot wider than f/5.6, why carry a heavy f/2.8 lens? Why not the exceptional Canon f/4 version?
4.) Canon is significantly more expensive everywhere, true. But you cannot ignore the L build quality and the fact that you will never have to worry about having it rechipped. Then there's resale value. I regularly see used Canon 70-200/2.8 lenses going for almost 90% of their new value if they are in excellent conditon.
4.) I'd agree that the two lenses would be nearly impossible to tell apart at f/8. But certainly not at f/2.8. The bokeh and the sharpness of the Canon would be noticeable, based on what I've seen posted and my experience with the Canon (IS version). Again, if you don't shoot wide open, you don't need either of these lenses.
5.) Yes, it's true, I shoot wide open *a lot* and yes, I chose a zoom. Why? I'd need to carry & switch between at least 3 primes to get better performance, the difference would be minimal, and then there's the IS.
6.) Very good third-party lenses have been available for decades. Vivitar made some exceptional stuff 30 years ago in their professional line, and others have done so as well. Today, both Tamron & Sigma produce a few stunners that are a great value. The Sigma 20/1.8 is one great example. The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is a good lens, but by most accounts it does fall significantly short of the Canon wide open. That, combined with spectre of future rechipping, the L build quality of the canon, the oiutstanding bokeh of the Canon, and IS led me to the Canon.
04/03/2005 10:53:14 PM · #15
Hey check this out!
This seller on eBay
//cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4687&item=7505768706&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW#ebayphotohosting
has a picture of the DG version of the Sigma lens, which you can tell by the new ribbed (vs. checkered focus/zoom rings). Can it be coming out now?

04/14/2005 05:39:34 PM · #16
Kirbic,

Actually you will find that it depends greatly upon which digital camera you\'re using as to whether or not the 300/2.8 can or cannot out resolve the sensor.
My point was mainly that outline that most lenses can out resolve the sensor these days. If however you wish to take this particular point further, then please furnish me with the definition you\'re using of lens resolution. I will then be happy to discuss this issue with you further.

You were discussing absolute quality of lenses, I was merely pointing out that image stabilisation reduces quality. I\'m glad that you actually agree with me. To point out that is negligible is however inaccurate, as I do not believe that most people are in a position to check out the image stabilisation system affects image quality whilst in use. If you believe yourself to be capable of this then please do provide me with the information as to how you have done so. As soon as you start to consider the difficulty of what you are too suggesting you will realise that it is almost impossible. Also if you have some information as to exactly how Canon have implemented in the stabilisation that I would be very grateful for the information. The information that Canon provide through their marketing department is quite obviously an oversimplification and a lie. If they truly implemented in the stabilisation in the way that they claim, the image quality would be totally atrocious.

The reason that I did not purchase the Canon 70-200 F4 over the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 is that at the time the Sigma was cheaper in this country than the Canon. Furthermore the F2.8 nature of the Sigma means that the focusing will actually be more accurate if you consider how a camera focuses. Though I am sure that you already realised this. Lastly the point may come up when I do need to shoot one stop wider, and then I will have that ability. Thank you for pointing out to me however that I could have spent more to get less and purchased a Canon lens.

As Sigma tend to reach it for free, and I do not intend to sell my Sigma lens I do not see how this particular issue is relevant. However if you\'re one of those people who tends to regularly upgrade their equipment because they made a bad purchasing decision in the first place then I can see the relevance. Incidentally, I regularly see Sigma lenses going for very close to the initial sale price is well.

Interesting that you should make a point about something so subjective as bokeh. You cannot define what is good and bad bokeh. It is merely a matter of opinion and taste. I would therefore argue that neither the Sigma nor the Canon lens are either better or worse than each other.

Interesting that you think that the difference between prime lenses and zoom lenses is minimal, yet you consider the difference between the Canon and the Sigma 70-200 lenses to be so great. If you truly believe that then I would consider you to be a lunatic. Any prime lens will be significantly sharper wide open than any zoom lens. Also seeing as the aperture can be more optimised for the lens in a prime, and going back to your subjective point about bokeh, the resulting image will always be significantly higher quality.
To compare a Canon prime with a Canon zoom is far more ridiculous than to compare the Canon 70-200 with the Sigma 70-200.

You keep mentioning the L build quality, would you please to find me how you think that the Canon 70-200L is of significantly better build quality and the Sigma 70-200. Also pleased to find what you mean by the Sigma also significantly short of the Canon. Have you ever even used the Sigma?
Also I regularly see professionals from various different countries using the same Sigma 70-200 that I use. Interesting that they should choose to use the Sigma yet almost everyone on this website would recommend the Canon.

It is exactly the kind of snobbery that is indicated in the above thread that led me to virtually abandon this website as far as visiting it is concerned. People tend to this regard third-party lenses far too readily, pretending that they will get vastly better quality from own manufacturer lenses. It also amazes me that most people are willing to throw money at Canon so readily when there are a brilliant alternatives available.
Anyway, Kirbic, if you truly think that you have a case to argue that the Canon is worth the extra money to most people on this site then please feel free. Personally I don\'t see how your argument will get very far as I have experience of both lenses, which is something that so far you have not claimed in this thread. If you don\'t have experience of both manufacturers of lenses then I suggest that your opinion is based purely on third-party information and conjecture. If this is a case then my opinion of you has been somewhat lowered by your above statements.

Yours kindly, and still not understanding the snobbery of purchasing Canon lenses for no good reason,

Sn4psh07.
04/14/2005 06:13:57 PM · #17
One point made at the seminar last night which I hadn't thought about:

"A camera will autofocus better through an F2.8 lens than it will an F4."

That makes sense, and I hadn't thought about it before.

Another point I'll take at face value but I picked up:

"Cameras deliver more light to the center point of the sensor and thus that autofocus point works most accurately."

That I hadn't thought of either, and I often move the autofocus point off center!

On the other hand, for the most part, I won't buy 2.8 lenses that are big and heavy. Not worth it to me. The other point of wisdom (not from last night), that you can't get a very good picture from a lens you leave at home. ;)

Edit: (I just started reading through the lengthy previous post and in fact I see the point has already been made that cameras focus better through F2.8!)

Message edited by author 2005-04-14 18:15:48.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 08:40:40 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 08:40:40 PM EDT.