Sigma 70 - 200 2.8 V Canon 70 - 200 L 2.8

[bigted]

I have a new EOS 10D and an EF 28 - 135 IS USM Lens. I am now looking for a second lens. I cannot afford big glass at the moment as my budget was vastly depleted with the camera purchase. I have been reading lens reviews and that the Sigma 70 - 200 f 2.8 lens out performs the Canon 70 - 200 L f2.8 lens when benchmarked and is much cheaper. I am considering buying the Sigma with a 1.4 and maybe later a 2.0 convertor to give me more zoom range in a cost effective manner.

Is this a sensible solution ?

Are the convertors a good option, I know there is some drop off in quality but with a good f2.8 lens is this a problem?

[lightandlife]

Where is the test? What is the price of the Sigma lens?

I wonder why everybody buying Canon's IS version at Dell, instead of Sigma.

[bigted]

lightandlife wrote:
Where is the test? What is the price of the Sigma lens?

I wonder why everybody buying Canon's IS version at Dell, instead of Sigma.


I don't know the US price but the UK price is £600 compared to £1500 for the Canon L. The Lens is the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO HSM. I have attached a link for the reviews I have read.

http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_83598_3128crx.aspx

[scottbergerphoto]

bigted wrote:
I have a new EOS 10D and an EF 28 - 135 IS USM Lens. I am now looking for a second lens. I cannot afford big glass at the moment as my budget was vastly depleted with the camera purchase. I have been reading lens reviews and that the Sigma 70 - 200 f 2.8 lens out performs the Canon 70 - 200 L f2.8 lens when benchmarked and is much cheaper. I am considering buying the Sigma with a 1.4 and maybe later a 2.0 convertor to give me more zoom range in a cost effective manner.

Is this a sensible solution ?

Are the convertors a good option, I know there is some drop off in quality but with a good f2.8 lens is this a problem?

I just did a Google search and found alot of people who feel the Sigma Lens is almost as good as the Canon Lens for less money. Please give the link for tests that show the Sigma Lens is better.

[bigted]

scottbergerphoto wrote:
bigted wrote:
I have a new EOS 10D and an EF 28 - 135 IS USM Lens. I am now looking for a second lens. I cannot afford big glass at the moment as my budget was vastly depleted with the camera purchase. I have been reading lens reviews and that the Sigma 70 - 200 f 2.8 lens out performs the Canon 70 - 200 L f2.8 lens when benchmarked and is much cheaper. I am considering buying the Sigma with a 1.4 and maybe later a 2.0 convertor to give me more zoom range in a cost effective manner.

Is this a sensible solution ?

Are the convertors a good option, I know there is some drop off in quality but with a good f2.8 lens is this a problem?

I just did a Google search and found alot of people who feel the Sigma Lens is almost as good as the Canon Lens for less money. Please give the link for tests that show the Sigma Lens is better.


I have given the link.

[MediaMagic]

bigted wrote:
scottbergerphoto wrote:
bigted wrote:
I have a new EOS 10D and an EF 28 - 135 IS USM Lens. I am now looking for a second lens. I cannot afford big glass at the moment as my budget was vastly depleted with the camera purchase. I have been reading lens reviews and that the Sigma 70 - 200 f 2.8 lens out performs the Canon 70 - 200 L f2.8 lens when benchmarked and is much cheaper. I am considering buying the Sigma with a 1.4 and maybe later a 2.0 convertor to give me more zoom range in a cost effective manner.

Is this a sensible solution ?

Are the convertors a good option, I know there is some drop off in quality but with a good f2.8 lens is this a problem?

I just did a Google search and found alot of people who feel the Sigma Lens is almost as good as the Canon Lens for less money. Please give the link for tests that show the Sigma Lens is better.


I have given the link.

The link you posted is a link to the reviews. I think they (and myself) are requesting a link to a head to head test which shows the optical superiority of the sigma lens over the canon.

I agree the Sigma is probably a pretty good bang for the buck. I also think the canon L lenses are hellaciously overpriced. But, I would have to see evidence from a trustworthy source before I'd believe the Sigma is optically superior.

[scottbergerphoto]

bigted wrote:
scottbergerphoto wrote:
bigted wrote:
I have a new EOS 10D and an EF 28 - 135 IS USM Lens. I am now looking for a second lens. I cannot afford big glass at the moment as my budget was vastly depleted with the camera purchase. I have been reading lens reviews and that the Sigma 70 - 200 f 2.8 lens out performs the Canon 70 - 200 L f2.8 lens when benchmarked and is much cheaper. I am considering buying the Sigma with a 1.4 and maybe later a 2.0 convertor to give me more zoom range in a cost effective manner.

Is this a sensible solution ?

Are the convertors a good option, I know there is some drop off in quality but with a good f2.8 lens is this a problem?

I just did a Google search and found alot of people who feel the Sigma Lens is almost as good as the Canon Lens for less money. Please give the link for tests that show the Sigma Lens is better.


I have given the link.
I see alot of personal testimonials. Where are the tests.

[bigted]

scottbergerphoto wrote:
bigted wrote:
scottbergerphoto wrote:
bigted wrote:
I have a new EOS 10D and an EF 28 - 135 IS USM Lens. I am now looking for a second lens. I cannot afford big glass at the moment as my budget was vastly depleted with the camera purchase. I have been reading lens reviews and that the Sigma 70 - 200 f 2.8 lens out performs the Canon 70 - 200 L f2.8 lens when benchmarked and is much cheaper. I am considering buying the Sigma with a 1.4 and maybe later a 2.0 convertor to give me more zoom range in a cost effective manner.

Is this a sensible solution ?

Are the convertors a good option, I know there is some drop off in quality but with a good f2.8 lens is this a problem?

Sorry

Yes there does not seem to be a proper test mentioned here but I have seen one recently. I searched the net for reviews using google.

Photodo.com does rate the lens just below the canon (Canon 4.1 Sigma 3.9) nothing in it really for the price difference.

I cannot remember where I saw the other tests I mention and my history file has not recorded the link so I guess you will just have to search yourself.

I just did a Google search and found alot of people who feel the Sigma Lens is almost as good as the Canon Lens for less money. Please give the link for tests that show the Sigma Lens is better.


I have given the link.
I see alot of personal testimonials. Where are the tests.

[CyberDyneSystems]

bigted wrote:
I am considering buying the Sigma with a 1.4 and maybe later a 2.0 convertor to give me more zoom range in a cost effective manner.

Is this a sensible solution ?

Are the convertors a good option, I know there is some drop off in quality but with a good f2.8 lens is this a problem?

The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 works very well with both of the Sigma teleconverters. (1.4X & 2X ) In fact it will even focus with both attached! (but that is pushing things a bit) This lens is one of the few zooms that really performs well whith the 2X converter.

I do not know for sure if the Sigma lens will actually fit the Canon teleconverters if you allready have those,. but in theory they should work perfectly as well.

[fbenn]

I'm using the Sigma 70-200mm for several months now and
I'm very satisfied with it. The 1.4 extender seems to be an excellent option. As I've heard, the 2.0 is not compatible with this lens.
Good luck.
fbenn

[CyberDyneSystems]

fbenn wrote:
I'm using the Sigma 70-200mm for several months now and
I'm very satisfied with it. The 1.4 extender seems to be an excellent option. As I've heard, the 2.0 is not compatible with this lens.
Good luck.
fbenn

Which 2X? Canon's?

The Sigma 2X works a charm.

[mattchase]

I tested the Sigma 70-200 against the Canon 70-200 in my studio prior to purchasing. I wouldn't say the Sigma is any better, but would say it is the Canon's equal. The resulting images convinced me to buy a Sigma for myself, and save $500 over the Canon. So far in actual use, I have not been dissapointed with the Sigma.

I don't have the the images anymore, so as of now this is just another personal testimonial. But I will add it to my list to do another head to head with these lenses, and will post the results here once I do. No promises on when this might happen.

[scottbergerphoto]

How do the resale values of the Canon and Sigma compare relative to their retail price new?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Thats an easy one,. :)

Canon retain there Value almost completely (especially the "L" lenses) and can be sold for between 80%-95% of there original value.

Sigma on the other hand loses it's value almost instantly down to about 75%-80% or in most cases even lower.

With Sigma the EX lenses resell for more than there standard lenses (like Canon "L") except in certain situations... Sigma makes some very high priced primes (500mm f/4.5 & 800mm for example)

These lenses sell for half waht a new Canon would but they can't keep there value the way a Canon would in fact they tend to sell used for about 55%-65% of there original cost.

[Carbon]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Thats an easy one,. :)

Sigma on the other hand loses it's value almost instantly down to about 75%-80% or in most cases even lower.

These lenses sell for half waht a new Canon would but they can't keep there value the way a Canon would in fact they tend to sell used for about 55%-65% of there original cost.

Well, in that case, I guess we should get some USED Sigma 70-200mm zooms. Low resale values can work in your favor, as well.

[Erin]

I have used a Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX for 18 months now for editorial work. This lens is a very good product, optically comparable to an equivalent Canon 70-200 2.8.

Obviously the second hand price is much less than its Canon counterpart, it only costs half as much in the first place! However, it is such a fine lens that not many of them turn up second hand.

Unless one is a gear freak that buys and sells photographic equipment in the vain hope that the right "best" lens will turn them from a mediocre photographer into a master, or for ego reasons, resale value should not be a priority. Rather, try to obtain the lens that will do the best job for you at a price you can afford, with the intention of keeping the lense for as long as it does the job you originally purchased it for. If you can afford 'L' Canon fine, if not the Sigma is an excellent alternative choice.

I believe from my own experience, the Sigma will give many years of good service if cared for properly.

Buy this lense Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX with confidence it, will serve you well.

Build quality is very good and performance, both optically and mechanically (AF speed, smoothness of zoom ring and smoothness of manual focus is first class.

[DaveG]

bigted wrote:
I have a new EOS 10D and an EF 28 - 135 IS USM Lens. I am now looking for a second lens. I cannot afford big glass at the moment as my budget was vastly depleted with the camera purchase. I have been reading lens reviews and that the Sigma 70 - 200 f 2.8 lens out performs the Canon 70 - 200 L f2.8 lens when benchmarked and is much cheaper. I am considering buying the Sigma with a 1.4 and maybe later a 2.0 convertor to give me more zoom range in a cost effective manner.

Is this a sensible solution ?

Are the convertors a good option, I know there is some drop off in quality but with a good f2.8 lens is this a problem?

My feeling over the last 25 years is that Nikkor lenses are better on a Nikon and Canon lenses are better on a Canon. Yes they are overpriced but I've never had a mechanical failure on a Nikkor lens and I know of no collegue who has had a failure with a Canon. But I did have a failure with a two year old Vivitar Series One 200 f3. The diaphragm became sluggish and closed down unevenly. Opitally it would have challenged my Nikkor 180 ED, and even focused much closer than the Nikkor. But mechanical failure is something that can't really be tested for and would be under the radar of people trying to evaluate lenses and such.

I just think that a Canon lens is going to retain its value better over the years and be a better lens to begin with. The exit value of a lens like the Canon 70-200 (and I have the Canon non IS one) should be thought about too.

I just got the Canon 1.4 Extender and have used it very little so far. I opted for the 1.4 to save the stop and to maintain my 10D's AF. My understanding is that when the widest aperture of a lens goes to f5.6 the 10D loses it's AF and that what you'd get with the 2.8 after losing two stops.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Resale value aside,. it is true that the 70-200 Sigma never seems to show up used on E-bay. It is one of the EX lenses that retains its value quite well.