Canon 70-200/f4 L vs Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX

[RbnDave]

Sorry if this is a repeat thread. I thought I saw a thread on this subject a few weeks back, but now I can't find it.

Has anyone directly compared these two lenses (Canon 70-200 f4 L vs Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX)? They are almost the same price.

I am trying to decide which one to buy. I'm going to use the lense with a 1.4 teleconverter. Also, I'll be travelling a lot with this lens so weight and durability are issues.

The canon doesn't come with a tripod mount and it is a stop slower. But, it looks cool and it is an "L".

There are some great reviews of the Sigma and it is a stop faster. One review I read says the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is better than the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L ! Do these people work for Sigma? Here is a link to the review http://www.naturephotographers.net/mg0600-1.html

Help me make a rational decision. And please don't try to talk me into the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L. I'm not that rich :) .

Thanks

Dave

[Erin]

If ya drop both on yer foot the Sigma hurts more cause its heavier and faster! Neither bounce very well.

Remember that Naturephotographers review is just one mans opinion .

I have had the 2.8 EX for two years. It is good, but a very substantial weight.

Regardless of what advice you get (and the subject has been thrashed to death) there is not much optically between them. You will have to decide for yourself if the extra stop is worth the extra bulk.

[PPi-]

Erin wrote:
If ya drop both on yer foot the Sigma hurts more cause its heavier and faster!
Well I wouldn't second that at 100%. Sigma isn't any faster when being dropped but the weight creates greater impulse force on your toes. However I wouldn't advice to test it, unless you want to do crash tests with your equipment.

Now, into business :) I hear praising of sigma all the time, so I guess it is good lense. Least that is what I'm strongly considering as the price of 70-200L is way too far for me (and of course I would want to have it with IS) and it gives one stop more than 4L and I will be needing that.

I have had recently great headache from lens choises and I guess the only way to really know what suits best for you is that you try'em yourself. If that's not possible as in most cases for me, then you just have to listen others and hope the best. Most of time it is the money that is limiting you anyway. There are test pictures here and there on web like this; http://www.pbase.com/norm/70200_shootout , but I don't know relevant it is. Hope you find out what suites best for you, I haven't come up with my decisions yet.

[RbnDave]

This is a tough decision. Both look like they are great lenses. Right now, I am leaning toward the Canon f4 because of the weight issue. However, I think if I put a teleconverter on the lens I'm going to want the Sigma 2.8 for its extra speed.

Thanks for the link ppi. I could see little difference between the sample pics other than the Sigma looked a little brighter.

Has anyone used the Canon f4 with a teleconverter? I've seen good reviews of the Sigma with a 1.4 tele, but I can't find any info about the Canon with a tele. Is the Caon lens too slow to add a teleconverter?

Thanks again. This will be my last lens purchase for a long time. You won't have to put up with anymore annoying lens threads from me after I make up my mind on this one.

Dave

[Belmondo]

Dave:
I have the f/4 Canon 70-200, and it works with both canon extenders (1.4 and 2.0). There is one caveat: autofocus doesn't work with the 2X extender.

As you would expect, picture quality is better with the 1.4.

Tom

[LEC_D30]

Can you use the 70-200 2.8 Sigma in a Digital Rebel without the tripod collar?


Thanks.

[Belmondo]

lec_d30 wrote:
Can you use the 70-200 2.8 Sigma in a Digital Rebel without the tripod collar?


Thanks.

I don't see any reason why not EXCEPT, having that much unsupported mass hanging off the front of the camera is going to make for a pretty shakey setup. It would be much better to have the tripod collar and to use it, but it isn't an absolute necessity. You can use any EF lens in the Drebel.

OR maybe I didn't understand your question?

[mattchase]

Here is a thread regarding the Canon 70-200 2.8 and Sigma 70-200 2.8 lenses. I would think the only difference would be the aperture, otherwise the F4 should perform equally well as the 2.8 version.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18550

[LEC_D30]

My concern was the risk of damaging the mount ring due to the heavy weight of the Sigma lens.

What do you think?

Thanks.

[Vegas Poboy]

I have not compared the two but I do enjoy the Canon f/4.
1. It's very light compared to the other 2.8 lens
2. With the 10D you can adjust the ISO to make up the one stop diff.
3. It is a very sharp lens as compared to the L line
I carried this lens for 3 hours the other day hiking parts of Mnt. Charleston, Nevada and the camera with lens was never a burden.
The only set back I've found is the tripod ring but if you're going to play you got to pay $$$. :)
Running behind updating my picks but the Canon is a good choice.

[who10]

Dave,

I can second Vegas Poboy's recommendation.

I've been real pleased with the Canon 70-200f4. If you don't need it's faster brother, the f4 version is a very good performer and quite comfortable to carry around.

Here's an example of the f4 fitted with a Canon 1.4x converter.

http://www.haskellct.com/EE_Galleries/Gallery1/webguests/F16_nocrop.jpg

http://www.haskellct.com/EE_Galleries/Gallery1/webguests/F16_NI.jpg

Shot reference: ISO 400, f9, 1/1600 @117mm - 10D

____
David

[RbnDave]

I almost had my mind made up to buy the Canon. But.... I just reread the section in John Shaw's "Guide to Nature Photogaphy" regarding zoom lenses. He recomends getting a f2.8 lens in the 70-200mm range. He argues that the added size and weight is worth the extra F-stop. Who am I to disagree with John Shaw?

After looking at all the sample images from both lenses and the super expensive Canon 70-200 f2.8 L, I can't see a difference in sharpness. If anything, I think the Sigma photos look a little better, at least brighter. All the canon shots look almost underexposed and their Bokeh is rather dark compared to the Sigma. Maybe that's just my crumby old monitor, which is a whole other issue and future expense. Expect to see a thread started by me in the near future titled "Which Monitor"

My heart says, "buy the cool looking Canon L", but my brain is telling me, "get the Sigma". I can't wait to buy one of these and be done shopping for lenses.
All this shopping around is driving me nuts.

One last question. How do the two stack up shooting indoors in low light? I might be using this lens to shoot some local bands and also take photos inside dim aircraft hangers. Is this another point scored by the faster Sigma?

Thanks again for all your input

Dave

P.S. -- CDS if you're lurking around, what is your input? I know you're waiting on the Canon 2.8 L for your indepth comparison, but I'll never fork out that kind of cash for a lens so the canon 2.8 isn't even an option for me. How do you like your Sigma?

[mattchase]

If your indoor shooting doesn't involve a flash or studio strobes, then you will most likely find you need the 2.8 aperture. I have shot a number of concerts and sporting events, and have never been allowed to use a flash (well, one time for a small local band...). For the sports, I was pretty much always at 2.8, ISO 800, 1/500th. For the concerts, I was mostly at 2.8, ISO 800, and 1/125th, and some shots had motion blur to them so I could have used more light, wider aperture, etc etc...

[CyberDyneSystems]

Matt has a good point indeed.

The application or use fo the lens may spell out your answer. I had to make the same decision some time ago,. and the Sigma was my first "really nice" lens!!!

My primary use for the 200mm focal length was to get photos of events that occur on my stage. I needed exactly 200mm MAX focal length and I needed the aperture.

I have never regretted buying this lens. Check out the fashion show in my gallery.

Also,
You mention teleconverters. Although the 70-200mm f/4 will work with the 1.4X,.. the Sigam f/2.8 will also work with the 2X (but I don't know if it will work with the Canon converters? ) The Sigma Converters work EXTREMELY well with the recomended Sigma lenses and they too are a whole lot cheaper than Canon converters.

Lastly,. personally,. I hate White lenses :D They attract too much attention and they scare away the birds! :D

[RbnDave]

CDS,

Thanks for the quick response. I think I am going to buy the Sigma. Your fashion show gallery looked great.

Now if I could only get my order straightened out at B and H. They were on holiday all last week and they haven't processed my previous order (Tokina 17mm AT-X Pro and a Canon 50mm f1.8 ). If I buy the Sigma online tonight, it's after midnight, and B and H charges my credit card this morning, one of the two orders won't go through because it will exceed the daily limit on my Visa Check Card. I wouldn't be in such a hurry, but I am leaving for California on Saturday and want to have all my new lenses at Big Sur. Someday, I will grow up and actually get a credit card. A credit card would be really handy right now.

Thanks Again Everyone

Dave

www.pbase.com/rbndave

[khiromu]

I didn't see anyone pointed out another fact of those two lenses.

Yes, Sigma is heavy, and Canon is light. That's why i sold my Sigma and planning to pick up Canon. However, there is one more factor, which is the closest focus distance. Sigma is 6 feet where Canon 4L is 4 feet. This is a big difference.

Thanks
Hiromu

[RbnDave]

Hiromu,

Thanks for your insights. I looked up the weights of both lenses and found the Sigma weighs only 1.2 pounds more than the Canon (Canon 705 grams, Sigma 1270 grams. I had to google search for the conversion factor for grams to pounds because my American mind doesn't understand anything meteric). For me, that isn't that big of a weight difference. Also, the six foot focus distance isn't a huge deal for me either. The difference between Canon's 4 foot and Sigma's 6 foot is one step backwards. What kind of photography situation would be affected by this two foot differnce? I think I will be in more situations where the extra stop of the Sigma will be more important than the minimum focus distance.

Other than the weight and focal distance, did you like the Sigma? Have any problems with it?

The issue that almost seals the deal for me is filter size. I just looked at filters and found out the Sigma uses a 77mm which is the same size required by the Tokina Wide Angle I have on order. I'll save a bunch by only having to buy one polarizer.

Dave

[RbnDave]

MattChase,

I checked out your gallery. You have some great photos. Did you shoot any with the Sigma?

[CyberDyneSystems]

The weight issue is real but is also relative...

Of the lenses I use and have used most often,. the Sigma 70-200 is the lightest.

After lugging the 50-500mm for 6 hours on a monopod across country or the 500mm f/4.5 prime on a relatively heavy Bogen tripod,..the 70-200 feels positively feather weight to me :D

It is not at all so heavy that we should worry about extra wear on the lens mount. Proper handling wil alleviate any such concerns, IE: the only natural ergonomic way to hold a camera with a lens of this nature mounted is right hand on camera controlling camera and shutter release, left hand on lens controlling zoom and manual focus if needed.

And of course the Sigma does come with its own quick release tripod mount (very handy,.. comes off with a quick twist and pull) so tripod mounting is done as is proper with a lens of this size,. mounting the lens as opposed to camera.

[khiromu]

Dave,

With closest focus distance of 4 feet, you can take tele macro photos. Of course it doesn't provide real macro photo, but still it's useful from time to time. Also when I thought I needed closer focus distance with Sigma is when I used it in my house with flash. If you want to take kids playing around in a room, 6 feet, 1.8 meter is pretty long distance.

Besides those two things (weight and focus distance), there is nothing else to complain. Optics are great, focuses very fast, not white, good tripod ring,,,, But to me, if I feel too heavy and leave the lens home, I cannot take good pictures with it.

Now I sold Sigma, and I was thinking to get Canon 4L, but these days, 135/2L looks better and I cannot decide... There are so many options choosing lenses...

Thanks
Hiromu

[RbnDave]

CDS-

Where did you buy your Sigma?

B and H doesn't have any in stock, neither does Canoga Camera. Those were the only reputable dealers I could find on resellerratings.com. Maybe I'll try Berger Brothers.


Hiromu-

Thanks agin for your input. Did you say you already sold your Sigma :) ?

Dave

[UniSonBBS]

Well I have the Sigma Ex 70-200 but I dont have the F/4 canon. However, for what I use it for (semi-closeups "8-10feet away") and bird shooting just doesnt seem to be cutting it for me. Im sure its a great lens but it looks like I might be leaning back towards my 75-300 Canon IS lens. Has great close up capability and to lose that 70 to 75mm on the wide end to gain the 100mm at the zoom end just isnt worth it I guess. But I had to buy it to find out. I may end up keeping both lenses.

I myself, I am pleased with the lens. They give Canon a run for their money. But I think for now on, Ill spend my money on Canon. And the IS feature... :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well,. I can't actually recomned where I got it from, I learned the hard way not to buy from the "brooklyn" stores... and this lens was included in that ill fated arrangement. (I did get the lens at a fantastic price,. with an "imternational" warranty as opposed to the 4 year US warranty,...but the details of the rest of the order is a looooong story!)

Ritz has it but they are charging an extra $30.00 for it over B&H

http://www.ritzcamera.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=7398972

And Adorama has it fopr 699.00 and they have a used one as well for 547.00

https://www.adoramaphoto.com/catalog.tpl?op=details&sid=104990824616234619&sku=SG70200HEOS

[mattchase]

RbnDave,

Yes I did. I can't say exactly which at this moment (I am still at work), I would have to go back and look at the Exif info in the original files. However, I have noticed a bit of info in the Exif that may be useful to others in regards to lens used.

In doing my testing of the Canon and Sigma 70-200 lenses, I noticed that in the Exif they both said 70-200mm. But the Canon had an additional line just below that, which said "Subject Distance". The Sigma didn't have this entry, and that is how I was able to tell them apart. I'm not sure if all the Canon lenses do this, or if any other third party lenses do, but at least with my Canon 70-200 2.8 L and Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX, this was the only way I could tell them apart in the Exif info.

I will get back to you about what images were shot with what, if you are interested. Send me an email to matt@matthewchase.com, or post your email here

[RbnDave]

Matt,

Thanks again. No need for you to go through all that work. I have decided to get the Sigma.

CDS,

Thanks for the links. Do you know anything about Delta International? They are advertising the Sigma for $597. It is also advertised as imported. What kind of problems go along with an imported lens? There is always a catch.


Dave

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have not delt with them personally (yet!)

But I have heard very good things. They sell both US and International warranties. But unlike the scam artists in Brooklyn I hear they really stand behind there products. I am sure I will be doing business with them someday.

The ONLY difference between import and US version is the warranty supplied. For the savings the international warranty is not a bad deal at all. I think it only gives you one year, as opposed to the US warranty of 4 years. I guess it really depends on your point of view on warranties in general.

I also forgot to mention KEH;
http://www.keh.com/shop/shop.cfm

A VERY highly respected broker of used camera equipment. My prised 500mm f/4.5 EX came from them and the whole experience was really pleasant. And the condition of the lens was a complete surprise. It was listed as "excellent" but that was only because the manual was missing! In fact the lens was "Like New" without even and scratch marks on the tripod mount,. which leads me to believe it was NEVER used. (perhaps a demo on store shelf?)

[Littlebike]

I just bought my Sigma 70-200 on Ebay. The seller was a pro who only used it one time (apparently shooting telephoto was not a priority) then upgraded to an L lens and forgot about the sigma for a few months.

I bought it for $570 with everything including the unused warranty card.

I should have it by Friday.

I too have heard pretty good things about Delta. I fact, I was going to buy it from there but they did not have any in stock.

[RbnDave]

I made the big purchase today. I got a new Sigma from Delta for $597. It's an import with only a one year warranty. I figure if it's defective it will break within the first year.

The people at Delta International were great! There was some trouble with my Visa check card because my billing address is different from my shipping address. The sales woman I worked with was nice enough to call my hometown bank twice to straighten out the problem. Even with the Visa difficulties, I had a UPS tracking number within an hour of my first call to Delta. My new lens will be here tomorrow! Delta didn't use any hard sell tactics, and they actually verified the lens was in stock before they charged me.

Thanks again everyone for the advice. I managed to get six days off from work next week so I'm heading to Monterey, CA and Phoenix. Hopefully, I'll get some sea lion and road runner pictures with my new lens.

Dave

www.pbase.com/rbndave

[Honeybee]

RbnDave,

I think you'll be happy with the Sigma 70-200. The only way I'd get rid of mine would be if I can ever afford the Canon 70-200 IS. Here are two pics taken w/the lens - one taken inside a house about 8 ft. and the other outdoors at a wedding.

20D: 117.0mm; 2.8; 1/60; ISO 100
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k114/LovellaJ/th_EbbyandRay.jpg (http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k114/LovellaJ/EbbyandRay.jpg)

20D: 146.0mm; 1/500; f/4.5; ISO 100
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k114/LovellaJ/Alger/th_Alger2_122.jpg (http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k114/LovellaJ/Alger/Alger2_122.jpg)

The only problem with this lens is resale value. Mine is the latest version and retails for $839; right now I could probably get $650 at the highest. That's the way it goes.

Honeybee

[A01]

Not being harsh man, but this thread was 3 years old :lol:

[Choderboy]

After sale reassurance?

[condyk]

Not being harsh man, but this thread was 3 years old :lol:

... but people are still asking the exact same questions ;-)

[JulianL]

I have a question about the Sigma lens. Is their focusing internal or does the lens barrel move in and out? I'm just curious because the Canon lens is sealed so it would stand up well to all kinds of shooting environments. I have an older Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and I absolutely hate that lens. The barrel binds when nearing 70mm and it creaps when pointing down. Also, the auto focus is very noisy and it is quite a large lens (I think it takes 82mm filters IIRC). I do like the photos I've shot with it but it has serious shortcomings IMO.

Personally, I'm hesitant to buy another Sigma.

[condyk]

I have a question about the Sigma lens. Is their focusing internal or does the lens barrel move in and out? I'm just curious because the Canon lens is sealed so it would stand up well to all kinds of shooting environments. I have an older Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and I absolutely hate that lens. The barrel binds when nearing 70mm and it creaps when pointing down. Also, the auto focus is very noisy and it is quite a large lens (I think it takes 82mm filters IIRC). I do like the photos I've shot with it but it has serious shortcomings IMO. Personally, I'm hesitant to buy another Sigma.

Bizzare ... anyway, It's internal focusing.

[Honeybee]

Not being harsh man, but this thread was 3 years old :lol:

It's okay to be harsh, Aaron, as I'm just now seeing your reply. This is too funny. Guess I was just roaming the forum and didn't read the fine print. All I saw was October. Hope you'll forgive me.

BTW, I'm all woman, dude. :wink: