Canon 70-200 F/4 L vs Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 EX APO HSM

[PGR70]

This comparison has been dealt with on this forum many times, and I'm quit aware of that.

But I'm looking for websites that feature a comparison of these two lenses, with comparison pictures.

Because I don't want to only hear from Sigma and Canon users which lense is best (their own lenses of course :-) ), but I also want to SEE for myself which lens produces the most beautiful pictures.

Thx!
Peter.

[karusel]

Yeah, I've been looking for an unbiased comparison too... however, I did find a sample photo comparison:
http://www.pbase.com/norm/lens_comparo

and some other linx:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007Fhr
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=102

Oh, and a few thoughts: apparently there is a general consensus that sigma is a bit soft at 2.8 and by 4.0 gets real sharp. They say canon is sharp 'even wide open'. So I suppose Sigma might be a tack sharper at 4.0 but eventualy looses the advantage and Canon surpasses it. I would bet, that canon 4.0 is generally better lens, also it is cheaper. What I really bang my head with is, how much do I need that 1 1/2 stop? I intend to use 1.4 TC with it, so I guess 2.8 would be mo' better however, @2.8 sigma is soft and with TC it's some mo' softer, so all in all, I'd say... I'd still go with canon 4L....

[PGR70]

Thx for the links!

The second two I already found myself, but the first one is usefull. To my opinion, the Canon is sharper at f/4 then the Sigma (look at the right hand doll's hair).

The trick question is indeed: how much do I use the f/2.8 ?

And how much will I use it given the fact that I know it is soft?

Some people say that at 200mm f/4 also makes for a nice shallow DOF.

One other advantage of the Sigma is the filter size; it is the same as my Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L (77mm). But I can always use a step-up or down ring (which is better?)...

Anyone seen more comparisons?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Soft is relative of course,. but my answer to the question is this.

If there may be times when a "soft" f/2.8 is better than no f/2.8,. then get the f/2.8 :)

If you need a sharper f/2.8 then your right back in Canon territory at over $1,000.00

Anyway,. I never thought of the Sigma as "soft"

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=544770&outx=730&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp=

ISO 800, large fine jpeg out of camera, NO Sharpening applied.

[Vegas Poboy]

Thx for the links!

The second two I already found myself, but the first one is usefull. To my opinion, the Canon is sharper at f/4 then the Sigma (look at the right hand doll's hair).

The trick question is indeed: how much do I use the f/2.8 ?

And how much will I use it given the fact that I know it is soft?

Some people say that at 200mm f/4 also makes for a nice shallow DOF.

One other advantage of the Sigma is the filter size; it is the same as my Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L (77mm). But I can always use a step-up or down ring (which is better?)...

Anyone seen more comparisons?

I have'nt posted any pics online yet for viewing but I had the same questions three months ago. I did choose the canon f/4 over the sigma .

I felt I would not need the 2.8 much due to available light & adjustable ISO. So far I have not needed the f/2.8 & since I can shoot RAW you can open the exposure an extra 2 stops.

I have a sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 and it's a little soft so I wanted a Canon L lense to compare the difference. I love the Canon one day I might get rid of the Sigma & go for the Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L

The DOF is great this lense is good for on the Canon great for outdoor portaits. From my understanding most lense are at there best when shut down 2 stops the wide opening.

Hopefully this will help if all fails go to a camera shop and try them both and see what you like.

[mattchase]

I didn't have the Canon f4, but did borrow an f2.8 for a few days and compared it to the Sigma 2.8. Not the prettiest or best sample shots, but it was was I had to work with at the time. Unfortnuately, I also wasn't able to test wide open and stopped down, I only tested at a middle aperture. One of these days I will conduct this test again, more thouroughly.

http://www.matthewchase.com/digitaldingus/sigma_canon_70-200/index.html

[karusel]

Please do! :) I would propose the following:
-70mm, 125mm, 200mm S@2.8 vs C@4.0
-70mm, 125mm, 200mm S@4.0 vs C@4.0
-also, the lens might be more even (the brightness issue) if one would use AE instead of full manual, whilst at full manual the actual light output of individual lens would nicely be measured


Basically the _only_ difference between the lens that I notice in this shots is brightness, Canon is darker... does that mean that Sigma lets more light to pass through?

[vvizard]

This is why I choose the Sigma:

I need low-light capabilities, and no, shooting raw and under-expose is NOT an argument, cause (this might come as a shock to a few) but you actually got that capability on 2.8 lenses too, so no matter how much you underexpose a f/4, I can still do the same, and still get the same amount of better low-light capabilities. But you can bump up ISO right? Yeah you can, but *sigh* it's still not an argument, cause you can even accomplish that on a f/2.8 too, and still get just as much gap in low-light conditions as before :-D So please....

Other arguments which affected my mind, was that the price-difference actually is next-to-nothing if you need the tripod-mount (which I do). The Sigma got a good one included, the Canon doesn't. Buying it for the Canon will (according to B&H prices) knock the price-difference down to only $30. Taken the overall price into account, $30 on top of ~ $700 is actually quite nothing :-P I also like the fact that I get the 77mm filter-thread. And this last statement, many might not agree on (and it's mostly totally irrelevant too), but I actually prefer black colored lenses to white ones :-P It matches the color of my house better, and it doesn't stand as much out. But just to mention it, I would've gotten the Sigma even it was pink ;) Beeing black was just a bonus I got :)

When it arrived I was amazed by how much it weighed. But I liked it actually :) It looks good, it works well, and most importantly, it gives me nice pictures :) The zoom/focus rings are butter-smooth, but so would I also demand on EX or L lenses. So is it soft? It might not be tack-sharp on f/2.8, but I didn't expect that either. But by all means, it's very usefull at f/2.8 anyway. Don't know if the 70-200mm f/2.8L is sharper (probably is) but it also cost a lot more. But what I can tell for sure, is that it performs a zillion times better at f/2.8 than the 70-200mm f/4L does ;) My experience with it is great. Have no regrets at all. When it comes to soft shots, they rarely bother me. Much less than blurred shots caused by the lens not beeing fast enough for the light/amount-of-movement combination. But this problem would surely only get amplified by a f/4 (even if it turned out to be a little sharper).

This where only my arguments for opting on the Sigma. And as I mentioned, I need f/2.8 sometimes, and that was the main reason. If you can tell youself that you never will need f/2.8, then don't waste the money (and weight) on getting one either. But my experience have told me that when I handholding at 200mm, I usually need something around 1/200 shutter-speed, and to get that, I need f/2.8 far more often than I would think. Specially in the norwegian autumn, where we usually live in this gigantic soft-box with to little bright light for some months :(

Here's some pics to show it's softness.

http://www.vvizard.net/pics/vvizard/forums_and_other_shait/sigma28_100_percent_crop.jpg
100% Crop, f/2.8, jpeg-fine, cropped and resaved to jpeg (lost some quality there off course) else no modifications.

http://www.vvizard.net/pics/vvizard/forums_and_other_shait/sigma28_pan.jpg
Was out to try out pan-scan for the first time. This was the result. f/4.5 @ 1/125 sec. cropped and resized, but else no mods..