Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM vs Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 APO EX HSM

[DarkEngine]

Hey everyone, i'm new to this forum, and COULD NOT believe i wasn't on it a long time ago, and as a newbie, i've got some questions for every experts here.

After months of head-scratching n money saving, i finally got my 10D + 17-40mm L USM lens, and i'm happy as a jumpy bunny but now i'm thinking about equip myself with a telephoto lens.

70-200mm is the range i'm considering at the moment, i've been offered a future proposition of being a sports/press photographer(it'll depends on my skills, so i'm practicing on that as we speak), i know that 200 isn't likely to be enough for sports, but it'll be a affordable start and converter is always a solution for now. And during my free time(if i can squeeze any), i also take landscape and portrait photos.

My question here is which brand to go for, they both 70-200mm and both at f2.8, different name, different price, but i'd like to hear experts' opinion on them and hopefully guide me to help make this decision for my future investment.

I'm looking forward to ur suggestions, thanks in advance, folks :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well, the poll is tricky to answer...

The Canon is "better" but it is three times the cost of the Sigma

Having owned both,. I also feel that the Canon is only "a little" better.. it is very hard to put a number on it,.

If I had to pay full price for the Canon would I?

No WAY!

But lots and lots of people will disagree with me.

So what is the poll asking?

Which is beter? = Canon
Which s a better value? = Sigma By a HUGE margin
Which should YOU get? = No idea ???

I think this makes answering your poll difficult.

I did a little side by side in my review here that may help explain some of the differences...


Third reveeiw down the list:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=12&sort=7&thecat=27

Since then I have had a chance to use the Canon more,.

two things I have noticed
1. The Canon's White balance is far "cooler" on the my 10D than the Sigma
2. The Canon likes to underexpose... ? shooting with it is like shooting with the Sigma and -2/3 exposure compensation... no Idea why?

[kahfluie]

I am no expect by any stretch of the imagination.... but I have the Sigma... love it... won't part with it... but one day hope to afford the Canon. The Sigma is the best $613 I've spent... so far.

[drisley]

Also, the Canon has IS, which the Sigma does not.

[FotoPhreak]

Also, the Canon has IS, which the Sigma does not.

True, but I was just reading on FM's site (given further up) that

IS comes in really handy only for 300mm and above. The rule of thumb says that shutter speed for hand-held shots should be faster than 1/focal length, so even at 200mm, 1/250 is already fast enough. Believe me,
- with digital camera's dat can change ISO settings within seconds, with excellend quality up to ISO400 or 800
- with a lens that opens up to 2.8
- with a tripod as second solution
...There will be not many situations where you can not shoot at 1/250 and can not use a tripod. Oh yes, flying birds at low light, but that's where IS doesn't help either.
Again, nothing against IS, but in this zoom range there will be very little situations where it makes a difference.

Is this the case?

[nosquare2003]

Fotophreak, I disagree with the post you quoted. Yes, ISO setting and f/2.8 helps. How about using the IS with f/2.8 together with higher ISO? It helps more.

For using a tripod, does a 300mm lens need IS?

And I love to shoot slower than 1/250 handheld...

Anyway, I will buy a 70-200/2.8 IS if I've enough money. Since I didn't, I've got the Sigma one. And I'm learning to use it.

[randyk]

I vote Canon - IS will allow you to handhold at ridiculously slow shutter speeds. It will have better resale. But if you can't swing the price, go Sigma.

[DarkEngine]

thanks for the advice guys, the Canon one is indeed a lot more expensive than Sigma lens, however, if i buy it online n from the states, the price(to me) would the same, simply because the exchange rate and i can take advantage of it at the mean time and if Canon is truly better than the Sigma one, money is no issue :)

has anyone here purchased items from B&H with international shipping? r they good at what they do? and how is the product? i do have little worries on purchase online, please share ur experience so i can be sure not to make the wrong move, thanks again, guys :)

[randyk]

haven't used them for international but they are the top camera store in the US. Here is a good research tool for buying online:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/where-to-buy

[dds]

Bought from them Canon 70/200 2.8 non IS :roll: in december. No problem at all. It shipped easily to Italy (the only problem was it needed a couple of days more than expexted because of Christmas vacations, but no more than that).
Five stars vote.
DDS

[billhercus]

Just bought a 17-40mm f4L from B&H here in rip off Britain. No problem at all, took about 5-6 days and, having paid full import duty, VAT and shipping, saved £58 over rock bottom UK price.

You'll always pay import duty with them - however, careful selection of ebay merchants allows import in such a way that HM customs don't get excited. I've done that too and saved a great deal but had to wait a month (meanwhile having kittens).

B&H is basically rock solid.

[Cadwell]

the Canon one is indeed a lot more expensive than Sigma lens, however, if i buy it online n from the states, the price(to me) would the same, simply because the exchange rate and i can take advantage of it at the mean time

Yes... but you could also buy the Sigma direct from the States and make a saving on that... So the difference in price between the two lenses is still a factor... :P

[kahfluie]

Yes... but you could also buy the Sigma direct from the States and make a saving on that... So the difference in price between the two lenses is still a factor... :P

I'd have to agree ... prices are as follows...

70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM: $1,649.95 (at B&H)
70-200mm f2.8 L USM: $1,129.95 (at B&H)
70-200mm f2.8 EX APO HSM: $613 (At Delta International)

HUGE Price difference! I've dealt with both B&H and Delta International and have had good success with both.

[kraterz]

I'd get the Canon any day. Having tested the Sigma I find it needs to be stopped down to at least f/4 - f/5.6 for the best sharpness. The Canon 70-200/2.8 is excellent even wide open. If I were buying an f/2.8 lens I *expect* it to have excellent performance wide open, otherwise I may as well buy a cheaper Canon 70-200/4L (which I own, btw, and is also excellent wide open).

I also wouldn't trust the Sigma with future Canon bodies. It may just not work. If Sigma upgrades the lens or stops production of the current model you can't even re-chip it.

[DarkEngine]

does IS really make that much of a difference? money wise, is it worth it?

[Ralph Wagner]

Had both of them and used them extensively. Canon is somewhat sharper, especially wide open, and the Sigma is a little warm, whereas the Canon is neutral, which I like. The Canon is built better, but the Sigma will hold up to most conditions the average photographer will encounter. The other thing is that the Sigma sometime has problems communicating with Canon cameras. Haven't seen anything about any problems with the 10D. The Sigma I had would not work on my D60. I heard on some forum that a person contacted Sigma on this problem and told it costs about $50 to correct. But all in all, I think the Sigma is a heck of a lot of lens for the $$ spent.
-RW

[RbnDave]

This is mostly copied from another thread....

I love my Sigma 70-200. I've never shot the Canon and I am sure it takes great photos, but for the price the Sigma is fine.

BTW, I recently added IS to my Sigma 70-200. It's a great system called a tripod.

Here are some examples from my Sigma:

http://www.pbase.com/image/23829966
http://www.pbase.com/image/25927453
http://www.pbase.com/image/23411735
http://www.pbase.com/image/25558336
http://www.pbase.com/image/23249398
http://www.pbase.com/image/23974858

Here are some with a 2x converter:
http://www.pbase.com/image/24139082
http://www.pbase.com/image/25928473

Four handheld pictures at f2.8:
http://www.pbase.com/image/23399814
http://www.pbase.com/image/24035390
http://www.pbase.com/image/23400186
http://www.pbase.com/image/24035312

[Longwatcher]

does IS really make that much of a difference? money wise, is it worth it?

- IS is good always if shooting still life in low light handheld.
- IS can help for people posing (moving very little) when handheld.
- Second generation IS (70-200 like) can help when shooting objects moving in one direction and you want them steady, but the background blurred.
- IS can occasionally help catching a bird in flight

- IS is useless if your target object is moving such that you need 1/250th or greater to stop the action.

I got the IS version of the 70-200/2.8L because although I don't use it very often, on the rare occasions where it is useful I get a shot I would not otherwise get. (that and I will take ISO 100-200 over 800+ anyday.

Just my experience and opinion,

[KennyG]

My question here is which brand to go for, they both 70-200mm and both at f2.8, different name, different price, but i'd like to hear experts' opinion on them and hopefully guide me to help make this decision for my future investment.

The Canon for a number of reasons. Not only is it sharper wide open but it has a better contrast than the Sigma. Also, for outdoor sports the Canon wins hands down as it is weather sealed.

In simple terms, the Canon is built for daily abuse by pros and the Sigma isn't. The Canon depreciates far less which is important to a pro as all equipment has to pay for itself.

Yes, the Sigma is cheap and gives decent quality for the price, but it just does not cut it on the sidelines of a soccer pitch in pouring rain or close up and personal trackside when it is hot and dusty.

My wife has the Sigma so I have first hand experience of both lenses.