Sigma or Canon?

[Jmurman]

I would like to know how pleased you are with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX.

If you own the Canon 70-200 L F4, how pleased are you with it?


I am considering this but am also looking at the Canon 70-200 L f4.0. B and H has both of these and they are comparable price wise, if you add tripod collar for the Canon. I will also add a 1.4 teleconvertor

The 70-200 L f2.8 Canon with IS...is about 1,000 more. Not a small difference there, however, is the price difference justifiable in the long run?

I buy equipment and keep it, whether its cameras, or what ever, so my purchase will be for a long time.

Thanks so much!

[ssim]

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and it is probably the nicest lens that I have. I think iti is a given that you have decide on L series. Whether you go for the 2.8 and IS really depends on the subject matters that you are going to shoot. If you are going to work in lower light levels and moving subjects then the 2.8 IS is the way to go.

I can't comment on the Sigma as I only have Canon glass.

[kahfluie]

I am very pleased with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. Very good lens for the money. No regrets. Anyone would have a hard time getting me to part with it.

If you want to see examples of photographs with the lens, please go to:
http://debbielou.com/photography/concerts/avalon_030504/index.htm

All photos on that link were taken with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX APO IF HSM.

BTW - Delta International (http://www.deltainternational.com/store/Item_SGL70%2D200HC.htm) is selling the Sigma for $656. I got it from them... good service, no complaints.

Cheers,

[defordphoto]

Canon. Always Canon.

[psk4363]

Hi,

I'm with Jim, having tried Sigma lenses, I went with and would recommen d yo to go for Canon each and every time.

Cheers,
Barry

[Jmurman]

I really do appreciate your replies.

I am leaning towards Canon also. I just wanted to make sure before plunking down the bucks. I would like to get the 2.8, but I can't justify the extra 1,000

Jerry

[defordphoto]

I really do appreciate your replies.

I am leaning towards Canon also. I just wanted to make sure before plunking down the bucks. I would like to get the 2.8, but I can't justify the extra 1,000

Jerry

The F4 is a very highly rated lens. If you cannot afford the 2.8, then definitely do not hesitate with the F4. The glass is nearly as, or equal with the 2.8, depending on who you talk to. You will not be disappointed.

[PacAce]

One of the reasons I would recommend you get the Canon instead of the Sigma is the amount of money you are going to invest in it and the fact that you're talking about a short and fast telephoto lens (meaning shallower DOF with f/2.8 where accurate focusing is more critical). You can always take your canon lens and body to the Canon repair center and have them calibrated to give you tack sharp focusing. I doubt you'll be able to take your Sigma to Canon and ask them to calibrate the camera with it if you have focusing problems with the lens.

If the above is not an issue for you, then go with the Sigma 2.8 if you need the extra stop although it's going to MUCH heavier than the Canon f/4. I would suggest you try it out first before you buy the Sigma if you haven't already.

[karusel]

Uh, this must be like 23rd thread with the same topic. Regardless, here's my 2 cents; recently I've read a post by some photographer who tested both lens and concluded that canon f/4.0 is roughly one f-stop faster than sigma 2.8... which of course means that the lens are practicaly the same speed...

[PacAce]

...that canon f/4.0 is roughly one f-stop faster than sigma 2.8... which of course means that the lens are practicaly the same speed...

???

[Ferdinand]

I think he means the Sigma is one stop faster than the Canon.....

Regards,
Ferdinand

[aeroshots2003]

Canon. Always Canon.

He's definitely hooked on the stuff :D :D


I'm also more prone to stick with Canon. The 70-200 f/4.0 L has served me well over the last 18 months. Used it mostly for outdoor photography and although I take action images, I managed to make do in most situations - if needed I switch from ISO 100 to 400 to pick up speed.

Nevertheless I would like to upgrade to the f/2.8 version in the near future.

Greetz,


Johan

[Jmurman]

Canon. Always Canon.

He's definitely hooked on the stuff :D :D


I'm also more prone to stick with Canon. The 70-200 f/4.0 L has served me well over the last 18 months. Used it mostly for outdoor photography and although I take action images, I managed to make do in most situations - if needed I switch from ISO 100 to 400 to pick up speed.

Nevertheless I would like to upgrade to the f/2.8 version in the near future.

Greetz,


Johan

Do you have any regrets about the "non-IS"?

I am sorry for the nature of my question, for those that have heard this before...my apologies.

[karusel]

No, Ferdinand, I mean, that Canon's actual optical performance test showed, that it is roughly one f-stop faster than Sigma. In other words; came camera, same focal length, same target @ 1/1000 sec AE sets 5.6 for sigma and 4.0 for canon. Right now I'm desperately trying to find the link... I'll post it if/when I'll find it......

[CyberDyneSystems]

A little side by side comparison;

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22421#132094

Not scientific,.. nor does it address all the issues,. but my own first impressions if you are interested.

[aeroshots2003]

IS seems a magic problemsolver to many - don't forget it only serves to 'neutralise' camerashake and in this matter it is indeed magnificent in gaining several stops.

IS however does not help you to freeze your moving subject in low-light conditions, therefore you would still need a so-called fast lens (2.8 or wider apertures) and/or increase your ISO.

Since I need fast shutterspeed to somewhat freeze my subject, IS would be of less use to me - that is, I find it an interesting technological improvement, yet I can not justify the extra cost for my type of photography.

Still, the sight of a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS makes my mouth water :shock: :shock:

[sds4kst8]

After a quick read through this thread it seems that we're not really comparing apples to apples. Sigma 70-200 f2.8 vs the Canon 70-200 f4 wouldn't be what I'd call a fair comparison. And as I started to write a little more about my experiences with the Sigma and the Canon 2.8s, I thought I'd share a little something I tired out just within the past week. I need to first say that I'm not a "measurbator" and don't get really hung up on specs...I want to see that the equipment takes pleasing pics and works well. Both lenses, IMO, do just that.

Anyway, I'm curious to have you guess which one of these images was from the Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 HSM APO lens, and which was from the Canon 70-200 f2.8 "L" (non-IS version). Both shots were taken in the same facility, under the same lighting conditions, shot with a 10d at ISO1600, f2.8, 1/500, custom WB, no flash. Both image were taken from almost the exact same spot on the floor. Also, no processing was done other than resizing for web use.

Photo #1
http://www.pbase.com/image/26857098.jpg

Photo #2
http://www.pbase.com/image/26857100.jpg

[hickory]

as was said earlier in the thread this subject comes up often and the discussions always go the same way. can the debate be stickied to top of this forum for future reference by newbies?

Really its the old apples and oranges discussion. And besides my Dad can beat up your Dad any day.........by the way is your Dad busy Friday cause thats a good day for my Dad :lol:

tom
(I like my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO)

[hickory]

Scott,

I'm guessing that the top photo is the Sigma?? Man, they are both very good photos tho.

tom

[KennyG]

Scott,

I'm guessing that the top photo is the Sigma?? Man, they are both very good photos tho.

tom

I think the other way round. Look at the strange info in the Exif of the bottom shot.

[karusel]

Yeah, Sigma's signature is a messed up focal length in exif :mrgreen: but who cares? I know I don't. However prior to kennyg's post I'd swear no.1 is from the Sigma...

[CyberDyneSystems]

The wacky focal lengths reported in exif on 10D's using Sigma lenses started with the 2.0 firmware update!!!!!!

I am not kidding I just figured this out recently!

I have thousands of images that I took with both the 50-500mm and 70-200mm sigma's and all the Exif made perfect sense for the first several months of shooting... (april - mid summer 2003)

...then suddenly out of no where the focal lenght reported went all screwy.. somewhere during the summer this happened..

I finally realised it was after I flashd the firmware!!!!

I think Canon did it on purpose! :roll: :shock:

[Ferdinand]

I think Canon did it on purpose! :roll: :shock:

Yup so now its Sigma's fault for the incompatible lens :lol:

Pencils never have such issues.

Regards,
Ferdinand

[Jmurman]

The two photos are both very good. Which is which?

[Tom W]

No, Ferdinand, I mean, that Canon's actual optical performance test showed, that it is roughly one f-stop faster than Sigma. In other words; came camera, same focal length, same target @ 1/1000 sec AE sets 5.6 for sigma and 4.0 for canon. Right now I'm desperately trying to find the link... I'll post it if/when I'll find it......

I don't know if there was such a test or not, but I can tell you that my Sigma 70-200 EX shoots the same shutter speed as my old Canon 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 when shot at identical aperture and focal length on the same target. However in this case, the Sigma produces images that are considerably better than those from the older non-L Canon lens.

I can say that I believe that the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX is a very good lens.

[defordphoto]

I love the Canon shot (photo #1). Look at the ball! Awesome!! Color rendition is perfect. Sigma shot looks weird. Not sure why it's all over-saturated and over-contrasted. Weird...

[hickory]

Jim,

I do agree that the second shot is more contrasty, which was why I picked the first one as the Sigma shot. I didn't notice any weirdness in the colors but that may just be me. Basically what we are all jabbering about are matters of personal preference IMO. But thats what drives the sales and marketing industry. Bottom line I like them both.

tom

[defordphoto]

I like my setup to shoot neutral. I want to see in my photo what I saw live when I pressed the button. Then if I want to saturate and add contrast, etc., I will do on my own accord.

I'm not saying there anything particularly wrong with the Sigma shot, other than it doesn't look natural to me. A lot people like to crank the color on their TV's to a million too. ;) I have the color on my D60 set to -1 because it is too saturated. That's my personal preference.

The only way to compare lenses is to shoot the exact same shot. These are not the exact same shot and there are all kinds of variances possible. Angle of lighting, subject distance, etc.

All being said, they are both great shots and if I liked basketball, I'd frame either one of them.

[kraterz]

I was in the same situation and chose the Canon. I tested two Sigmas at my local store and they both had to go down to f/4 or f/5.6 for sharp images. The Canon gave me sharp shots wide open at f/4. I figured that if I'm spending this much money for an f/2.8 lens which needs to be stopped down to f/4-5.6 for sharpness, I may as well get a smaller and lighter Canon lens which has better resale value if at a later time I save up enough to get the Canon f/2.8 zoom.

[sds4kst8]

Jim, you're right...the second shot is much more contrasty and I couldn't figure out why, as most of the shots at that end of the court that day came out like that. Both of the earlier posts were taken from virtually the same courtside position pointed toward the same end of the court. The college game was on TV, but I think the lights were the same for the high school game.

This is rather intesting, though, and I'm going to try one more. I promise this will be the last. I'm very curious to know which one you think is the Canon and which is the Sigma. Good luck. (and no peaking on the PBase site, either!)

Image #1
http://www.pbase.com/image/26615113.jpg

Image #2
http://www.pbase.com/image/26715327.jpg

[kahfluie]

top: Canon
Bottom: Sigma

[defordphoto]

top: Canon
Bottom: Sigma

WOW! You must be telepathic!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Ferdinand]

#2 Canon

#1 Sigma

Regards,
Ferdinand

[karusel]

I wish there were two identical shots, not of rulers exactly, but not of people in fast movement either... :) If we'll keep comparing the lens like this, we'll never get to the bottom of the matter...

[defordphoto]

I wish there were two identical shots, not of rulers exactly, but not of people in fast movement either... :) If we'll keep comparing the lens like this, we'll never get to the bottom of the matter...

Yeah, but I'm sure we could still stretch this thread into 3 pages yakking about it. ;)

[sds4kst8]

Jim, you've always got such good perspective. You're right...'yakkin' is about all this is. It's like debating the difference between a Chevy Cavalier and a Cadillac. We'd all like to have the Caddy, but for some the Cavalier might be all we can afford, but it will still get you to your destination.

Actually, this was a little bit of a trick post as both the photos are from the Sigma! Sorry, I couldn't resist. I guess as one who started out just a few months ago with two Sigma lenses, I've always felt a little like a stepchild because I didn't have "L" glass. I knew enough about photography to know I'd eventually want the "L", but also knew just starting out I had to find a cost-effective alternative. The Sigma EX line--specifically the 28-70 and 70-200--fit that bill nicely.

I don't mean to imply that anyone on this forum (or other forums) intentionally tries to makes people feel inferior for not using "L" glass, but I've always thought some of the responses aren't as complete as they maybe should be and maybe not really fair to those asking the initial questions. Responses like "Canon only" or "nothing but Canon" do little to help the newbies (who might have tight budget considerations) figure out what their best options are.

I've only had my Canon 70-200 for less than a week, but I've already had a chance to shoot four basketball games and two baseball games...in the same arenas I used the Sigma 70-200. And I swear I can not tell the difference (and evidently most of you can't, either!). And, here's the kicker, my first shot published in a newspaper was taken with the Sigma and the second with a Canon and not a single person at the paper said one thing about a difference in quality or if I used a different lens. The Sigma (i.e. Cavalier) got me where I was going.

So, in response to Jmurman's original post, get whatever glass you can afford that meets your needs. If you need faster glass, but only have $1,000 to spend, you can easily get the Sigma 70-200 2.8 or the Canon non-IS version for under a grand. If you don't need the f2.8, the Canon f4 would work fine. I think one of things that makes Canon better is quality control. I've sensed that most people are having fewer problems right off the bat when they buy Canon, where a larger percentage of people are having some issues when they pick up the non-OEM equipment. I figure that just comes with the territory of buying something for much less money.

Well, I've yakked long enough. This has been fun and will never end as long as companies like Sigma, Tamron and Tokina are hoping to stay in business! Happy Shooting!

(spoken like Paul Harvey)...And now, Page 3

[CyberDyneSystems]

Great post! lol,.

Go back a page and click the link I provided on the previous page,. my test was similar.. and the results were similar.

Having now had the Canon IS lens for some time, in use I have to say the IS has been helpfull,. but other than that,, I find the biggest differences between the two are purley ergonomic.

The canon is heavier,. the rings are stiffer,. and the switches looser (thus the IS and AF get truned OFF repeatedly) and the Canon attracts too much attention in more candid situations (white)

I am trying hard to find a reason to keep the Canon.. the fact that I have to try is a big indicator of how little "extra" I am getting from this lens.

Once I GET a Camera to use again,. and the now with the weather offereing occasional opportunities to shoot.. I hope to find my results improved.. but thus far, I am unconvinced.

[sds4kst8]

CDS...I'd seen your previous post compare the two lenses, which was very helpful. Great job.

I'd have to agree with you about the differences...they seem to be mostly ergonomic at this point, and I'd have to give the nod in that category to the Sigma.

IMO, the tripod ring on the Canon just plain stinks. I hate the fact that I can't take it off the lens without removing the lens from the body! And I knew going into the Canon purchase the the zoom rings turned different directions, but I think the Canon is the backward of the two. For instance, when shooting basketball or any sport in which the subject moves toward you, I found that with the Sigma I could focus on the subject and use my thumb to zoom out as the subject moved closer. With the Canon, you have to actually use your hand to zoom out, which doesn't seem as intuitive.

I am a little curious, though, about the zoom ring on the Canon. It feels sort of like there are ball bearings (don't know how else to describe it!) inside that sort of grind slightly when zooming quickly. Is this normal? If I'm zooming slowly I don't notice it, but if I have to zoom quickly and turn harder, it seems like the zoom mechanism sort of grinds. Anyone else know what I'm talking about?

CDS, no camera? What's up? Man, that hurts...

[defordphoto]

Good grief.

DO NOT BUY L-GLASS! It is much too expensive and not worth the money. Never buy Canon lenses. They are all too expensive and you can do better by buying cheaper Sigma lenses.

In fact, don't even buy Canon cameras. Get a Nikon or a Fuji. Get a P&S camera!

Is that better now?

Forums are for opinions and for expressing opinions. I have mine. You have yours. If ANYONE asks me what kind of lens to buy I will always tell them to buy Canon glass.

This is a Canon forum and I believe in the products that Canon produces. If newbies can't decide for themselves then I feel sorry for them. To depend on a forum for making big money decisions on expensive cameras and glass is just silly.

Of course people should only buy what they can afford. Again, if they can't figure out their own budgets and blow their wad because of some forum talk, then they have much bigger problems than we can ever deal with.

The great thing about this all is what we have many, many choices available to us. Everyone has to decide for themselves. If they ask you, you will say Sigma, if they ask me, I will say Canon. Do not ever tell me that by my saying Canon is they best buy that I am wrong. You're barking up the wrong tree there.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Good grief.

DO NOT BUY L-GLASS! It is much too expensive and not worth the money. Never buy Canon lenses. They are all too expensive and you can do better by buying cheaper Sigma lenses.

In fact, don't even buy Canon cameras. Get a Nikon or a Fuji. Get a P&S camera!

Is that better now?

Forums are for opinions and for expressing opinions. I have mine. You have yours. If ANYONE asks me what kind of lens to buy I will always tell them to buy Canon glass.

This is a Canon forum and I believe in the products that Canon produces. If newbies can't decide for themselves then I feel sorry for them. To depend on a forum for making big money decisions on expensive cameras and glass is just silly.

Of course people should only buy what they can afford. Again, if they can't figure out their own budgets and blow their wad because of some forum talk, then they have much bigger problems than we can ever deal with.

The great thing about this all is what we have many, many choices available to us. Everyone has to decide for themselves. If they ask you, you will say Sigma, if they ask me, I will say Canon. Do not ever tell me that by my saying Canon is they best buy that I am wrong. You're barking up the wrong tree there.

:?: Jim ?
What brought on that post?

I certainly don't see anyone telling you that you were wrong to recomend Canon?

Just curious?

You've known my opnion on this for some time,. and I think we agree about 90% of the way,. I just happen to have had some great experiences with "non Canon" lenses that leads me to beleive it is well within the boundaries of reason to recomend a few "Non Canon" products.

So we disagree on that. :? So what?

When someone asks for opinions on such a subject,. I don't think that they are expevting 100% of the replies to agree? Sure there are times when WE ALL agree (like when someone asks if it's a good idea to buy a $2,000.00 camera from "Hotoffthedocksdigital.com")

All we can offer is our own personal opinion and experiences,. and that is all most of the posters are asking of us.

I do not think there can be a right or wrong answer given that Criterea.

Do you?

[CyberDyneSystems]

....CDS, no camera? What's up? Man, that hurts...

Aaaargh,..

The 10D died about a week ago.. :(

It's getting an overhaul @ Canon New Jersey.. Hope to get it back soon,. I have two days off starting tomorrow and the weather is beautifull!

[sds4kst8]

Jim, I can only respectfully ask that you chill out a little (don't know how else to say it!). I wasn't trying offend anyone, and certainly wasn't targeting you. In fact, I started one of my previous posts saying I always appreciate your perspective. And, many of your posts were very helpful in me getting started in digital SLR photography.

You're right, this is a great forum for opinions and perspectives. And anyone that reads one or two posts and makes a purchase based soley on a few opinions probably does have issues. But, I know from experience on these forums, that sometimes I'd see something about buying one item or another just because it had an "L" on the lens and nothing else. All I've been trying to do on this thread is explain--in my opinion--how the lenses compare and contrast. Sometimes it seems that most people are on the Canon bandwagon and there could be more perspective from Sigma users. That's not a bad thing. And it doesn't mean that your right and I'm wrong or vice versa. It's just different perspective.

If you read into my prior posts that I said you were wrong to recommend Canon, I apologize. I just re-read my posts and didn't see that I wrote you were wrong and should not recommend only Canon. I only said that I didn't think responses like "Canon only" were as helpful as they could be. I've read tons of your posts and they've always been helpful, so I know where you're coming from.

IMO, Canon and Sigma both have good qualities and either brand will serve certain people very well depending on their needs and budgets. Sounds like we're on the same page to me.

[defordphoto]

I don't mean to imply that anyone on this forum (or other forums) intentionally tries to makes people feel inferior for not using "L" glass, but I've always thought some of the responses aren't as complete as they maybe should be and maybe not really fair to those asking the initial questions. Responses like "Canon only" or "nothing but Canon" do little to help the newbies (who might have tight budget considerations) figure out what their best options are.


Nuff said. I'm done here.

[Jmurman]

:oops: I cant help but feel like **** after bringing up a subject that is important to me. :oops:

Yes I am a newbie...with photography. However, I'm not sittng around wringing my hands over this decision.

I REALLY appreciate all of your comments...thanks!

[defordphoto]

:oops: I cant help but feel like **** after bringing up a subject that is important to me. :oops:

Yes I am a newbie...with photography. However, I'm not sittng around wringing my hands over this decision.

I REALLY appreciate all of your comments...thanks!

If can afford Canon, by all means get the Canon. Canon lenses are proven better overall in build quality and end quality in your photos. The resale value is also much higher on Canon glass by far, if you decide sometime in the future to trade it in. The photos in this thread are not good comparisons at all and I highly suggest you research outside the forums and seek true-life reviews on the lenses in question before making your decision. Remember, it is your decision and no one else's.

[karusel]

sds4kst8, I second that.

Also, it is not wise to not look left or right and just take what's on the plate. One should define his needs and budget and make a compromise. THere is no such thing as a good cheap lens. There is however, a good cheaper lens.

If you are a pro, then money is not in this equation, just define the needs, try out the lens, buy it, regardless what company produces them. Of course unless you're annoyed by some characteristics of a third company lens (the lack of white finish doesn't count). I don't know for sure, but there may be some lens made by Sigma/Tamron/Tokina that simply beat Canon's best lenses fair and square. Or can you provide some evidence to prove me wrong?

[sds4kst8]

If you are a pro, then money is not in this equation, just define the needs, try out the lens, buy it, regardless what company produces them. Of course unless you're annoyed by some characteristics of a third company lens (the lack of white finish doesn't count). I don't know for sure, but there may be some lens made by Sigma/Tamron/Tokina that simply beat Canon's best lenses fair and square. Or can you provide some evidence to prove me wrong?

I couldn't agree more, karusel. And I'd add that "L" and a little red stripe around the barrel don't count either. Personally, I could care less what lens someone else chooses and I could care even less what anyone would think of the lenses I use. It just doesn't matter. And, while it's nice to know what users think of how their equipment works for them, what really matters in the final analysis is that the equipment you use produces the kinds of images you want or need?

By no means did I think the photos I posted earlier on this thread are even remotely scientific, but they showed--like other examples have in previous posts--that it can be difficult to tell the difference. You'll notice that I didn't post MTF charts or detailed specs, but "true-life" examples of what each lens can do.

[ilya]

Canon all the way for everything except UV's.

Gives a certain peace of mind...

I would consider buying a Metz sted of the EX as I've heard good things.

Sigma seems perfectly ok, but there would have to be a pretty strong price/value argument for me to go there. So far I've not heard one in my preferred focal ranges.

Cheers

[Jmurman]

Jim, you've always got such good perspective. You're right...'yakkin' is about all this is. It's like debating the difference between a Chevy Cavalier and a Cadillac. We'd all like to have the Caddy, but for some the Cavalier might be all we can afford, but it will still get you to your destination.

Actually, this was a little bit of a trick post as both the photos are from the Sigma! Sorry, I couldn't resist. I guess as one who started out just a few months ago with two Sigma lenses, I've always felt a little like a stepchild because I didn't have "L" glass. I knew enough about photography to know I'd eventually want the "L", but also knew just starting out I had to find a cost-effective alternative. The Sigma EX line--specifically the 28-70 and 70-200--fit that bill nicely.

I don't mean to imply that anyone on this forum (or other forums) intentionally tries to makes people feel inferior for not using "L" glass, but I've always thought some of the responses aren't as complete as they maybe should be and maybe not really fair to those asking the initial questions. Responses like "Canon only" or "nothing but Canon" do little to help the newbies (who might have tight budget considerations) figure out what their best options are.

I've only had my Canon 70-200 for less than a week, but I've already had a chance to shoot four basketball games and two baseball games...in the same arenas I used the Sigma 70-200. And I swear I can not tell the difference (and evidently most of you can't, either!). And, here's the kicker, my first shot published in a newspaper was taken with the Sigma and the second with a Canon and not a single person at the paper said one thing about a difference in quality or if I used a different lens. The Sigma (i.e. Cavalier) got me where I was going.

So, in response to Jmurman's original post, get whatever glass you can afford that meets your needs. If you need faster glass, but only have $1,000 to spend, you can easily get the Sigma 70-200 2.8 or the Canon non-IS version for under a grand. If you don't need the f2.8, the Canon f4 would work fine. I think one of things that makes Canon better is quality control. I've sensed that most people are having fewer problems right off the bat when they buy Canon, where a larger percentage of people are having some issues when they pick up the non-OEM equipment. I figure that just comes with the territory of buying something for much less money.

Well, I've yakked long enough. This has been fun and will never end as long as companies like Sigma, Tamron and Tokina are hoping to stay in business! Happy Shooting!

(spoken like Paul Harvey)...And now, Page 3

I thank you for your comments and your pics that you posted.

I did a cost comparison of the 70-200 F4L Canon vs the Sigma 70-200 F2.8. When everything is considered, the Sigma is about 150 more than the Canon. The main cost difference is in the filters 67mmm vs 77mm.

When I see your pics of the indoor basketball shots, I am really impressed with the clarity. I dont know if the F4 will give me that indoors. Outside I don't think that it will matter much, but inside...that extra stop I'm sure will come into play at some point.

I know that one day when my 3yo daughter starts playing sports, I could very well regret not having the extra stop.

I still would like to see a Canon vs Sigma pic side by side in a real world lens comparision.

Thanks again!

Jerry

I am still on the fence right now.

[nosquare2003]

Jmurman

Can you take a few shots in a camera shop and save them in your CF card? If so, you can judge them to a certain extent as you may not know the justification of the extra stop. But at least you can judge the quality yourself.

[Jmurman]

Jmurman

Can you take a few shots in a camera shop and save them in your CF card? If so, you can judge them to a certain extent as you may not know the justification of the extra stop. But at least you can judge the quality yourself.

Excellent point. I don't know any photo shops in my area, so, I'll start checking some out.

Thanks!
Jerry

[sds4kst8]

I thank you for your comments and your pics that you posted.

I did a cost comparison of the 70-200 F4L Canon vs the Sigma 70-200 F2.8. When everything is considered, the Sigma is about 150 more than the Canon. The main cost difference is in the filters 67mmm vs 77mm.

When I see your pics of the indoor basketball shots, I am really impressed with the clarity. I dont know if the F4 will give me that indoors. Outside I don't think that it will matter much, but inside...that extra stop I'm sure will come into play at some point.

I know that one day when my 3yo daughter starts playing sports, I could very well regret not having the extra stop.

I still would like to see a Canon vs Sigma pic side by side in a real world lens comparision.

Thanks again!

Jerry

I am still on the fence right now.

Jerry,

Hang in there. You'll get to the point where you'll know exactly what lens you want/need. I think it's important to remember in this situation that you're not comparing apples to apples when you compare the Canon f4 to a Sigma f2.8.

I can't say for certain because I haven't actaully tried, but I'd guess the f4 Canon probably wouldn't be good for indoor sports use (maybe someone who has the f4 could speak to this directly). I do know that even with the Canon and Sigma f2.8s, the basketball shots I posted previously were taken at ISO1600, f2.8, 1/500. And the shots on this message thread were taken in a facility that has probably some of the best basketball lighting short of a professional basketball team's facility...high school and even many college facilities have MUCH worse ligithing than where the shots I posted were taken. So, I'm guessing that f4 wouldn't be too good a lens for indoor sport (or low-light situations of any kind).

If you looked at the prices of the Canon f2.8 vs the Sigma f2.8, the Sigma wins hands down. You can pick up a brand new Sigma for somewhere between $600 and $700, where the new Canon will cost about double that (for the IS version). Again, depending on what you're shooting, you might not need or want the IS version (that was my case) and you can find a non-IS Canon f2.8 for about $1,100 (or a used version for couple hundred $$ less). One thing to keep in mind is that the Sigma f2.8 comes with a tripod ring, where the Canon f4 does not. Filter cost is another matter I won't get into here. Here's a link to an interesting discussion about filters. (Note: I tend to agree with Ben Horne on this issue). http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/73969/0

I'd say if this is your first lens and you don't think you'll be using the lens much indoors, the Canon f4 would be a great way to go. It'll have good resale value, so if you decided you needed the f2.8 at some point, you could sell the Canon and get the Sigma for only a little extra $$.

Now, scoot on out and find your friendly local camera store and check these lenses out. We're all anxiously waiting to see the awesome photos you'll be taking with whatever lens you get! :lol:

[CoolToolGuy]

Jmurman

Can you take a few shots in a camera shop and save them in your CF card? If so, you can judge them to a certain extent as you may not know the justification of the extra stop. But at least you can judge the quality yourself.

Excellent point. I don't know any photo shops in my area, so, I'll start checking some out.

Thanks!
Jerry

Jerry,

Check your private messages.

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Jmurman]

Jmurman

Can you take a few shots in a camera shop and save them in your CF card? If so, you can judge them to a certain extent as you may not know the justification of the extra stop. But at least you can judge the quality yourself.

Excellent point. I don't know any photo shops in my area, so, I'll start checking some out.

Thanks!
Jerry

Jerry,

Check your private messages.

Have Fun
Rick 8)

Rick,
Thanks for oyur PM. I do remember you saying that there are a couple good stores in the area. I had to laugh when you said that Ritz is the "Dark Side"...you see, I smoke cigars... in cigar speak, the "Dark Side" is Cuban (i.e.illegal and totally WONDERFUL) :) In cigar speak, a "Dog Rocket" is crap :)

So, Ritz would be the "Dog Rockets" of camera speak, right? :) :)

[Jmurman]

Jerry,

Hang in there. You'll get to the point where you'll know exactly what lens you want/need. I think it's important to remember in this situation that you're not comparing apples to apples when you compare the Canon f4 to a Sigma f2.8.

I can't say for certain because I haven't actaully tried, but I'd guess the f4 Canon probably wouldn't be good for indoor sports use (maybe someone who has the f4 could speak to this directly). I do know that even with the Canon and Sigma f2.8s, the basketball shots I posted previously were taken at ISO1600, f2.8, 1/500. And the shots on this message thread were taken in a facility that has probably some of the best basketball lighting short of a professional basketball team's facility...high school and even many college facilities have MUCH worse ligithing than where the shots I posted were taken. So, I'm guessing that f4 wouldn't be too good a lens for indoor sport (or low-light situations of any kind).

If you looked at the prices of the Canon f2.8 vs the Sigma f2.8, the Sigma wins hands down. You can pick up a brand new Sigma for somewhere between $600 and $700, where the new Canon will cost about double that (for the IS version). Again, depending on what you're shooting, you might not need or want the IS version (that was my case) and you can find a non-IS Canon f2.8 for about $1,100 (or a used version for couple hundred $$ less). One thing to keep in mind is that the Sigma f2.8 comes with a tripod ring, where the Canon f4 does not. Filter cost is another matter I won't get into here. Here's a link to an interesting discussion about filters. (Note: I tend to agree with Ben Horne on this issue). http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/73969/0

I'd say if this is your first lens and you don't think you'll be using the lens much indoors, the Canon f4 would be a great way to go. It'll have good resale value, so if you decided you needed the f2.8 at some point, you could sell the Canon and get the Sigma for only a little extra $$.

Now, scoot on out and find your friendly local camera store and check these lenses out. We're all anxiously waiting to see the awesome photos you'll be taking with whatever lens you get! :lol:[/quote]

After I wrote that I realized that the F4 Canon and the F2.8 Sigma aren't really comparing apples to apples. The appropriate comparison would be with the F2.8 IS Canon and the F2.8 Sigma.

Now, in comapring those two, the cost difference is more apparent, approx $900 difference....wow. :shock:

I think I'll trip on down to a store and have a look see this week.

Thanks!

[CoolToolGuy]

Rick,
Thanks for oyur PM. I do remember you saying that there are a couple good stores in the area. I had to laugh when you said that Ritz is the "Dark Side"...you see, I smoke cigars... in cigar speak, the "Dark Side" is Cuban (i.e.illegal and totally WONDERFUL) :) In cigar speak, a "Dog Rocket" is crap :)

So, Ritz would be the "Dog Rockets" of camera speak, right? :) :)

Dog Rockets - :lol:

The last time I went to the Ritz in Kenilworth, there was actually one guy there who sort of knew what he was talking about, but just one. To their credit, as soon as I asked about a Canon hood for a specific lens the other folks directed me right to him. But he said 'We don't carry the Canon Hoods'. Still a typical Ritz experience. Kenilworth has the best selection of Canon lenses that I have seen at a Ritz in a long time (probably due to the neighborhood), but I don't know what they carry in non-Canon. :?

Other than Cooper's Camera Mart, there is Service Photo on Charles St. around 28th St. Good store, but like Camera Mart, they are only open until 5 or 6, and noon or so on Saturday. :?

Good luck and keep posting. :) :D

Have Fun
Rick 8)