Lens comparison (sorry)

[mttmrphy]

I am trying to decide on what to buy next...

I have been looking at these:

Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM Autofocus Lens
-or-
Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L zoom (used)

I have also been drooling over Canons 70-200 f/2.8 IS but I don't know if it is in my budget.

Thanks in advance

Opinions?

[WestFalcon]

I have the Canon L you are looking at and it is razor sharp but not a usm lens. It has a higher rating than any of the Canon USM zooms in this focal range according to photodo....buy it!!! I'm not a big fan of Sigma although I've owned many of their lenses. Always go Canon L if the price is not outrageous and you will never regret it.....great resale value too.

[psk4363]

If you're considering the older, second-hand 80-200L, why not pay a little bit extra and get a similar second-hand 70-200L (like I did)? In doing so you'll get the benefit of the extra 10mm and USM focussing.

Sigma? Canon L beats it hands down in all respects!

Hope this assists,
Barry

[sp00g3]

If you're considering the older, second-hand 80-200L, why not pay a little bit extra and get a similar second-hand 70-200L (like I did)? In doing so you'll get the benefit of the extra 10mm and USM focussing.

Sigma? Canon L beats it hands down in all respects!

Hope this assists,
Barry

I have to disagree with the Canon beating the Sigma hands down. Yes the Canon has a better focusing mechanism, But I placed both in a side by side comparison and both are equally sharp with very little to no CA

[mttmrphy]

If I could find a used 70-200mm 2.8 IS that I could afford, I would jump on it. $800.00 bucks is the most I think I could safely spend.

[kahfluie]

I am a believer that Canon Camera = Canon lens... however if you can't afford a good Canon lens, such as the 70-200 f2.8L, then the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 will do you good. I have one, and I am very pleased with the results.

Does the 10mm between the 70 and 80 make a difference? If yes, then consider the Sigma... or even the Canon 70-200 f4L (assuming the extra stops don't make a difference for your usage). If that extra 10mm makes no difference to you, then go for the Canon.

By the way, you can get a new Sigma 70- 200mm f2.8 for about $650 (at Delta International), and a new Canon 70-200 f4L for about $560 (at B&H)

One thing I will say... the Canon 70-200mm f4L is a VERY good lens... but so is the Sigma. I won't get into the argument of which is better. The Sigma suits my needs... I need the extra stops, and the price is well within my range. The bottom line is... what are your needs, and what can you afford.

[kahfluie]

If I could find a used 70-200mm 2.8 IS that I could afford, I would jump on it.

So would I!!!!

[mttmrphy]

I would like to use this for concerts and outdoor sports. I currently use my Canon 75-300 4-5.6 IS and its pretty good.

Right now I am leaning toward the Sigma only because I have heard nothing but praise for this lens and it is considerably less than the Canon. The stops are more important to me than the range though.

[RichardtheSane]

If I could find a used 70-200mm 2.8 IS that I could afford, I would jump on it.

So would I!!!!

I know L glass is pretty robust, but that might break it

Instead of jumping on it I'd buy it ;) :mrgreen:

[kahfluie]

I would like to use this for concerts and outdoor sports. I currently use my Canon 75-300 4-5.6 IS and its pretty good.


I shoot concerts... click here for samples of the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 - all of these were taken with that lens - and without the use of Flash.

http://debbielou.com/photography/concerts/joywilliams_031904/index.htm

For some sports shots using the lens:

http://debbielou.com/photography/Sports/baseball/lebanon_edgewood_040704/index.htm

[mttmrphy]

Its weird... I have read conflicting reviews.

Some say that the Sigma is too soft at 2.8 and others say its incredibly sharp.

I can't remember being so confused over what lens to buy... oh wait, yes I can.


Lovely photos by the way... thank you for posting examples.

[FSUScotsman]

This is more confusing than trying to buy a car!!! Some say this lens is good, some say it isn't. There will be three or four of the same length lens just to confuse me and I can't keep them all straight. I need a darn spreadsheet!!! Throw in the problem that I'm on a budget, that I'm not really sure which way to go and that no one else can make up their minds and it's no wonder I feel like I need medication!!!! :shock:

[Mr.B]

It is crazy, isn't it. When you finally break down and buy the sigma or the tokina, then that creeping, gnawing feeling of buyers remorse over what might have been with the "L" starts to seep in.

It's a terrible feeling being this confused.

I'm going to buy the sigma, but the white lenses are so pretty I'm already nervous about it.

[FSUScotsman]

EXACTLY!!!! When I do buy something I'll have to quit reading all the forums or I'll make myself sick. :twisted:

[mttmrphy]

It is crazy, isn't it. When you finally break down and buy the sigma or the tokina, then that creeping, gnawing feeling of buyers remorse over what might have been with the "L" starts to seep in.

I bought the Tokina earlier this week and took it back 12 hours later...

After spending all day reading reviews I am now leaning toward a Canon. Although the Canon 80-200 2.8L I was looking at as been sold. :(

[drisley]

kahfluie , both those galleries are amazing!

One thing I know that the Canon L does better is control chromatic abberition and blue/purple fringing.

I saw a page once that compared the sigma 70-200mm EX to the Canon 70-200mm L, and the Canon was a little sharper, and the Sigma really had a problem with CA/fringing at apertures greater than f8

[sp00g3]

kahfluie , both those galleries are amazing!

One thing I know that the Canon L does better is control chromatic abberition and blue/purple fringing.

I saw a page once that compared the sigma 70-200mm EX to the Canon 70-200mm L, and the Canon was a little sharper, and the Sigma really had a problem with CA/fringing at apertures greater than f8

Thats odd, I have yet to see this CA on my Sigma and have shot at 2.8 Mind you... 2.8 is soft on the Sigma, but there is no purple fringing. If there is, its so un noticeable in an image that is 6.3 mp, that there is no worries.

[vvizard]

It is crazy, isn't it. When you finally break down and buy the sigma or the tokina, then that creeping, gnawing feeling of buyers remorse over what might have been with the "L" starts to seep in.

It's a terrible feeling being this confused.

I'm going to buy the sigma, but the white lenses are so pretty I'm already nervous about it.

The only times I think about what I could have gotten with the Canon, is the IS! And seriously, I need it sometimes :( But I couldn't afford it. Couldn't even afford the non-IS version of the 70-200mm. So I decided against the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8, and the Canon 70-200 f4. I've never regretted it. I've seen a lot of shots from the canon version, and I yet have to see a picture from it that shows optical quality I have not achieved with my Sigma.

I suspected f4 was too slow for my use, and thankfully I was right. Heck f2.8 sometimes is too slow for me, hence the wish for IS (which I really cant afford).

If you buy the Sigma you probably wont regret it. It's tack-sharp, focuses fast and silent, and the focus/zoom rings are butter smooth. I'm not saying the Canon isn't, I'm just asking what else do you need? White colour couldn't justify the price-difference for me. Specially not since I like black the most ;)

[nosquare2003]

I would choose 80-200/2.8L (used). But it seems that there is a problem to use TC on it.