L Series Question

[JuStDaVe]

L Series Question

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am thinking of getting a ef 70 - 200 mm f4.0 canon lense ......

would it be better to get the 2.8 in the sigma or tamron range for the same money or stick with with canon

any info would be great as its a big expense to be wrong

cheers any info or photos with that canon lense so i can see would be greatly apreciated

thanks again

dave


thats the ef 70-200 f4 l usm model btw

[sGu]

Dave, that would entirely depends on your area of photography.

do you shoot a lot of low light? does your photography require fast shutter speed in all situations? if your answers are yes, then you'll probably need a few extra stops than f4. if not, then you should be okay with f4.

physically, 2.8 version is 77mm, and f4 is 58mm, with IS, lens is quite heavier than f4 version(not sure about sigma)

Sigma is a pretty good lens, according to some owners here, it does save you money. i guess it's not an easy decision.

[PJ]

My vote is for the Canon f/4


here is the first pic i took with that lens.
unaltered, original jpg file

http://www.chamberbox.com/pimp/digitalphotos/hugedad.JPG

hope this helps

PJ

[Cadenza]

Just made similar decision... Both choices
are good, 2.8 Sigma is one f-stop faster but
weighs twice as much as Canon -- about
3 lbs for Sigma, vs. 1 1/2 lb. for Canon f4 --
ultimately my main consideration.

Besides, f2.8 Sigma is consistently reported to
be somewhat soft at 2.8, and it needs to be
stopped down to f4 anyhow for best sharpness.
The way I figure is that benefit of f2.8 will be
outweighed by less stress on your hands, the
better balance and stedier shots the Canon f4
provides.

For tripod shots, the 1 f-stop advantage of the
Sigma is less of an issue, though the character of
bokeh between the two lenses may be different.
Subjectively, I tend to prefer the color rendition
and contrast of the Canon on samples I've seen.

Both lenses will give you a magnification
comparable to a 6x pair binoculars with a
1.6 crop factor, or 4x full-frame. As it stands
currently, Canon f4L is also about $100 lower in
price, and is likely to retain its value better in
resale, if I decide to move up to a 100-400L.

Regards, Cadenza

[forrest64]

"do you shoot a lot of low light? does your photography require fast shutter speed in all situations? if your answers are yes, then you'll probably need a few extra stops than f4. if not, then you should be okay with f4."




For your information there is ONLY one stop difference between a F4 and F2.8 aperture setting. Not much difference for such a huge difference in price. See:

http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm

[Olegis]

I have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (non IS version) and sometines I wish it was a f/1.8 one ... In some cases the is simply not enough light.
I think - you should go to the 2.8 version, if you can afford it. Sooner or later you'll want one - so why not buy it right now ? Also try to find used lens in good condition - that's how I got mine.

[DocFrankenstein]

Sigma is very soft I am afraid when compared to f/2.8 L. And f/4 is way sharper than the f/2.8 L.

So if you don't need the extra stop, I suggest you go with canon f/4. It's a superb lens which will probably outresolve the next body or two you're gonna get. Sigma is my "for now" solution and its resolution approximately matches that of the Rebel CMOS sensor. So I'm happy for the next few years.

The Sigma is really heavy though.

[DocFrankenstein]

So, being even the same price Canon is:

A whole lot harper
Will support new bodies
Weighs a whole lot less
4 times faster autofocus

Sigma:
Is one stop faster.
Has a "tripod ring"? And a case (I think L has a case too - don't know)

I knew I needed the extra stop and I'm happy with my decision. BUT if you're planning to shoot outside sports and anything that moves, then go with f/4 cause it will give you an easier time focusing and handholding and being sharper at the same time.

That's pure IMO, but I've done comparison tests of L vs Sigma. Sigma sucks at 200 mm wide open.

[DocFrankenstein]

Here's a few samples wide open:

This one was taken with 3 lightbulbs only. No flash.
http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=y3qae1&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images1.fotopic.net/?iid=y3qaef&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=y3qae5&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

All of them at 200 mm, that's where the sigma seemed to be the weakest compared to L