Which 70-200...

[MrKickalot]

Ok.. Delima time!! I'm am looking for a 70-200 lens. The Canon 70-200 2.8 is out.. just too much money right now. Here's the delima...

Canon 70-200L f4.0 $570
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 $799

I love the idea of L-glass but I am afraid that I will kick myself 10 minutes ofter I buy it for not getting the f2.8. I can get the Canon sooner because it's less money!

If anyone who is not a "has to be Canon or it's junk" person who has used both of these lenses can you give me a comparision of the two, I'm mostly concerned about optics but noise and feel matter too!!

Thanks to all!

P.S. I know I could hunt this out eventually but lunch break is over. Can I use a 1.4X tele. with the f4 and my rebel??

[roanjohn]

P.S. I know I could hunt this out eventually but lunch break is over. Can I use a 1.4X tele. with the f4 and my rebel??

Yes!!! Then you'll have a 280 f5.6 (I think).

The Sigma is not bad..........but the Canon is super!!! I was in the same boat before and decided with the CAnon, never looked back since. Even with the purchase of the 2.8 version, I still kept my f4 version just because (I love it that much!!!).

Check out the sharpness of this lens at my galleries:

http://www.pbase.com/roanjohn/pride_ny_2004&page=all

http://www.pbase.com/roanjohn/canon_70200_l_f4

Ro1

[Olegis]

This is a LOT of info regarding these two lenses in this forum, just do a quick search. In short, the two lenses are awesome, offer equal sharpness and optical quality. Which one to buy - it's completely up to you to decide, based on your type of shooting. Low-light situations will need faster lens (sometimes even the f/2.8 isn't enough), but for outdoor shooting with good lighting the f/4 version will be excellent. Also consider the weight - the 2.8 is about twice the weight of the f/4 (more or less).

Can I use a 1.4X tele. with the f4 and my rebel??

Yes you can. You'll get f/5.6 lens, which still will be able to AF. Accordingto various posts in this forum, the optical quality of this combo is excellent.

[tommykjensen]

Get the Canon, You won't regret it. There is just one catch :D After You get it You want more L glass :wink:

[sp00g3]

I love my Sigma... I'm sure either way you go you will be happy, really you can't go wrong with either. Though the Sigma 2x and 1.4 Tele and the Sigma 70-200 work great together, you will not lose autofocus ability, I have heard of some issues with the Canon and backfocusing and focal problems with the tc's

[gcogger]

I've been researching this as well. It seems that any of the Canon 70-200 L lenses, or the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX are fantastic lenses with little to choose between them.
Another option, if you can find one, is the old Canon 80-200 f/2.8 L. Second hand copies can be cheaper than the Sigma new, and it would seem to be very similar in quality, weight and handling to the current Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L. It doesn't have USM, but apparently it focuses quickly and accurately without it.

[roanjohn]

Also.....for the same price, you can also get the 200 f2.8 L. It's a prime - and its also black!!!

Ro1

[briangig]

you can find the 70-200 2.8 on ebay for ~$800

[who me?]

Mr. Kickalot, Another source of information is to go into the EOS sticky at the top of this forum. In there is a thread on equipment reviews. Scroll down through that and there is a comparison of the Sigma and Canon 70-200 lenses. This should give you some good info too.

[Persian-Rice]

They are both great lenses.

the f4 is the sharpest of the 70-200 canon's but again its only f4. SIgma will give you the advantage of the better performance under lower light but, quality is not quite comparable to the canon.

It really a give or take, both have their pros and cons.

[digitalmono]

Go Canon 2.8. And think about the IS. You'll never regret!

[sp00g3]

They are both great lenses.

the f4 is the sharpest of the 70-200 canon's but again its only f4. SIgma will give you the advantage of the better performance under lower light but, quality is not quite comparable to the canon.

It really a give or take, both have their pros and cons.

I have to disagree with this. There quality is very comparable. I have zero issues with CA or any other glass abnormalities. I will admit at f2.8 that the Sigma is a little bit soft, but at f4 it is as sharp as the Canon, but that is to be expected. The only comparable difference is the USM, Canon's USM is far superior, however the Sigma is still very quiet and much quicker than any Canon lense without USM.

[Danny Boy]

Okay, I have to interject w/ a comment.....

JUST GO BUY ONE DAMNIT..... JUST GO BUY ONE. YOU'LL BE HAPPY AFTER YOU DO IT!!

Okay, I got that off of my chest. I'm sure both lenses are great lenses, just don't kill yourself trying to decide on which one. I've done that and it's nuts. I like lenses that no others will like and I'm sure others have done the same. We'll all go nuts deciding on what lenses to buy.... got knows I have.

There.... my 2 cents (I'm up to about $40 w/ my 2 cents here).

Dan

[Danny Boy]

I'm also debating between the 70-200mm f4 or the f2.8.

Which should I get. I'm so undecided. Someone please help me.

:lol:

I'm going to buy the f4 to photograph my kids during outside sports. Just kidding again.

:lol:

Dan

[Persian-Rice]

They are both great lenses.

the f4 is the sharpest of the 70-200 canon's but again its only f4. SIgma will give you the advantage of the better performance under lower light but, quality is not quite comparable to the canon.

It really a give or take, both have their pros and cons.

I have to disagree with this. There quality is very comparable. I have zero issues with CA or any other glass abnormalities. I will admit at f2.8 that the Sigma is a little bit soft, but at f4 it is as sharp as the Canon, but that is to be expected. The only comparable difference is the USM, Canon's USM is far superior, however the Sigma is still very quiet and much quicker than any Canon lense without USM.

From what I have seen and felt, the Canon is better optically and in build. I haven't used the sigma to be able to compare speed. As for noise(sound), I really don't get why it bothers people, as long as it doesn't sound like a nova flooring it with straight exhausts, noise is of no factor to me, but people are different.

A 70-200 is my next lens, and well, it was on my list for a short period. IF I want to by the 2.8 I rather shell out the extra money and get the Canon.

Cheers.

[spearce6]

I have the f4L version and have never been anything but overjoyed with it. It's pin sharp, autofocus is fast and silent and it's small and lightish.

I would never consider the Canon f2.8 because of price and SIZE AND WEIGHT. I could'nt be bothered to lug it around. The only attractive thing about the 2.8 version is the IS.

I have also read a few posts that the f4 is sharper - although I bet you can't see the difference in normal use.

As regards having an f4 minimum aperture - you are using digital - who cares, up the ISO a notch or shoot RAW and underexpose a stop and post process!

Steve
http://www.steve-pearce-photography.com

[WestFalcon]

I agree with spearce6................the 2.8 lenses are very heavy in any brand. If you shoot low light all of the tme, go for a 2.8 but the f4 is a lot lighter and easier to carry around. I have both and use the f4 a lot more. Remeber, you can buy the F4 L canon for $570 and use it for 2 years and probably get $500 for it on Ebay if you keep your stuff in good condition. That's like a 2 year rental for $70. The Sigmas will not resell for nearly as high compared to their original cost. To me, you cannot go wrong with the Canon but you may with the Sigma. I have the 80-200 F2.8 L Canon and love it but what a monster to carry. I got it used from a newspaper reporter for $300.

[Tomsk]

I've also been trying to decide between 70-200mm lenses.
You might want to consider the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&mode lid=7341

Prices in UKP for Canon are
70-200 f4 £429
70-200 f2.8L £849
70-200 f2.8L IS £1249
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 £580

I had almost decided on the Sigma until I found the Canon non-IS. It's still a bit too expensive and I'm now looking at maybe a couple fast primes and a TC.

The f4 isn't really an option for me because I want to shoot badminton, which needs a fast shutter.

[Persian-Rice]

I've also been trying to decide between 70-200mm lenses.
You might want to consider the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&mode lid=7341

Prices in UKP for Canon are
70-200 f4 £429
70-200 f2.8L £849
70-200 f2.8L IS £1249
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 £580

I had almost decided on the Sigma until I found the Canon non-IS. It's still a bit too expensive and I'm now looking at maybe a couple fast primes and a TC.

The f4 isn't really an option for me because I want to shoot badminton, which needs a fast shutter.

Thats the big argument with both of the 2.8s, they are very heavy, but it depends on what the photographer is most comfortable with.

[spearce6]

Don't forget the compatibility issue as well.

The Canon lens is guaranteed to be compatible with all future EOS bodies. Sigma's have been known to need chipping.

Until we see some radical mount change, the 70-200 f4L is always going to be a good piece of glass.

Having said that, the EF-s seems to be becoming more popular.......

Steve
http://www.steve-pearce-photography.com

[Danny Boy]

This is very good discussion about the two lenses. I've read, and believe that the two lenses are similar optically except for the following differences: 2.8 has one faster f/stop, 2.8 is twice the price/twice the weight. Give and take I guess.

I guess it all boils down to needing the extra f/stop and what price you are willing to pay for it.

Dan

[Andy_T]

Having said that, the EF-s seems to be becoming more popular.......


... but not very much on the tele end.

Best regards,
Andy

[Danny Boy]

Bottom line about lens selection,

Cost.... are you willing to dish out a little cash or a lot?
Lens speed.... what do you need? Daylight or sunset or night (or somewhere in the middle of all of those)?
Girth (sorry for the wrong terminology there)... you willing to carry a hugh lens around including the weight (sorry, thinking of another joke)?
Lens quality... L lenses are obviously better... goes back to Cost
Chipping... Please don't chip (nick) your lenses. It's expensive to repair. :lol:
Canon vs. other brands... Up to you (I pick Canon).
Zoom vs. Prime... You get the speed w/ primes but the flexibility w/ zooms.

There.... I think I've summed up about a thousand threads. Just giving some levity here. I was told to relax by some members of this forum (well, one anyways) so I'm trying to do so. :lol:

Dan

[robertdrake]

I'm hearing a lot in other forums that the f4 version suffers from backfocus problems when used with the Digital Rebel and the 10D.

[Cordell]

They are both great lenses.

the f4 is the sharpest of the 70-200 canon's but again its only f4. SIgma will give you the advantage of the better performance under lower light but, quality is not quite comparable to the canon.

It really a give or take, both have their pros and cons.

I have to disagree with this. There quality is very comparable. I have zero issues with CA or any other glass abnormalities. I will admit at f2.8 that the Sigma is a little bit soft, but at f4 it is as sharp as the Canon, but that is to be expected. The only comparable difference is the USM, Canon's USM is far superior, however the Sigma is still very quiet and much quicker than any Canon lense without USM.

From what I have seen and felt, the Canon is better optically and in build. I haven't used the sigma to be able to compare speed. As for noise(sound), I really don't get why it bothers people, as long as it doesn't sound like a nova flooring it with straight exhausts, noise is of no factor to me, but people are different.

A 70-200 is my next lens, and well, it was on my list for a short period. IF I want to by the 2.8 I rather shell out the extra money and get the Canon.

Cheers.

You "have not used the Sigma to be able to compare speed"? So how can you say either way about these two? :roll:

I have used both. Yes they are heavy. Yes they both are great lenses. You will save money with the Sigma AND have a great lens. The 2.8 will be useful when and if you need it. You can't snatch a 2.8 out of thin air if you only have f4.

Take two photos of the same thing using either the Canon or Sigma 2.8 and you nor anyone else will know the difference. Don't forget no matter which lens you use you will have to use proper technique anyway.

Good luck

[RikWriter]

I'm hearing a lot in other forums that the f4 version suffers from backfocus problems when used with the Digital Rebel and the 10D.

You might have heard that, but I've used mine with both the Rebel I used to have and the 10D I have now and it's never had a single back-focus issue. It's a GREAT lens for the money.

[friscomgm]

Go for the 70-200 f/4L from Canon. You won't regret it for a second.

[nosquare2003]

Check the sticky reviews from CDS or any reviews from users who had both lenses...

[Persian-Rice]

I have technically used both, but not actually had any time with the Sigma. The Canon was much nicer IMO when it comes to build. I took some sample shots with the Sigma, but nothing that required focusing quick moving subjects where IMO speed should be more evident.

As for focusing speed with the Canon, I used the f4 on a friends camera, thats why I have an idea of how it feels shooting for a while, but then I haven't really had time with a Sigma to properly use it.

Just based on my experienced, I felt the Canon lens was better. All the Canon 70-200s are better IMO. If it comes down to spending less money for a comparable lens with the largest aperture possible, then Sigma would be the choice.

Cheers.

[DieselGirl]

Go for the 70-200 f/4L from Canon. You won't regret it for a second.

This lens is amazing. I have taken my best shots with this lens, just ask Belmondo, he's seen them.

For the money, you just can't go wrong. Just my two cents.

[velvetjones]

I have the Sigma, but have never used the Canon f/4...but I have used a friend's Canon f/2.8 (non IS).

I think that the Sigma is a great lens, first of all and that it might be the best lens that Sigma makes. The auto focus is fast...not as fast as the Canon f/2.8, but pretty close.

It is a nice piece of glass for the money and you should be able to find it easily for under $700. I got a deal on mine from DigitalFoto for under $600, but they aren't selling it that cheap anymore.

Either lens will serve you well though, as they are both great chunks of glass.

[RbnDave]

I just wanted to chime in to say I really like my Sigma 70-200. It's really sharp. Also, it isn't all that heavy. Some people on this forum had me thinking the thing was going to be a tank :D . With that said, I have to say I haven't used it too often at f 2.8. If you don't plan on doing too much low light stuff and you're concerned weight maybe you should go with the canon. However, if I had to make the decision again, I think I would still opt for the Sigma. Like I said it's not all that heavy and it is slightly more versitle.

You'll like whichever one you choose. Don't stress too much.

[davkenrem]

you can find the 70-200 2.8 on ebay for ~$800
I was going to say that too, but go over to fredmiranda.com, i bought a 70-200mm F2.8L (non IS0 for $800.00 last week.