Which 70-200mm lens should I get??

[chops]

I can either buy the Canon 70-200L f/4 for around $450, OR the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO IF HSM lens for about 100 bucks more.

I've tried the Canon lens several times before, and know what it is capable of, but I really like the 2.8 of the Sigma.

Does anyone have the Sigma lens, or ever used one before?

Thanks! :wink:

[DocFrankenstein]

*raises hand*

I find the large aperture of the 70-200 very useful in any less than perfect lighting conditions. Even in daylight... when taking pictures at the zoo, the aperture comes in handy. Sigma is sharp wide open, but nothing special.

The 70-200 f/4 is WAY sharper than any other 70-200, be it canon or sigma. But I got it and I like it. I'd love the sharpness of 2.8 L, but not for that price.

Cheers

[chops]

Thanks Doc!

So I should probably stick with the Canon lens then, huh?

Here's one I took with the 70-200 F/4 L yesterday at work. This truck was sitting about 20 feet from the store in the next parking lot, and I shot it through a glass door, and it still looks super sharp! It really is amazing.

http://chops.tzo.com/IMG_8559.jpg

[chops]

Hey Doc, would it be possable for you to post a pic or two taken with the Sigma lens, just so I can see how it looks? I would appreciate it.

If anyone has any thoughts or pics taken with the Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens, please feel free to pitch in! :D

[gramps]

I have the 70 - 200 f4 L sitting right here next to me on the 20 D..........it's awsome............GO FOR IT!!!!!!!!

[MarkH]

The 70-200 f/4 is WAY sharper than any other 70-200, be it canon or sigma. But I got it and I like it. I'd love the sharpness of 2.8 L, but not for that price.


Can you back up that claim?

In any review or test I read the f4 is a tiny fraction sharper than the Canon f2.8 which is a small fraction sharper than the f2.8 IS. I have read nothing anywhere that indicates any of the 3 Canon 70-200 lenses is WAY sharper then either of their brothers.

For example: http://tihlde.org/~chrisnes/lenses.html#photozonemag on this page the f2.8 and f4 have the same Photodo rating and Photozone Optical rating and a close Photozone magazine rating.

Can you point to some review sites that verify your claim that the very sharp Canon 70-200 F4L is significantly sharper than the also very sharp Canon 70-200 F2.8L?

[Chris1le]

Chops, here are some pics I took with my Sigma before the focusing was corrected.

http://www.pbase.com/chris1le/05032004

[Persian-Rice]

Not sure about the Sigma, but ak Mark mentioned the F4 is slightly sharper then the rest. Big advantage is that it is lighter, especially if you are using a big camera.

But I don't know, I think 2.8 would be much more convenient in darker situations. This wait and get a Canon.

[Olegis]

That depends on the type of the shooting you do. The 2.8 version will allow you to shoot in situations in which the f/4 will not do, plain and simple. Sometines when I shoot concerts with really bad lighting, I wish that my 70-200 f/2.8L would be f/1.8 or brighter.

Take a look here (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/events01), the low-light concert pictures were made using ISO 1600, f/2.8 and 1/200-1/320s shutter speeds.

[C.S.I.]

Hi......


I know that there is nothing like the build/quality of the Canon L glass, but I was looking for a 70-200 and wanted very much the big 2.8. The price difference between the L and the Sigma EX was $1000 USD. The thing that sold me were numerous articles that I have read regarding the optical quality of the Sigma.......it rates right up there with the big L. See this link http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F24 . The IS (image stabilization) is a sweet option to have though, if you can afford the extra $1000.

Im MORE than satisfied with the quality of my Sigma.

[chops]

Thanks everyone so far on the input!

Also, thanks Chris1le for the link to your pictures. They really do help. From the looks of those pictures, I can tell I would be perfectly happy with that lens. I don't need absolute perfection, but that Sigma looks just as good as any L lens I've ever used. I do believe I am sold on the Sigma! :D

And thank you photopig for your link as well. That link further confirms my thoughts about the Sigma lens as well after seeing a few pictures taken with it.

If anyone else would like to post a few more pictures taken with this lens, I would really appreciate it. It will only make me work harder to get up the funds to purchase this lens. And as I always say, the sooner the better! :wink:

[MikeL117]

I have just ordered a 70-200 f4 L for £429 from 7dayshop.

I considered the Sigma f2.8 but the f4 is still a lot less cost and my old Sigma does not work with the 20D. I will (eventually) go for the Canon f2.8 IS and depth of field at f2.8 is soooo thin...

Sorry folks still trying to justify the cost so soon after getting the 20D.

[commando]

Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but taking a photo at 2.8 will result in a shot that's less sharp than if it were taken at F4, no? Of course the 2.8 might get a shot where the F4 might not have enough light to do it right.

Also remember, the lighter, more portable lens that you carry with you is going to give you a better photo than the lens you left at home because it was too heavy to carry with you.

[Chris1le]

Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but taking a photo at 2.8 will result in a shot that's less sharp than if it were taken at F4, no?

Yes & No, There will be less depth of field but what is supposed to be in focus will be in focus. I rareley leave any of my lenses at home. :lol:

[commando]

Yes & No, There will be less depth of field but what is supposed to be in focus will be in focus.

Sure, it'll be in fous, but doesn't a smaller aperture catch the finer details better? It might be the difference between seeing eyelashes, and seeing eah lash individually.

Like I said, I could be wrong, i'm new to this and i'm still working all this stuff out. This would seem to make sense according to the science lectures from a few years ago.

[RbnDave]

I have the Sigma and it works great. It is really sharp and I use the f2.8 for indoor shots all the time. For a time I was using it with a 2x teleconverter and it still worked nicely.

Here are a couple of my favorite sigma 70-200 pics
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/27660910
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/29415588
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/23249398
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/23974858

Heres one with a 2x teleconverter. Auto focus still works because of the 2.8 aperture.
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/24139082

[commando]

I have the Sigma and it works great. It is really sharp and I use the f2.8 for indoor shots all the time. For a time I was using it with a 2x teleconverter and it still worked nicely.

Here are a couple of my favorite sigma 70-200 pics
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/27660910
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/29415588
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/23249398
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/23974858

Heres one with a 2x teleconverter. Auto focus still works because of the 2.8 aperture.
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/24139082

Wow, lovely shots.

[chops]

I have the Sigma and it works great. It is really sharp and I use the f2.8 for indoor shots all the time. For a time I was using it with a 2x teleconverter and it still worked nicely.

Here are a couple of my favorite sigma 70-200 pics
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/27660910
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/29415588
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/23249398
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/23974858

Heres one with a 2x teleconverter. Auto focus still works because of the 2.8 aperture.
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/24139082

Wow, lovely shots.

DITTO!!

Those are excellent shots! I like the "moo-cow" picture the best. It almost looks 3D-ish like looking at a slide, not to mention it's so sharp you can see every little detail! :shock: :wink:

I am definately going to buy a Sigma 70-200! :D

Thanks alot for those pictures RbnDave.

[RbnDave]

Chops,

You'll really like that lens.

Glad you liked my photos. That cow picture was taken in Hawaii. It was a rainy morning and I was driving past a cow pasture when a break in the clouds rolled overhead. There where still stormy dark clouds in the background, but the sun was shining nicely. I also used some flash on the picture in an effort to make the background clouds look darker. That is why there is the 3D look. I have that photo blown up to 20x30 and it's hung in my Kitchen. It sometimes makes me hungry for steak.

Dave

[malum]

Faced with the same decision recently I was going to get the Sigma, then I found out that it weighed twice as much as the Canon. I got the Canon and I can only recommend it, you won't be disappointed

[Chris1le]

Sure, it'll be in fous, but doesn't a smaller aperture catch the finer details better? It might be the difference between seeing eyelashes, and seeing eah lash individually.

Well of course but if you need a fast lens to shoot moving objects in low light what is the point of using a smaller aperture? The nice thing about the 2.8 is you have the ability to do both. You are not going to be razor sharp at 2.8 but it will be acceptable. :wink:

[Tom W]

Of all the lenses in my collection, I now have one Sigma - the 70-200 f/2.8. Its a very sharp lens, and its fairly light. Its the only non-Canon lens that I've not even thought about replacing. Only a need for Image Stabilization would get me to change.

That said, my friend has the Canon 70-200 f/4. It is a spectacularly sharp lens IMHO, based on the images he's sent me.

So what am I trying to say? If you need the extra stop of light, get the Sigma 2.8 - you won't be disappointed and its one of the select few non-Canon lenses that will hold its value like L glass. But if you're shooting outdoors almost exclusively, you can save the $100 and get the f/4.0L. Either way, you'll have a good lens.

[commando]

Sure, it'll be in fous, but doesn't a smaller aperture catch the finer details better? It might be the difference between seeing eyelashes, and seeing eah lash individually.

Well of course but if you need a fast lens to shoot moving objects in low light what is the point of using a smaller aperture? The nice thing about the 2.8 is you have the ability to do both. You are not going to be razor sharp at 2.8 but it will be acceptable. :wink:

Exactly - different settings for different shots, and faster lenses give you more flexability.

[rkoshy]

Of all the lenses in my collection, I now have one Sigma - the 70-200 f/2.8. Its a very sharp lens, and its fairly light. Its the only non-Canon lens that I've not even thought about replacing. Only a need for Image Stabilization would get me to change.


The sigma was the first lens I got (aside from my kit lens)... and it was amazing... About 5 days after I got the lens I shot a bunch of pics at my daughter's soccer camp. I think the quality is exceptional... I can post some pics if you want... In almost all the shots, I'm anywhere from 50-70 feet away ( or more ).

The only thing that I noticed is that this lens tends to make my pictures a bit on the warmer side when used indoors with incandescent lights... as compared to the 50mm canon f/1.8 or even the kit lens. However, I like that "warm" tone... and tend to use it for portraits :-)

[chops]

Of all the lenses in my collection, I now have one Sigma - the 70-200 f/2.8. Its a very sharp lens, and its fairly light. Its the only non-Canon lens that I've not even thought about replacing. Only a need for Image Stabilization would get me to change.


The sigma was the first lens I got (aside from my kit lens)... and it was amazing... About 5 days after I got the lens I shot a bunch of pics at my daughter's soccer camp. I think the quality is exceptional... I can post some pics if you want... In almost all the shots, I'm anywhere from 50-70 feet away ( or more ).

The only thing that I noticed is that this lens tends to make my pictures a bit on the warmer side when used indoors with incandescent lights... as compared to the 50mm canon f/1.8 or even the kit lens. However, I like that "warm" tone... and tend to use it for portraits :-)

I remember reading or hearing somewhere recently that Canon lenses tend to be a tad bit on the cool side because of the coatings. However, this is a very easy and quick fix in Photoshop. :wink:

BTW rkoshy, by all means, post a few pics if you like. I would like to see this lens in action at several different types of situations. :D

[rkoshy]

Here are some samples... the only one NOT using the sigma is the reference shot using my 50mm f/1.8.

http://www.rubixinfotech.com/~renny/pictures/SigmaTest

Note that the images are all FULL SIZE / UNPROCESSED JPG files from the camera.... so if you have dialup or something... let met know :-)

[commando]

Here are some samples... the only one NOT using the sigma is the reference shot using my 50mm f/1.8.

http://www.rubixinfotech.com/~renny/pictures/SigmaTest

Note that the images are all FULL SIZE / UNPROCESSED JPG files from the camera.... so if you have dialup or something... let met know :-)

Nice pics, but even on my broadband they took a while to download. You might check out http://jalbum.net for a good image gallery program that's very easy to use for beginners, and has more powerful features for more advanced users.

[rkoshy]

Here are some samples... the only one NOT using the sigma is the reference shot using my 50mm f/1.8.

http://www.rubixinfotech.com/~renny/pictures/SigmaTest

Note that the images are all FULL SIZE / UNPROCESSED JPG files from the camera.... so if you have dialup or something... let met know :-)

Nice pics, but even on my broadband they took a while to download. You might check out http://jalbum.net for a good image gallery program that's very easy to use for beginners, and has more powerful features for more advanced users.

Commando... thank you for the link. It looks like a great program, much better than the one I use called "Express Thumbnail Creator" -- which is going to be replaced now :-)

But the reason I left it huge was to not introduce any artifacts or post-processing into the equation. What do you guys do in a case like that? What size can I reasonably show the clarity/quality of the lens for someoen to compare and still keep the file small?

[chops]

I don't know about you, but I think those are some incredible shots. From what I can tell, that lens is every bit as sharpand clear as the Canon 70-200 2.8L.

Of course, the real test would be to print out two identical shots at 11x14 with both lenses. I'm sure the Sigma would easily hold its own.

rkoshy, where were those countryside pictures taken? That is some beautiful landscape!

[DocFrankenstein]

http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p6244664.html

This is the difference in sharpness test between sigma 2.8 and canon 2.8L IS

100% crops from the 6mp rebel sensor.

I screwed up the file numbering... so whichever one is the sharper one is canon. :oops:

[chops]

http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p6244664.html

This is the difference in sharpness test between sigma 2.8 and canon 2.8L IS

100% crops from the 6mp rebel sensor.

I screwed up the file numbering... so whichever one is the sharper one is canon. :oops:

Just going by the top four pictures there, both at 2.8 and 8.0. the sigma looks sharper, especially at 2.8 though.

The bottom eight pictures, it's hard to tell what's what. What does all the red scribble mean?

[commando]

Commando... thank you for the link. It looks like a great program, much better than the one I use called "Express Thumbnail Creator" -- which is going to be replaced now :-)

But the reason I left it huge was to not introduce any artifacts or post-processing into the equation. What do you guys do in a case like that? What size can I reasonably show the clarity/quality of the lens for someoen to compare and still keep the file small?

You're welcome :) I do 100% crops with photoshop in that case.

[rkoshy]

I don't know about you, but I think those are some incredible shots. From what I can tell, that lens is every bit as sharpand clear as the Canon 70-200 2.8L.

Of course, the real test would be to print out two identical shots at 11x14 with both lenses. I'm sure the Sigma would easily hold its own.

rkoshy, where were those countryside pictures taken? That is some beautiful landscape!

Personally, I'm an engineer by skill/training (in that order)... but I think in photography, it's the overall appearence of the final image that matters. I can't be happier with my $699 Sigma. I think the overall quality is great. I just ordered a 2x TC for it... so now I have a f/2.8 @200 or an f/5.6 @400... not that I need a 400 every day.

Here's an album of the pics from that day... I took a drive up to New Paltz, NY -- it was about 1.5 hrs from here. I live right near the Tappan Zee bridge...

It was really hazy/cloudy, but some pics came out great... the road in the woods -- I have a 20x30 poster of it... same for the castle "like" structure -- these pics have had 0 post processing done...

http://lists.softsys.com/~renny/new_paltz/

[C.S.I.]

[quote="rkoshy"]Here are some samples... the only one NOT using the sigma is the reference shot using my 50mm f/1.8.

http://www.rubixinfotech.com/~renny/pictures/SigmaTest




Rkoshy.....

Is that the Shawagunk ridge (Near New Paltz NY)? I live near there........ :lol:

[rkoshy]

Is that the Shawagunk ridge (Near New Paltz NY)? I live near there........ :lol:

It's right by New Paltz... didn't know the name of the place, but there's a Hotel up there... I live in NJ right off Exit 5 off the Palisades.

I took a drive up there to take some pics... the rest (unprocessed) are at:

http://lists.softsys.com/~renny/new_paltz

[C.S.I.]

Is that the Shawagunk ridge (Near New Paltz NY)? I live near there........ :lol:

It's right by New Paltz... didn't know the name of the place, but there's a Hotel up there... I live in NJ right off Exit 5 off the Palisades.

I took a drive up there to take some pics... the rest (unprocessed) are at:

http://lists.softsys.com/~renny/new_paltz



Yep......thats the Mohonk Mountain House grounds.....nice pics.....especially the tower house/dirt road.........

[booggerg]

I went to Wolf Camera today and the salesman told me the Canon 70-200 F4 was discontinued. I thought he was talking out of his ass and trying to get me to buy the Sigma 70-200 APO. :x Is it really discountinued?

[chops]

I went to Wolf Camera today and the salesman told me the Canon 70-200 F4 was discontinued. I thought he was talking out of his ass and trying to get me to buy the Sigma 70-200 APO. :x Is it really discountinued?

Not that I'm aware of.

[Jon]

I went to Wolf Camera today and the salesman told me the Canon 70-200 F4 was discontinued. I thought he was talking out of his ass and trying to get me to buy the Sigma 70-200 APO. :x Is it really discountinued?

If it is, Canon hasn't found out yet. It's still listed on their website. Maybe he meant that Wolf Camera has discontinued carrying it (or just that he didn't have it in stock).