to those that were chooseing between 70-200 2.8 canon vs sigma

[Paul_B]

First, I'd like to say, I'm an newb with photography. I got the dRebel in Oct 04 with the kit lens.
I've learned how to use it fairly well, put the firmware hack on it last month.
My wife and I agreed to buy 1 lens per year (but good ones). My main use is for my daughters soccer, as she is playing under 11, they are not useing full size fields. Other than the kit lens, the lens I choose will be for a while, for everything.
From the time I bought it, I knew I was getting a telezoom lens for the spring/summer season. I discovered the canon 70-200 F4L. Did some research on here and the net, and this was it, nice price, can't find a bad word about it.

With to much time till spring, kept reading/researching, I then found the 2.8L. So I then set my sights on this lens.
More reading found the Sigma version (70-200mm f2.8 EX APO IF). So now I hooked on comparing these two.
Anyhow, I can't decide on these two, I must choose one, but can't.

Searching the forum, i've seen this has been asked before between the canon and the sigma. I'm hoping to hear from the people that picking between these two and share if there happy with choice.
I'm getting to the point of flipping a coin, I can't decide.

To be honest, I really don't care for the "white" look of Canon, the "black" look of the sigma is pleasing to my eye. But then I have to think about the final photo printed. For a newbie such as myself, I guess the "look" of the lens matters for now :/

If I get the Canon, thats it till next year.
If I get the Sigma, I can get the 1.4x or 2.0x tele with it for under the price of the canon.
So, from the searches I've done on here, seems a few of you were deciding between these two. Which did you get, are you happy with your choice.

[Mogwyth]

If you want the best possible image quaility then you need to spend the bucks and get the Canon, but if you want somthing that's 95% as good then you can safely buy the Sigma.

Before I brought I had the opportunity to test the Canon 70-200 f/4 L along side the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L and the Sigma 70 -200 EX. In the field both the Canon's auto focus was faster, but apart from that the only other real difference was you more conscious of the white over the black lens on the camera:lol::lol::lol:.

On screen at 100% the difference between the lens above f/5.6 was marginal. below this was where the sigma lost ground particularly at f/2.8.

Printing at 10x7 the difference are not that noticable. Two friends of mine both photographers could not with certainty say which was which lens. If you are doing larger prints or croping heavily at f/2.8 then you may be better off with the Canon

So I brought the Sigma and 1.4 TC, because it does what I want.

[ron chappel]

here is a very good comparison between them if you haven't seen them allready.

I too will someday have to decide between the look/image result of these two.
Do i pick the crisp,sharp looking canon or the warmer looking sigma?
Honestly i don't know yet!
http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56.html
...oddly some say the sigma looks cooler to their eyes.Not sure why

[nosquare2003]

If you always use it for outdoor sports, the 70-200/4L will be a good choice. It is small, lightweighted, fast autofocus, cheap and has good optics. Attaching a 1.4TC, it will become 98-280/5.6 which is still good for sports (daylight).

By the way, if Sigma is not a good lens, no one will do comparison between it and the Canon ones.

[rebel61021]

I went thru the same thing but the difference was that I could get the sigma right now and would have waited couple more months (for savings) to get the canon. I don't regret getting the sigma I liked it so much that I also have the 170-500 now as well. and still have not spent what I would have on the canon "L" lens. Now don't get me wrong I still want an "L" lens but now I can wait and save up the money so I don't have to melt down a credit card to get it.

[C.S.I.]

I have a Sigma. My good friend has a Canon IS. We are both crime scene investigators, take the same sort of pictures, and have about the same level of experience in photography. My good friend wishes he saved $1000 and bought a Sigma (comparing image quality). I have, however heard that the non-IS produces crisper images.

Also see this: http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F24


Regards,
Bill

[tim]

What I would like is a 75-300 IS, F4 constant, that's not too expensive, and not as crappy as the 75-300 IS. I know there's the 70-300 DO IS but that's hell expensive - $1100 or so. I might even go for the 70-200 F4 if it had IS. Anyone know of anything suitable? I don't think there's anything out there for what I want :(

I don't really have a use for a zoom lens... I just want one ;) Might end up with the 70-200 F4 L.

[22littlereasons]

I have the sigma 70-200. Great lens I think comparible to the Canon counterpart, but I'd get the canon IS version in a snap if I could afford it.

[darkdrakon]

one of the things you guy's are missing is the resale value. it's much better with the canon wile it has nothing to do with the image it should be considerd.

[Mogwyth]

one of the things you guy's are missing is the resale value. it's much better with the canon wile it has nothing to do with the image it should be considerd.

Personally I buy my lenses to use not as an investment, the same with cars I research what I what, try them out, get what suits me and then run then until they need replacing.

[C.S.I.]

Personally I buy my lenses to use not as an investment, the same with cars I research what I what, try them out, get what suits me and then run then until they need replacing.


Same here........

[kotam]

I used (rented) the Canon 70-200 2.8 and was very pleased with the results. The shapness was exceptional. I then purchased the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX lens to save $$$$ thinking it would perform comparable for a lot less. Much to my dismay, the Sigma glass is inferior to the Canon. However, for what I am using it for, it is acceptable for 99% of the photos I have taken.

I will be upgrading to the "L" lens once I can justify the extra cost. IMHO, if you can afford to spend the extra money, go with the L series, especially if you have the need for exceptional sharpness.

Considering what I paid for the Sigma, I feel like I got a good deal and a good lens in that price range. However, had I paid more for the Sigma, then I would not be so happy for sure.

[PixCasey]

If you shoot for money then get the Canon. If you are a hobbyist but wealthy get the Canon. If you are poor you should take what you can get (Sigma) or take up a new hobby (kite flying). I am fortunate to have been able to afford the Canon L series lens experience and, I am grateful to have made the right choice after trying the Sigma there is a difference you'll notice in sports and or wedding photography and especially in any action scenario, Let's face it, why would you want to struggle to get the shot and take a chance on missing the capture in a split second? ;)

[condyk]

I had the Canon F4 L and sold it to get the Sigma F2.8 as I wanted the low light performance. I don't find AF speed differences noticable between the Canon and Sigma's. There is no concensus that I have found either about quality of output between the two, nor the Canon F2.8 and the Sigma.

Here in the Uk the Sigma seems to hold its resale value on ebay as well as the Canon. On a forum like this then the Canon may just have a slight edge.

If I had money to burn then I would just select the L lens first. In this case tho', if I had a fixed sum, I dunno. Just don't think the Canon on its own will be as useful and flexible all round as the Sigma and a 1.4x extender.