70-200 (Sigma F2.8 or Canon F4L)

[Hoopster]

Guys
I'm looking purchasing a 70-200 lens. I take the odd sports shots and am hoping to take some pics indoor (no flash) at an amateur dramatics shoot. I have a friend who is an amateur actor and has enjoyed some of the pics I have taken with my lowly digicam. I now have a 20D and am not sure what lens to go for.

Any views?

[JK]

Guys
I'm looking purchasing a 70-200 lens. I take the odd sports shots and am hoping to take some pics indoor (no flash) at an amateur dramatics shoot. I have a friend who is an amateur actor and has enjoyed some of the pics I have taken with my lowly digicam. I now have a 20D and am not sure what lens to go for.

Any views?Hmmm... normally I'd say get the Canon, but at f4 it may be a bit too slow for indoor shots and the f2.8 would come in handy. Then again, you can dial ISO up quite high on the 20D without much noise, so you might be able to get away with it! Do you know how much light will be available and what sorts of shutter speeds you'll get ?

[Raj]

I choose sigma over canon & am totally happy with it. Really it is best bang for buck. But as JK said, f4 may be ok for you too, f2.8 (sigma or canon is heavy). If you want see sample pics from sigma then click on my pbase link & check owls gallery.

Cheer

[Wildman]

Faced with the same choice, I went with the Canon f/4 simply because of the weight and size factor. Even the f/4 is no small lens. If you really need the extra stop, go with the Sigma. I am willing to bump the ISO up in those cases when I need to. You can't go wrong with either lens.

[condyk]

Sigma ... no competition and I had both :-)

[grego]

Sigma F/2.8

If you aren't going to get the 70-200 Canon F/2.8L, get atleast one that is going to give you 2.8 and quality, especially since you mention indoor.

[aggarcia]

If you plan on taking sports and indoor pictures, you will need the 2.8. A F4 really needs plenty of light. I bought the Sigma 2.8 and have never thought twice about that decision. If money is a factor the Sigma is a really good value and not that much more than the canon F4.

[rg-tom]

those who say bump the iso, not always an option, most places to get a decent enough shutter speed inside to freeze the action at f2.8, you are already at iso3200 ;)

[Bodog]

Just looked at Canoga Camera. They have the Sigma for $729 shipped...

[Starfleet_EMH]

I bought mine from "sigma4less.com" (see also my comment on "resellerratings.com" under "DocDragon"). The value for this lens compared to Canon is simply unbeatable. The HSM (hypersonic motor) is very quiet, very fast and focuses right on the dot with my D20. Pictures are razorsharp and I haven't noticed any flare or CA problems, yet. A tripod collar is included as well. Filter diameter: 77 mm.

Bottom line: I love it and would buy it again at any time.

EMH

[ron chappel]

here is a very good shootout which includes those two lenses and others
http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56.html

[DavidEB]

If you shoot ice hockey, you'll be at the highest ISO you can find, and even at f2.8 your shutter speed will be barely fast enough. At f4 hockey is hopeless. Other sports, while a little less demanding, are similar.

I'm very happy with my sigma 70-200

[Hoopster]

Guys - Many thanks for all your help.... I'm still undecided! Ron's link is excellent and still kind of makes me want to go for the Canon F4 but it's a tough one as I'm very attracted to the 2.8. The main issue really is the weight and I'm unsure if I could handle such a big lens as the Sigma. The Canon is about half the weight!

I'm actually based in the UK and I'm a keen Glasgow Celtic fan (Soccer) so a lot of my pics are at the Celtic games.

Prices are almost identical on ebay in the uk at £399GBP ($740). I might try and handle both lenses before deciding.

Does anyone have experience taking photos in theatres?

[DocFrankenstein]

Theaters are dark, you'd want the 2.8 for sure... So it soccer.

with 2.8 you'll be able to use the 1.4x converter.

Also, this is very subjective, but I think the sigma gives you better bokeh because the chromatic aberrations are not as over-corrected as on the canon.

[Hoopster]

Thanks Doc..... I'm even looking now at the Canon F2.8. Ebay around £600 ($1100). It's such a hard choice. I want the best I can afford but am also buying this month a Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro and a Sigma 500DG Super flash.


Although I already have a Sigma lens and am relatively happy with it, I'd love a bit of Canon L glass.

[Croasdail]

I just bought my sigma from Sigma4less.... great service.... and now am in the process of spending the money I saved on a 17-40L. With regards specifically to the sigma and it's performance - moving from a Canon 70-300 lens to the sigma - my keeper rate has doubled. While I will agree at 70mm at f2.8 - it is soft, but gets better really quick after that. Even over 100 mm at f2.8 seems very workable - if anything a little USM in PS takes care of any problems. Color rendition is good and with deep saturation. I have also not experienced any back focus that I did with the canon lens which was almost always focusing about 2% behind. I had to compensate for this by increasing the DOF. I just shot a tennis tournament for a local collage almost exculively between f3.5 and 4.5 - it was great having that option to get rid of all the visual noise that goes on when you have multiple matches going on at the same time. Last point - don't discount the added control the extra stop gives you. So - would I have liked to by the canon 70-200 f2.8 with IS... sure... but the Sigma gets me close enough and leaves me money for other toys - like the 17-40 L.

[DocFrankenstein]

Mind you, if you're doing this professionally...

Then you should look into L IS very seriously. It has the dust/moisture seals, so you'd be able to shoot at the beach, desert, tropical rainforest... etc.

[Hoopster]

I'm thinking of going for the Canon F4L and if it doesn't work for my use I'll sell it on ebay. 2nd hand prices in the UK are pretty keen for this lens.

[pierrot]

I choosed the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and very happy with it

An amazing lens in terms of sharpness, contrast and lack of CA. And yes, f/2.8 is definitely a big plus vs. f/4 when shooting indoors or in stadiums. Yes it's heavy, but a monopod will help.

HSM autofocus is excellent, and remember that their EX series are Sigma's Ls ;)

[Hoopster]

I keep swaying one way then the other..... I just need to decide and go for it!!! HELP!

[Starfleet_EMH]

I keep swaying one way then the other..... I just need to decide and go for it!!! HELP!

How about this SIMPLE flow chart? http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif

1. Are you a professional, ie. do photography for a living?
* YES -> Go to point 1.1.
* NO -> Go to point 2.

1.1. Go to your bank and arrange a line of credit. http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif
1.2. Get a Canon f/2.8L (IS) -> tax-deductable.
1.3. Shoot and sell a whole bunch of pics to pay off your debt. http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif
* END OF FLOW CHART.


2. So you're an amateur/hobby photographer: Do you ABSOLUTELY need to impress yourself or anyone else with your camera? Do you WANT to show off your white lens? http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif
* YES -> Go to point 2.1.
* NO -> Go to point 3.

2.1. Go to your bank an arrange a line of credit. http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif
2.2. Get a Canon f/2.8L (IS) -> very likely not tax-deductable.
2.3. Shoot and sell a whole bunch of pics on eBay and/or do nightshifts to pay off your debt. ;)
* END OF FLOW CHART.


3. Are your eyes able to distinguish between pictures randomly shot with a Sigma or Canon lens? Will you work in a harsh environment (windy, dusty, foggy, etc.)?
* YES -> Go to point 2.1.
* NO -> Go to point 3.1

3.1. Enjoy your Sigma and the knowledge that you did a great buy! Spend your saved $$$ to go out with your better half in a romantic setting. http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif
* END OF FLOW CHART.


Hope this helps. Cheers! http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif

EMH

[Croasdail]

If it were not for the fact that you want to do indoor work, I think the safe answer here would be to go with the Canon lens. It absolutely has earned a faithfull following. But since you do want to do indoor work, all bets are off. If the balance of work you do is leaninig to indoor events, you may want to also look at budgeting in either Canon 85 f1.8 or 100 f2.0. So far I have been very happy with my SIgma - but there have been a couple of times I have been longing for an extra stop or two for indoor concerts. Good luck...

[bLiZ]

and what do you say about sharpening?
Canon 70-200 f4 L seems to be better than Sigma 2.8, is it true?
I'm looking to a tele too... but Canon f4 L or Sigma 2.8...? The same enigma... ****

[Croasdail]

from what I can tell - most 2.8 lenses, even with a red strip have issues wide open. By f4 it is a dead heat. You also need to look at other factors like color reproduction, contrast levels. For example, on the often reference shoot out performed between the canon and sigma, at f2.8 the canon had better sharpness, but in my opinion lacked contrast and depth... and the reality was the difference was only visible under high magnification. Like I said before - the ulimate answer for this person is the Canon 2.8 with IS for his in-theatre work. If the work were to be done predomimately outdoors in day light - like air shows, daytime sports, etc - the canon f4 would be the safe answer. But add the variable of low light conditions and no flash - the f4 will most likely not cut it.

[Hoopster]

Thanks again all.


I don't do an awful lot of low light photography so I have decided to go with the Canon F4L:lol: .

If I find I'm not getting what I need, I'll sell it and go for the Sigma or perhaps a fast prime.

Looking forward to getting the lens now.

Regards
Hoopster

[Croasdail]

Good luck - I am sure you will be happy with it. You just can't go wrong either way except that excuses for not getting shots start diminishing... can't blame the equipement anymore. ( I am sure you don't need to use that excuss....) Enjoy it!

[KevC]

I hear the Sigma is softer, but also has more pleasing bokeh. That's more important than absolute sharpness for me (portraits) I'm probably gonna get the Sigma instead of the big white :)