Choice of 70-200 mmm lens

[BigBlueDodge]

Okay, I've got a Tamron 28-75mm lens on order, so now its time to focus on the long zoom lens. For the price/quality I had pretty much set my mind on the Canon f/4 70-200L, but upon reading some other threads, the Sigma 70-200 EX HSM was thrown out as a suggestion.

I'm not much of a nature photographer, so the lens will largely be used in indoor events, such as kids shows, sporting events, weddings, graduations, etc, and of course the occassional outdoor picture (however I really suspect I'll be using the Tamron 28-75 90% of the time for outdoor shots).

The Sigma comes with contant f/2.8 aperture (which I really like), while Canon is f/4. However, I'm not familiar with Sigma's build quality, and picture quality. I do know that the EX line is supposed to be their premium line of lenses. I like the Canon, and know that it retains its value well, however, for the type of situations I will use it, I'm told its too slow and would struggle in low light situations.

I see that alot of people have bought the Canon 70-200 lately. How many of you seriously looked at the Sigma EX. Tell me why you didn't get one, if you don't mind.

I'd rather not buy the Canon only to discover that it won't work in my situations. At the same time, I'd rather not buy the Sigma only to take a hit in the quality/resalve value. From the reports I've gotten, the Sigma looks like a decent lens.

Thanks for all the replies. I've been addicted to this board every since I bought my 20D.

[tommykjensen]

I see that alot of people have bought the Canon 70-200 lately. How many of you seriously looked at the Sigma EX. Tell me why you didn't get one, if you don't mind.

I have had my 70-200 f/4 for quite some time. When I bought it I did not look at the Sigma because I had taken a decision that I want to stay with original Canon lenses.

[Medic1]

I have the 70-200 f4L and have been completely happy with it....I considered Sigma...but in the end, like tommy, I wanted to stick with all Canon

[kawter2]

i'm looking at the 2.8IS but trying to land a retainer with a specific client to help offset the cost.,.. (fingers crossed)

[foxbat]

Another thumbs up for the Canon here. Sharp, colourful, beautiful bokeh, great value for money.

[condyk]

Both are exceptional ... and the Sigma is a better all around investment. I owned both and f2.8 makes a difference, with both capable of sharp and dynamic images. EX build quality is superb. I would buy another. I wouldn't buy another Canon f4 because the already restrictive range (for me) is even less useful at F4. Buying a lens just because it's a Canon without looking at the other options is shortsighted on my view and it's a myth that Canon lenses always hold value better than 3rd party. The advantage of the Canon is reasonable weight, tho' the Sigma is not too bad.

[tim]

Have a read of this.

http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56-page1.html

[pcasciola]

Another vote for the Sigma 70-200/2.8, even though I've never owned it. I almost bought one, but got a good deal on the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS and went for that instead. The Canon 70-200/4L is a great lens, no doubt, but since you said you are mainly using it for indoor events and indoor sports, it will be too slow in most cases.

A friend of mine has the 70-200/4L and had to shoot a dance recital last week, and guess what he used? My Canon 85/1.8. Another friend shot the same recital with the Tamron 28-75/2.8, and many of his shots were blurry at f/2.8, so imagine how f/4 would have done?

[norcal99]

I've owned both lenses and ended up ditching the Canon for the Sigma. Make no mistake, the Sigma is a VERY good lens. Solid build construction, the HSM is in my opinion just as quiet as USM and focuses just about as fast as the Canon, with a slight edge to the Canon. Unless you're taking pictures of objects moving very fast, I doubt you'd notice any difference. If you plan on using a 70-200 f/4L indoors, I would n't even consider it. f/4 is much too slow to use indoors without a flash. The f/2.8 is very useful and even that sometimes, is too slow indoors. I was in the same boat and opted for the Sigma and have gotten really good results with it. You know where my vote is.

[Hoopster]

Have just ordered the F4L after weeks of frettinmg over what to go for (Sigma or Canon). In the end I went for the Canon for 2 main reasons.

1. Weight - For a relative newcomer to this, the Canon lens will be far easier to handle than the Sigma (which is almost double the weight!).

2. Resell value of the F4L is very good and therefore if you go for the Canon and feel it's not fast enough then you can sell without losing much and then go for the faster Sigma (or Canon).

I'm looking forward to getting my first L series lens and hopefully it will live up to my expectations.

Good luck with your choice.

Hoopster

[ed2day]

If you're open to the idea of an external flash, the 70-200 f/4 can do a fantastic job indoors where flash is acceptable--people shots,etc. Forget about it for indoor sports.

[Persian-Rice]

I hear many confilicting reports about the Sigma, not in terms of overall performance, because its a good lens, but I have heard in many instances that it's not as good when compared to the Canon.

IMO, I would go test both out and get a feel for the lenses and then choose. Some people say it kills the Canaon, others say the Canon kills it. It's down to personal preferences and opinion, but ultimately experience with a wide varuety of lenses. I look at it this way though, if the people had the money, they would all probably buy the Canon.

[pcasciola]

I look at it this way though, if the people had the money, they would all probably buy the Canon.I agree with your statement in general, but in this case the Canon is the cheaper lens, meaning the 70-200/4L vs the Sigma 70-200/2.8 of course.

[Croasdail]

I ended up with the Sigma. Money was a huge issue and this is how I got there. After using both the f4 and the f2.8 at a well know blues venue - it became really clear that F4 was not going to cut it. The decision was made even before clicking off the first images. Through the view finder the f2.8 was infinately brighter then the f4. With the compromised viewfinder of the 20d - the loss of light really showed up. In brigth light - autofocus was a draw.... when the light went down the f4 began to struggle to follow and manual focus was even harder. So then I started thinking about the 70-200 L - but the cheap side of me took over and even if the Sigma is only 95% of the L.. .it is only 60% of the cost. I seriously doubt I missed very many shots because I didn't go "l"... I take the blame for those. The camera and the lens did just as I told them. With that said - I am buying an 85 1.8 specifically for indoor events in the future. If I did a lot of indoor events, I would wait and save for the 70-200 is L.

[Persian-Rice]

Phil, sorry that's what I meant, my mistake. I mean that since the Canon performs so similarly to its older brothers, unless the aperture is an issue, the Canon is likely a better lens all around.

Pohotgraphy is a pretty expensive hobby/career, so money is an issue to most.

[Raj]

I went with Sigma & have no regreats. Its a wonderful lens, built like a tank, image quality is superb straight out of camera. IMO it is the best bang for buck if you want f2.8.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I have the 70-200 f/4 as you can see in my signiture and I love it!!! It's fantastic lens. Not too expensive either. Very, very fast AF, and the f/4 apeture really doesn't bother me. For sports and wild life I always shoot f/4 anyway. Cloudy day, or, indoor shooting the f/4 doesn't bother me either. I just crank up the ISO to get the shutter speeds I need and I'm set. The shots still come out incredibly clear and noise free. A steady hand helps with that of course. I'd sertainly kill for the f/2.8 IS but after using my f/4 for a few days I actually don't see the point in IS. As long as you have a good steady set of hands the IS is useless. Images come out incredibly sharp without it.

If I were you, I'd forget about the sigma...... get the 70-200 f/4! Light, fast, sharp, fantastic.

[blue_max]

You can't blame the Canon for being f4. There is an f2.8 if you need faster.

If you compare the Sigma with the Canon 2.8, it is much cheaper. Whether you feel the extra money is worth it for the Canon is a personal decision. I have seen and tried a Sigma 16-35 lens and hated it. It was light, unattractive and not very good optically (certainly not reveived well in reviews). I will never purchase a third-party lens and will stick with Canon. The 17-40L is just gorgeous in every respect.

I have the 70-200f4 and with sufficient light, it is very good indeed. I would prefer to go down the prime route with a 135mm f2 (faster than the Sigma!).

Time for a pic I feel (from the Canon f4).

Graham

[EricKonieczny]

I went with the 2.8 IS because I didn't want any regrets, and have to get another lens down the road. Plus I shoot allot of low light, sports, etc. I knewI should do it now, before my priorities chage.

[Croasdail]

I have Canon Lenses - and I have some non-Canon Lenses too... but some of the logic used to go only Canon gets lost on me. Because a person had a bad experience with a particular lens from a particular manufacture should not exclude them from looking at any and all other 3rd party lenses... your missing out on a lot of good stuff. That is like saying I drove a mercedes c280 and it was underpowered - so I am not going to look at any more German cars. I have the 300 2.8 L - a friend of mine has the Tokina 300 2.8. We swapped lenses a couple of weeks ago at Virginia International Speedway... the Tokina rocked. Do I want to give up my L - no - but if I were making the decision again.... I would consider it. I choose the Sigma in this case for my 70-200. It came down to speed as most things I shoot are in the late afternoons. I didn't want to spend time post processing to get rid of noise from shooting at 1600 or 3200 - so the stop made a difference. If most of what you do is daylight - the Canon is an excellent choice. But don't make your decision off of a bad experience with another unrelated lens. I have owned plenty of Canon and Non-Canon marginal lenses... they all make them.

[blue_max]

As I mentioned that I wouldn't buy a third party manufacturer lens, I shall answer.

I will only buy the Good Canon Lenses mentioned on this very forum.

There is always one to choose – and I would rather save up if necessary.

It's like buying a ford instead of a Mercedes. They both get you where you want to go and the Ford may be very good, but I would never buy one.

Graham

[pcasciola]

Graham,

I also tend to lean toward Canon lenses, but there are 3rd party lenses that are actually better than Canon, so I don't think it's anything like Ford vs Mercedes. For instance, a Sigma 70-200/2.8 is light years better than a Canon 75-300 f/4.5-5.6.

There are also lens that 3rd party manufacturers make that Canon has no competing lenses to match. Sigma makes a 120-300 f/2.8 and a 300-800 f/5.6 for instance. The fastest zoom that Canon offers that goes to 300mm is only f/5.6 at 300mm I believe, which is two full stops slower than the Sigma. And the longest zoom they offer only goes to 400mm, compared to 800mm for the Sigma.

To right off 3rd party lenses completely you are only limiting yourself, and it's not always an upgrade to go Canon.

[DavidEB]

When the tooth fairy decides to give me all those dollars instead of putting them under children's pillows, then I'll restrict my shopping to L lenses.

I knew I wanted f2.8 because I shoot action and indoors, and worse yet, indoors action. So the choice for me was between the sigma f2.8 and the canon f2.8.

In the camera store, shots I took with both were hard to distinguish on image quality. Focusing was good with both, a little better with the canon. Web reviews, including some on this forum, place the two lenses neck-and-neck.

I got the sigma for $670 at a time when the canon cost $1150. The $500 dollar difference more than paid for a Tamron 28-75, so I got two excellent lenses and had money left over to take the wife out to a nice dinner.

[blue_max]

Hey guys, I am not trying to recommend Canon lenses or push them in any way. It's just my decision. It's good to have a choice. I know the Canon line-up, the other guys tend to add so many letters after the lens name that I lose track.

At the end of the day, it's the person who pays that has to be happy.

Graham

[Beaker]

I have Canon Lenses - and I have some non-Canon Lenses too... but some of the logic used to go only Canon gets lost on me. Because a person had a bad experience with a particular lens from a particular manufacture should not exclude them from looking at any and all other 3rd party lenses... your missing out on a lot of good stuff. That is like saying I drove a mercedes c280 and it was underpowered - so I am not going to look at any more German cars. I have the 300 2.8 L - a friend of mine has the Tokina 300 2.8. We swapped lenses a couple of weeks ago at Virginia International Speedway... the Tokina rocked. Do I want to give up my L - no - but if I were making the decision again.... I would consider it. I choose the Sigma in this case for my 70-200. It came down to speed as most things I shoot are in the late afternoons. I didn't want to spend time post processing to get rid of noise from shooting at 1600 or 3200 - so the stop made a difference. If most of what you do is daylight - the Canon is an excellent choice. But don't make your decision off of a bad experience with another unrelated lens. I have owned plenty of Canon and Non-Canon marginal lenses... they all make them.

I agree completely. All of the manufacturers make great lenses and they make dogs, and this definately includes Canon. Most people can't buy a stable of "L" glass, the right lens for every occasion. So forget about the color of the paint, buy the lens that does the job you need for the money you can afford. However, don't waste your money on cheap or low performing lenses either, Canon or not. Even if I had the extra $400 for a Canon 70-200/2.8 (vs. the sigma) I don't think the white paint is worth $400 in this instance. The Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX lens is a STAR. Ask yourself, do you buy lenses than can take great pictures, or do you buy lenses to make people think you can take great pictures? It is a valid question, it is easy to get "L" fever and lose sight of what you are trying to accomplish.

[csnudelman]

I finially decided to go with the 135L f/2 and 1.4X TC after considering much the same situation as you are. The 135L is not so heavy, great optics and fast. With the 1.4X TC you would have a 196mm f/2.8 that is not so heavy, great optics and fast.

[xuxu1]

I see that alot of people have bought the Canon 70-200 lately. How many of you seriously looked at the Sigma EX. Tell me why you didn't get one, if you don't mind.

Well... it´s up to you and only up to you which lens / decision your going for.

In the near future, as soon as savings are finished, i´m going for the Canon 70-200L IS and i did consider the Sigma as well. The reasons why it´s going to be the Canon and not the Sigma are as follows:

1) Canon has IS, Sigma does´nt (very important for me)
2) Canon has extremly well resale value. (Maybe you won´t keep the lens for a lifetime :rolleyes: )
3) The Sigma lens might need rechipping or won´t even work on future canon camera bodys.
4) The reputation of the canon 70-700L IS is extremly high. (see all the pros using it as there daily working tool).

Ok... but that´s just me. Maybe you have at least as many reasons to go for the SIGMA lens. And for you it then will be a good decision. Nobody here really is able to answer your question.

ED

[mgash]

Years ago I bought some Sigma stuff, and it all fell apart right after the warranty. Sigma was very unhelpful, thus I have never been able to trust Sigma, and I love my Canon 70-200 F4

[csnudelman]

I also won't buy anything but a Canon brand lens for my 20D. I have always wondered why these Sigma lens fans didn't get a Sigma camera?

[Keiffer]

Because most of the Canon cameras are better. And this is really not a Canon versus sigma slandering campaign, it's just regular guys trying to get the best bang for the buck. If I had cash coming out of my ying yang I wouldn't think twice about going with Canon, But I don't as do alot of guys here. I think this will go on forever because some people are just for the brand and truly won't say if they are disappointed in a lense performance or the fact that a cheaper lense may rival their high priced lense. But take a look at this, I firmly believe a picture is worth a thousand words:-) Sigma 70-200EX f2.8 HSM v. Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS USM Photo Gallery by fstopjojo at pbase.com (http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/70200s) But it really comes down to buying the best you can afford and not trying to keep up with the jones's I also won't buy anything but a Canon brand lens for my 20D. I have always wondered why these Sigma lens fans didn't get a Sigma camera?

[csnudelman]

Keiffer, I agree. Each has his or her limit to spend on anything. And, yes, sometimes due to cost 3rd party lenses are good to buy. However, for those that prefer a 3rd party lens based on quality alone I will say this. At a ball game, news conference, on the front line of a war, pictures being shot for a major publication, ect. the pros, those that make their living at photography use Canon (mostly) or Nikon. Not Sigma or Tamron. There must be a reason, perhaps even a very good one.

[Keiffer]

Oh yeah CS, without a doubt any Photojournalist would most likely have only the highest quality. I'm defintely not saying any third party lense beats Canon, Hell If I had the money I would own nothing but Canon also. And where in Central Fla are you?

[scott stokes]

I like my sigma! scott

[csnudelman]

And where in Central Fla are you?

Winter Haven

[grego]

I've used the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and its a high quality lens for its price. 2.8 comes in handy making it very versatile. It was my friends lens but I got to use it a lot since we were both on the same newspaper.

Then when i was looking to buy my own 70-200, I did take a look at the Canon 70-200 f/4. Looked at it for a day. Not worth it when you lose those stops.

So I bought the 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

So if you go Canon, go 2.8 or get the Sigma.

[Croasdail]

I also won't buy anything but a Canon brand lens for my 20D. I have always wondered why these Sigma lens fans didn't get a Sigma camera?

huh? I have tried for a while to come up with a reasonable response to this statement... but there just really isn't one. Are you really telling me you can look at the images on this forum and tell which ones were shot with a canon lens and which ones were shot with 3rd party lenses.

[csnudelman]

huh? I have tried for a while to come up with a reasonable response to this statement... but there just really isn't one. Are you really telling me you can look at the images on this forum and tell which ones were shot with a canon lens and which ones were shot with 3rd party lenses.

I highly doubt I could tell the difference between lenses looking at images on this forum. Or, if a filter was used. I could, however, tell if the front element was smeared with grease or not. I'm looking at pictures at 72 or 96ppi, coming and going. Besides, that is not the only issue regarding lens for me. AND, I don't think I could tell the difference between Canon and Sigma cameras on this forum as well. However, when shot at the highest quality (RAW), edited and printed at 1200/2400ppi as a 8X10 or 11X14 I KNOW I could tell a difference. Many years ago before lenses were as complex as they are now I had and used many 3rd party lenses. But with the info being exchanged between camera and lens today I would not use them, UNLESS, I almost had to (any port in a storm). Now, if one is going to handhold every shot, use a "protection" filter, not use a lens hood and print 4X6 'family' pictures I guess a 3rd party lens is just fine. I want a lens that will "talk" to my camera correctly and not have to be "rechiped" to work on the next camera Canon introduces. I want a lens that the zooming and focusing rings rotate in the same direction as the other lenses. I could go on, but I think I have already over stated my case concerning your question.

[Croasdail]

However, when shot at the highest quality (RAW), edited and printed at 1200/2400ppi as a 8X10 or 11X14 I KNOW I could tell a difference.

Wow... very impressive. I shoot sports for 3 local universities regularly and do so normally with a 300 f2.8 is L and a sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX... and none of them have been able to tell the difference. If your that good.. by all means stick with only high end L stuff or better move up to medium format. But I would argue there is a lot of grey area between that and " handhold every shot, use a "protection" filter, not use a lens hood and print 4X6 'family' pictures".

[csnudelman]

Wow... very impressive. I shoot sports for 3 local universities regularly and do so normally with a 300 f2.8 is L and a sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX... and none of them have been able to tell the difference. If your that good.. by all means stick with only high end L stuff or better move up to medium format. But I would argue there is a lot of grey area between that and " handhold every shot, use a "protection" filter, not use a lens hood and print 4X6 'family' pictures".

I just earlier this year sold my Mamiya RB 67 Pro S outfit. The last shoot I used it on was just a bit more stuff than this 58 year old cares to haul around anymore. I would guess you are shooting at ISO 400 or higher. I use ISO 50 and 100. There is nothing like looking down at a large focusing screen and composing. I still use my light meter (a Gossen Luna-Pro F) at times so that was not sold. Most people can't tell the difference between Hellmann's mayonnaise and the house brand, but I can, so I pay extra for Hellmann's.

[Croasdail]

I'm a Hasselblad guy myself..... but while raising kids and working on my real career had to put it into mothball. It's still sitting there waiting for me to wake it back up. I even have a medium format enlarger in the basement... doubt it will ever be used again. Glad to hear there some of us old school guys around in the forum... As to what I shoot - my target size is 11.5 by 8, I don't have the time or inclination to try to shoot gallery quality anymore - and frankley not the talent either. I generally shoot 90% under ISO 200. Never shoot in Auto, and manual focus when I can as I then know what will be in focus... miss split screen focusing a lot. Great thing is photography is a highly personal thing and there are lots of right ways to approach any subject. Cheers!

[RikWriter]

Winter Haven


Heck, you're only about a half hour from me! I live in Lakeland! And ironically enough, I am trying to decide myself about whether to get a Sigma or Canon 70-200 f2.8...

[Keiffer]

Small world LOL Must be a cent fla thing huh LOL Good to see some nieighbors.

[csnudelman]

Heck, you're only about a half hour from me! I live in Lakeland! And ironically enough, I am trying to decide myself about whether to get a Sigma or Canon 70-200 f2.8...

I lived 15 years in Lakeland before moving to Winter Haven. My family moved to Orlando in '52, I was 5 years old. Moved to Lakeland '67 and Winter Haven in '84. Also lived a year in Plant City (we still have prpoerty there). We hope to move to Tampa in the somewhat neat future. My next move after Tampa will be in a pine box.

[RikWriter]

I lived 15 years in Lakeland before moving to Winter Haven. My family moved to Orlando in '52, I was 5 years old. Moved to Lakeland '67 and Winter Haven in '84. Also lived a year in Plant City (we still have prpoerty there). We hope to move to Tampa in the somewhat neat future. My next move after Tampa will be in a pine box.


I was born in Tampa, lived in Brandon till I was 12 and we moved up north for 5 years. After I graduated high school, we moved to Lakeland. That was 20 years ago and, except for my time in the Army, I've been here ever since. But I want desperately to move out west and hope to do so well before I hit the pine box...

[csnudelman]

I was born in Tampa, lived in Brandon till I was 12 and we moved up north for 5 years. After I graduated high school, we moved to Lakeland. That was 20 years ago and, except for my time in the Army, I've been here ever since. But I want desperately to move out west and hope to do so well before I hit the pine box...

Colorado Springs looks good to me. But, I know we are not leaving Florida (family, friends, doctors, et).

[RikWriter]

Colorado Springs looks good to me. But, I know we are not leaving Florida (family, friends, doctors, et).


That's the tough part, all right. But I really want to move to northern AZ or southern UT. Just incredible country...no other place I enjoy being as much.