canon 70-200 f4 vs Sigma 70-200 f2.8

[felix21685]

hey guys,

as im using me XT more and more i am thinking of in the future getting one of these lenses.
I would love to get some L glass into my camera bag,
but only for a little more i can get the sigma 2.8

is the canon more clear and crisp than the sigma?

any of you guys try both of them?
when i eventually save up for it right now im leaning towards the canon.just so i can have some L :)

[JuStDaVe]

i think id stick to canon f4 i have one and its the most comon used lense in my bag ... with all the err 99 with foreign lenses i know what id be doing :P

dave

[Eric DeCastro]

the factors are how much you carry it around and what time of day you use it more and what type of photography you will be doing. the sigma weighs more then the ultra light f/4.

on is light blut slow

the other is fast but heavier.

both take sharp pictures (I have never seen err99 with the sigma 70-200.)

ultimatly it's up to you and how you will be using this lense.

[tim]

Read this and decide for yourself: http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56-page1.html

The main factors are weight and low light use. Personally I don't buy lenses slower than F4 so it'd be an easy choice for me. I ended up splurging on the 2.8 IS, which i've barely used yet... :(

[Eric DeCastro]

I agree, the 2.8IS is great, my friend has it but only needs the IS during race events. and even then still doesn't need so the 2.8 would be a better choice. so the canon or sigma 2.8 are the ones i struggled with then it came down to price tag. I don't need an "L" just because it's an "L."

[cc3chan]

I had the same dilemma, except I was looking at the Canon 70-200 F2.8 non-IS and the Sigma 70-200 F2.8. I tried both out in the store for a while and noticed that extra F-stop really helps when shooting indoors. Image quality-wise I didn't notice any significant difference between the two.

The Sigma was half the price of the Canon at the store so I am now a proud owner of the Sigma 70-200 F2.8. The question here is where are you planning to shoot most of the pictures with this lens. If indoors then F2.8 for sure, if outdoors then F4.

P.S. I also tried the Canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS lens, didn't like the push-pull design and I had to bump up ISO to shoot indoors. That's when I decided F4 was not enough for me.

Or maybe I just suck with a large telephoto lens....;)

[Croasdail]

Let the holy wars rage on..... by far the most flexible lens is the 70-200 2.8 is L .... but for many it is hard to justify that kind of a price. So climbing way down below 1K you have the lenses you are looking at. Both have very loyal followings that will swear by and post many pretty pictures proving their choice was best. The sigma does loss just a smidge of sharpness at 2.8 - at f4 it is on par with the canon glass - and you have to blow it up to rediculas sizes to really see the difference. No one has a monitor large enough to display a 100% sized image from any of these lenses. In real work applications (not 100% crops) you will not be able to see the difference. So it comese down to what the first few post listed - size vs. speed. If you do low light photography - the sigma is your best bet. If low light and the little extra DOF are not that important - then go with the Canon L. It is a very safe choice and there are plenty used ones floating around if you really aren't sure and just want to try it out. You can get used from Adoroma, B&H, or KEH. For a little bit more - you can get new. Sigma4less has great prices on sigmas and very good service. The three mentioned above are all good for Canon. You will not go wrong with either so stop freting over it. Worst case scenerio - pick a color - black wit gold strip or white with red strip. Neither lens will hold you back from getting a good shot.

[khiromu]

With XT, I would stay with smaller lens unless you have the battery grip with it.

[dialdn]

I've heard from a local sales rep today that the 70-200 2.8 will accept a 2.0x Sigma T-con and maintain 2.8. Yes a 400 at 2.8. Anyone else hear this?

I have a Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS but may now consider a change as I need 400 and was considering the 100-400 IS.

D

[felix21685]

how is that possible? unless it does some pretty amazing things i dont think that could be done

[Nightcrawler]

It may be the case that the tcon is not reporting the actual F stop to the camera, but you do in fact lose 2 stops of light whether or not it gets reported to the camera.

[montreal]

I've heard from a local sales rep today that the 70-200 2.8 will accept a 2.0x Sigma T-con and maintain 2.8. Yes a 400 at 2.8. Anyone else hear this?

I have a Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS but may now consider a change as I need 400 and was considering the 100-400 IS.

D

That would mean an aperture of 1/2.8 * 400mm = 142 mm.... 14.2 cm..... that sounds impossible. 14 cm is probably larger than the lens diameter.