sigma 70-200 2.8 vs. canon 70-200mm 2.8

[hedphonz]

is the quality of image really that noticable compared to the two? if anyone knows of any ways of tests of comparing the two. obviously the canon is better though if it's not noticaly different, then would it be just fine to get the sigma. i am getting a lens for indoor arenas and low light situaions for sports. let me know. thanks

[Eric DeCastro]

get the sigma unless you need the IS. but really the 2.8 non IS is not worth the price when comparing it to the sigma.

[Matatazela]

I am also interested in this thread! Just this morning I compared the prices of the two lenses and came to much the same conclusion, although I did include a 2X telecon in each.

What about the speed of autofocus? I ask this for shooting living things moving fast - like birds in flight and animals running.

Any advice?

[Tom W]

Based on my experience, the Sigma's Excellent. The Canon 2.8/IS is a little more Excellent. The Sigma 70-200 worked very, very well on my 10D. AF was quick and quiet and the lens operated smoothly. It didn't focus quite as accurately on my 1D Mk II so I sold it and bought the Canon with IS. I don't regret the move.

The non-IS Canon is reputed to be even sharper than the IS version, but I can't imagine anything better, at least not on my camera. Perhaps on the 1Ds Mk II....

[Croasdail]

No difference in focusing really - and you will get a magrinally better image at 2.8 with the canon - but you will need to pixel peep to see it. I bought the sigma, but of course instead of pocketing the extra money I went out and bought a canon 85 1.8. If you want a look from a someone on this site that did a review look at http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/70200s.

With that said, a day does not go by without this question being asked - do a search and you will get pleny of post - mostly by people who bought one way or another - with very nice images to prove their point. In reality, this is a ford vs gm discussion ( okay MB vs BMW for our EU friends). Both are very highend lenses and either way you should happy.

[LightRules]

If it's between the 70-200EX and the non-IS L, I'd stick with the EX; if you are looking at the IS L and you have the money, go with the IS L. All in all they are all optically similar, though the Sigma will have a little more CA when using it with any TC. But it is as sharp (or sharper in some cases) than the Ls in the copies I've used. My sig has some test galleries.

[primoz]

For my sort of shooting (sport) I don't need IS so it was about Sigma or 70-200/2.8 non-IS. I went with Sigma and I'm still happy I did that. I tried both when I was buying and to be honest I couldn't see any difference (tried it on old 1d (mk2 wasn't even out yet those days) and 1v). AF is working fine on all bodies on which I have used it (1v, 3, 1d and 1dmk2) and it's really fast. Photo quality is also about same (some lenghts and apertures Sigma is better on others is Canon but none of them is noticeable better). But Canon has weather sealing which Sigma doesn't have. On other hand I didn't have any problems working in rain or snow for few hours with Sigma either. So in my case those saved $500 were spent better for something else :)
Of course if you need IS then there's only one chance :)

[cc3chan]

The Sigma is really good for the price, I tried both the Sigma and the Canon non-IS at the store and they both worked great.

Canon had slightly faster AF and Sigma felt lighter than the Canon (more than the written weight difference).

Image quality was too close to call when shooting for real. So I got the Sigma for almost half the price of the Canon.:D

[tim]

You'll find plenty of information in threads like the ones listed below.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=74557
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58431
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=68988
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=61103
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59746
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58149
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=55290
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47726
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25529
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21306

[hedphonz]

thansk so much guys and thanks tim for the threads

[DavidEB]

A picture is worth a thousand words.
f2,8 (sigma) 1/320 ISO1600.

[ttmatsu]

The Sigma and Canon are very close in performance - the Canon is certainly not $400 better than the Sigma to my eye. But, I still bought the Canon non-IS over the Sigma. If you read about Sigma and rechipping as it is discussed on internet photo forums all over, you get a little concerned regarding the life expectancy of your $700 Sigma investment. Jojo had to have his Sigma 24-70 rechipped. The brand new Sigma 18-50 f2.8 needs to be rechipped for a focus assist issue with the 20d. There is a huge list of older Sigma lenses that no longer work with some new Canon bodies and since they are no longer the current model or no longer manufactured, Sigma will not rechip them. The 75-300 APO current model is III. I had the orignal model for a Nikon film body and when I bought a newer body, it no longer autofocused and Sigma had migrated the lineup to the model II.

Sigma seems to be the only vendor with this rechip issue - I haven't heard of Tamron or Tokina having this issue (either they pay canon a licencing fee or they have a much simpler interface). I want my 70-200 f2.8 to last the life of my Canon EF experience. I was assured that by buying Canon, I would have that along with a miniscule advantage in perceived sharpness wide open. The Sigma could last 30 years or 5 years before either requiring rechipping to be compatible with the next Canon body or be declared obsolete - depending on if Sigma will rechip or not. Unfotunately, Sigma is also the only viable threat to Canon for this lens. If I was interested in a fast 100-300 lens, my only choice would be to buy a Sigma. I wish I had the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 but I don't have that kind of money or need.

If the competition to Canon in the 70-200 market was Tamron or Tokina, I would have bought the 3rd party lens since there is no history of future compatibility issues. But, since it was Sigma, I bought the Canon. Sigma fills some voids in the Canon lineup that no other vendor offers a viable alternative to.

[Asmodeus]

I bought the Sigma today. Just as an FYI, there is a new model that was released last week; it's now the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG/HSM. The DG indicates that it has been optimised for use with digital cameras (bit is still full frame film camera compatible). Don't know if that makes any difference to its use on Canon bodies as I've only taken a few shots with it so far and it has worked as expected in all modes.

[csnudelman]

I don't know where the prices I see on this thread come from. The Canon 70-200L f/2.8 can be had for $1000-$1100, the Sigma seems to be about $700 (or more). Seems the savings are not all that great. :rolleyes:

[Croasdail]

If you look at the used listing at KEH you will find tons of lenses from all kinds of manufactures that have exclusions that this lens will not work with this or that body. Additionally, we have seen even Canon is not too concerned with backward compatibility with the introduction of the EF-S lenses which are not compatible with camera bodies that were in full production not even a year ago. So while buying Canon may be safer - I think it is only marginally so as the technology is marching on at break neck speed. You should feel it is a bonus if the technology you buy today is relivant is 7 years from now. Digital is still way to young to think were anywhere near maturity yet.

[ron chappel]

Ok,i'll bite....why on earth has no one mentioned this test??!!
http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56.html

Come on,surely you all know about it by now don't you?!

[Croasdail]

Okay - there is a problems with that test mentioned above. The first thing that caught my eye was the behavour of the Canon. At f2.8 the lens is nice and crisp - with good saturation. The L clearly looks better then the Sigma - for which I was not surprised. Then at f4 - the quality DECREASES..... huh? Not normal behavour for any lens. From f4 through the remainder if the test the two lenses are neck and neck. I found this odd so I looked at the EXIF data for the f2.8 pictures and it became really clear why the Sigma looked poor at that setting. The exposure for the Canon L was f2.8, 1/1500th, at ISO 200... the exposure for the Sigma was the same as you would expect, except that shutter was 1/1000th - the dang image was under exposed. Unfortunately now this is not an apples to apples comparison as the Sigma will be undersaturated. I don't doubt that the L might have been better - but the test is invalid as exposure was not controled. I really doubt the Sigma is a faster lens and it metered different - I will bet someone accidently bumped something. The good news is the images were taken only two minutes apart so lighting should have been identical. I don't have the time to go through and check every other image - but please don't take this well intentioned test as the gospel... I found 1 error rather quickly... there could be others. Use the overall recommendations with the good spirit they were intended. If you want to look at the results for yourself an make sure I am not crazy - this is the link to the particular test....

http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56-page3.html

You will never go wrong with the Canon f2.8.. it is a great lens. But if you are more budget concious and are considering the Sigma - the difference at f2.8 is likely less then this test would have indicated.... just setting the record straight.

[xuxu1]

....... But, I still bought the Canon non-IS over the Sigma. If you read about Sigma and rechipping as it is discussed on internet photo forums all over, you get a little concerned regarding the life expectancy of your $700 Sigma investment.
.......There is a huge list of older Sigma lenses that no longer work with some new Canon bodies and since they are no longer the current model or no longer manufactured, Sigma will not rechip them.
.......I want my 70-200 f2.8 to last the life of my Canon EF experience. I was assured that by buying Canon, I would have that along with a miniscule advantage in perceived sharpness wide open.

That´s the reason why i am going Canon all the way. In my opinion EF ist here to stay for a long time. Yes i know... EF-S is now here too. But in the worst case (for example if you have a 10D and want to be capable of using EF-S lenses) you just have to get a new body with a lens mount that fits both EF and EF-S lenses.

ED