Need Help on a choice Sigma 70-200 F2.8 or the Canon 70-200 F4

[mdmedicgod]

I know the pros and cons of teh 2.8 and the 4, but I am torn. Need help...

[ed rader]

and bought the canon over the sigma. very happy with my decision too :cool: .

ed rader

http://www.fototime.com/EC3CDD58AE6F203/orig.jpg

[tim]

I went all out and got the 2.8 IS, an indulgence but oh well ;) It's hard to recommend one without knowing what you shoot, personally I like having F2.8 and it's almost essential for low light.

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

[TheObiJuan]

If you NEED the f/2.8 then get the sigma, especially if you can't afford the canon 2.8

[kram]

Why I chose the 70-200 F4
a. I have a Tamron 28-75 but never shoot at 2.8 in it. So f4 isnt such a great loss.
b. The Canon is lighter and easier to carry. Handheld is probably easier with Canon.
c. I get membership to the L club :)
d. Both are great and doesnt really matter much!!

[Raj]

I am very happy with my sigma. Main reason to get sigma over canon was extra stops at 2.8 compared to canon f4 at almost same price. Its a well built lens, same as canon L lenses, is fast focussing & silent, pitcure quality is very good straight out of camera. So basically build, optics, focussing is almost same for both the lenses on your list, but with sigma you will have 2.8 advantage.
Its heavy but then any 70-200 f2.8 is heavy !
Also i heard sigma has 5 year warrenty in some countries.

[Raj]

b. The Canon is lighter and easier to carry. Handheld is probably easier with Canon.


Actually with sigma i find it easy to take handheld shots then, lets say lighter lenses like my sigma 18-125. Its heavy to carry around but extra weight helps to stablize when shooting (may be just for me) :-)

[condyk]

Objectively, this is a simple decision as image quality just isn't something that you need worry about:

If you need a relatively lightweight, high quality lens that will be used in good light then get the Canon and save a few quid.

If you want the advantages of f2.8 and don't mind something heavier and larger get the Sigma. The Sigma at f4 with a 1.4x is also a much better option than the Canon, which I found just didn't do that well with a TCon. If you'll never use a TCon, then it's not an issue.

Anyway, I had both and preferred the Sigma overall, but liked the Canon too. So, it's about what you want the lens for and whether you want something lightweight. Both deliver outstanding quality, with fast AF and excellent build.

Both have good resale value and both are reasonably often found on the second hand market. The range I find restrictive: 200mm just isn't long enough for birds or wildlife, even with a TCon. Again, be clear what you want the lens for or yours could also be on the SH market quite soon :D The 100-300mm f4 Sigma is a better lens than both and has the flexibility and length, with a TCon, to justify the cost.

Of course, objectivity doesn't always comes into all this. Some choose the Canon f4 L just so they can put it in their Sig :lol:

[Vegas Poboy]

Have the Canon & Love it !!! nothing better than some L Glass in your bag. I use this lens for everyting

[mdmedicgod]

What the advantage of the sigma 70-200 ex and the same sigma EX DG ? Just curious. Besided 100 dollars

[Nezmo]

'DG' adds coatings specifically designed to prevent reflections inherent in digital cameras. Sigma is slowly releasing DG versions of their lenses.

[condyk]

Personally, unless I was buying second hand at a good price, I would pay the extra $100 as longer term I think the resale will be better. I doubt there is much difference in performance, but from some initial impressions from users of the 24-70 DG Macro, 105mm DG Macro and 50-500mm DG Bigma the DG versions to seem to perform and look a little better. Still not seen any real side by side tests, so only 'gossip' so far.

Which ever you choose, I suspect the ability of the shooter will be more important than the DG designation and any possible asociated improvements. The 70-200mm f2.8 is capable of outstanding results. The closer the price difference between the Canon and the non DG Sigma, the more compelling the f2.8 becomes.

[csnudelman]

Main reason to get sigma over canon was extra stops at 2.8 compared to canon f4 at almost same price.

Not "stops" but "stop". There is only one stop difference.

[LightRules]

I've had the 70-200EX, 70-200F4, and 70-200IS. For me it was always between the f2.8s; I sold off the F4 fairly quickly. Optically the F4 is very good, but the "pencil" size vis-a-vis the f2.8s and overall "feel" in my hands just wasn't to my liking. But I will say it's very good optically, as are the f2.8s. I currently only own the 70-200IS for the IS, even though the 70-200EX was excellent optically.

[RikWriter]

I got the f4L mostly for weight reasons. I have nothing against Sigma---I have their 12-24, 24-60 and 50-500 and like them---but I wanted a speedy telezoom light enough to carry around with me hiking. And for the price...it's just an awesome lens.

[Evan Idler]

I just got a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 EX DG, and love it. Very nice crisp images.

I got mine at http://www.deltainternational.com for $725.00 US plus shipping.
It was their special for the week, which appears to still be on.

They shipped it 3 hours after I ordered it, and FEDEX Delivered it in under 48 hours.

I would love the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS but they just took my Mastercard away from me :p Besides I need to pick up my new 20D next week.

--Evan

[scott stokes]

I love my sigma,like Raj said you can get very good shots hand heald.

[mdmedicgod]

First I would like to think everyone for the votes and comments. I was all set to buy the cannon F4, but then I saw the sigma 2.8 for about the same price... So I was really really torn......

Then I goto penn camera and he gives me the cannon 2.8 IS L mounted on a rebel and say play take it out side. My god I thought I would leave my Gfriend for that lens. Unfourtanly it was out of my price ranges (for now)

So I made my choice. I chose the sigma EX DG model......

[condyk]

Good for you ... the Canon IS is a great lens but you had the balls to stick to your budget rather than be suckered into a more expensive buy! Some of these sales people are very sneaky. Hope you enjoy the Sigma.

[grego]

70-200 f/2.8 - Gives you more versatility.

[MadMesh]

I was also looking at these 2 lenses... and i think im going to end up getting the Sigma 70-200 2/8.... BUT, since i do want one bad good peice of glass, im also getting the Canon 100-400 L IS. I was also looking at the Sigma 50-500, but IMO, there is no way it can be that good?... I get less range with the canon, but im assuming its going to be far superior. (Even for sports and wildlife) and of couse for hand held use. I was also lookin at the canon 28-300L IS, but ive heard its super soft at all focal lengths. Correct me if im wrong.

[condyk]

I was also looking at these 2 lenses... and i think im going to end up getting the Sigma 70-200 2/8.... BUT, since i do want one bad good peice of glass, im also getting the Canon 100-400 L IS. I was also looking at the Sigma 50-500, but IMO, there is no way it can be that good?... I get less range with the canon, but im assuming its going to be far superior. (Even for sports and wildlife) and of couse for hand held use. I was also lookin at the canon 28-300L IS, but ive heard its super soft at all focal lengths. Correct me if im wrong.

I wouldn't choose between the Bigma and 100-400mm IS on quality as there's not much in it, either way. I would certainly choose the IS over non IS if you can afford the difference. The extra 100mm really is very significant in the field. The 100-300mm f4 Sigma nas 1.4 TCon is equally good, but again no IS. The Sigma 80-400mm OS has the equiv. of IS and is cheaper. Pleanty of options there. I've got the 100-400mm on my list but the choice is based on IS and not image quality.

[xuxu1]

IMO... the 100-400L is a good choice. Consider adding a 1.4x TC.
Ok... you lose a f-stop and you will lose AF. But AFAIK you still have the great opportunity of IS! :D

ED