Sigma 70-200 or canon :\ [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

BtBam

6th of July 2005 (Wed), 22:04

Ive read all the recent topics on these lens but i just cant decide what i should do..

I have a great place to purchase from who gives me amazing prices compared to anywhere else in Aus.
So here is what im thinking..

I was pretty happy with what i had read about the sigma 70-200 f2.8 and i can get it for around $1280 AUS Delivered.
But after a bit more research.. and the guy im buying them off is a canon specialist he has got me thinking about the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Lens (http://www.qualitycamera.com.au/product_info.php?cPath=30&products_id=1083) for $1999

But after reading some of the threads it seems that people are saying that the none IS version of the canon 70-200 2.8L is not worth it and you mayaswell go for the IS...

Problem is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Image Stabilizer AutoFocus Telep (http://www.qualitycamera.com.au/product_info.php?cPath=30&products_id=19)
is around 900$ more expensive, and thats just too far for me to go i beleive.

Now im once again 100% unsure what i should do :(

Any help and guidence appreciated greatly, thanks

ueb0258

6th of July 2005 (Wed), 22:57

I never have had the chance to use the L glass but all the reviews on the web say that the Sigma is really close. I bought the sigma and havent looked back. I like it a lot.

LightRules

6th of July 2005 (Wed), 23:19

The Sigma 70-200 is no slouch. Even though I stepped up to the IS, my 70-200EX was fantastic in every way: build, af speed/accuracy, optics, handling, etc. Loved every moment I had it. See my sig for test shots (with the 70-200IS).

SeanH

6th of July 2005 (Wed), 23:21

The 70-200 2.8 non IS is the sharpest lense I own. With all of the tests I have seen the non IS is shaper......but not by much than the IS version. Unless you shot mostly low light I would say go for the Non IS and say the money. After all, it is a 2.8. Now if it was a 5.6 I could understand the IS....but it's not. But either way you can't lose with that lense, I think that without a doubt that is one of the best zooms Canon makes.

tim

6th of July 2005 (Wed), 23:32

Get the sigma or the Canon IS IMHO, you're wasting money going for the Canon non-IS lens.

grego

7th of July 2005 (Thu), 03:30

Canon IS or Sigma. It basically comes down to your wallet on this one. I used to use the Sigma and got what I needed from it. I bought the IS though.

BtBam

7th of July 2005 (Thu), 23:06

hrm well i appreciate all your help

So from thnkng about the 70-200 canon non-is im now back to the sigma..

Does anyone have any review pages between these 3 lenses?
thanks heaps

BtBam

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 00:03

Sigma APO 100-300mm f4 EX IF HSM

Now im considering this :\

Is there a site where i can see the differance in image quality between all these lenses :\

kawter2

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 00:43

BtBam

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 01:20

Thankyou Very much for clearing that up for me kawter2, very very appreciated.

The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Autofocus i can get for even cheaper then the Sigma 70-200 by about $180.

The thing is.. i would want to use this lens for a lot of differant type of shots. Some weddings, plenty of outside shots lots of differant things.

Is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Autofocus just unable to perform at weddings? even if i use iso 400? and 1/100th?

I think i would like to purchase a canon lens, as right now i have the sigma 24-70 and although im happy with it. I would like to try a canon.

For all round shooting im thinking the sigma 70-200.. thats if the canon f4 200 is realy useless inside or in low lit places.
I think 2000$ AUS for the canon 70-200 2.8 is rather expensive compared to the sigma for $1200 AUS.

Still completely unsure :(

RodBarker

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 02:07

Hi
I was looking to get the same lens as you 70/200 2.8 IS and got talked out of it by the salesmen and it made sense to what I wanted to do with it , we compremised and came to a deal for the same money the 2.8IS was going to cost me I took home the 70/200 4f L and the 24/70 2.8f L , for me Im happy with my decision and feel I have a nice balanced start to the L range .

Rod

grego

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 02:32

WOW I am totally baffled at the responses in this thread!!!!

not one of you even ask what he is going to be shooting with it??? Man that 70-200 non/is is sharp but not much ahnd held at 1/60th. If you shoot low light (ie churches, receptions, evenings etc...) don't even think about that 900.. it will be the best investment you have ever made.. If you usually shoot with enough available light to get shutter speeds > 1/200 then don't even consider the IS model In fact the f4 is pretty close to the 2.8 past f8 (PAST f8!!! that is key) but IMO the f4 is a TON easier to hand hold

But it doesn't have the versatility of the 2.8. And as I mentioned earlier, you can easily get the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. That will get the job done more than not and it gives you a faster lens than the 70-200mm f/4. And its more versatile if you stick an extender on it as well.

Hi
I was looking to get the same lens as you 70/200 2.8 IS and got talked out of it by the salesmen and it made sense to what I wanted to do with it , we compremised and came to a deal for the same money the 2.8IS was going to cost me I took home the 70/200 4f L and the 24/70 2.8f L , for me Im happy with my decision and feel I have a nice balanced start to the L range

Rod

But you could have gotten the 70-200 f/2.8 sigma and had two 2.8 lens rather than your telephoto being f/4 and still spent about the same as you did with the 70-200 f/4.

BtBam

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 02:39

grego

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 02:42

yeah thats very true grego.. After reading more threads and what not.. im thinking the best option is the sigma.. if its nearly as good as the 70-200f2.8L for 800$ more.. seems the best buy.
I just love the look of the canons, and to own a L peice would be nice.. maybe next time tho :)

Honestly, I think you can get it for less than 800.

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php?sort_type=bottomline&masterid=587759&isbn=&pid=

Like Digital photo has it in the 700 range and then you can even add a 3 year mack camera warranty which still puts it under 800. Just a thought.

Oh and I've used the Sigma. Its very good. It will do the job. And that 2.8 is more valuable to have just in case. Always better to have a faster lens when its possible.

EOSAddict

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 02:48

I was very interested to see this thread and read fstop's reviews. I have been a long time Sigma fan (had a 75-300APO amd 28-70 on my old EOS 100 for nrly 15 years). I got my Tamron 28-300 for convenience and I like it a lot as a general lens but am now getting frustrated with its limitations (mainly speed). It's great to see a balanced look at 3rd party lenses without the 'Lis best' mantra!!

Am now considering an upgrade path that consists of Sigma 24-70, Sigma 70-200, Sigma 2x TC and something else at the wider end, watch out Credit card!

BtBam

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 02:52

Grego i can get the Sigma 70-200 for $1280 AUS, and that is over $100 cheaper then i can find anywhere in aus. the canon 2.8 70-200 is $1999 AUS.. So im pretty much certain on the sigma now. :)

EOSAddict. i have the sigma 24-70, its a great lens :) Even tho i would love the canon 70-200L, Once again sigma just has the best value for money, if i had more flow id go all out.. but i dont :) I am still pretty young :)

EOSAddict

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 02:53

Bt Bam,

I may not be young (!!) but wife and two kids put other strains on the credit card - thanks for feedback. I shall now sit looking morosely over photo catalogues until I can afford one!

grego

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 02:54

Grego i can get the Sigma 70-200 for $1280 AUS, and that is over $100 cheaper then i can find anywhere in aus. the canon 2.8 70-200 is $1999 AUS.. So im pretty much certain on the sigma now. :)

Ooh not in the US. Good luck. you won't be disappointed with your purchase of the 70-200mm f/2.8. It's quick and it's not that that heavy.

Enjoy your puchase.

condyk

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 03:16

We still don't know exactly what you want the lens for and where you'll be using it. However, it seem flexibility is important in which case a faster lens will work better.

From personal ownership experience, on performance to value ratio rather than speed, I would rate the lenses in this thread as follows:

1. Sigma 100-300mm f4
2. Sigma 70-200mm f2.8
3. Canon 70-200mm f4 L

The 100-300mm f4 performs better than the Canon L F4 in lower light but is more difficult to use handheld due to weight and length. If you don't need the extra 100mm then the Sigma f2.8 would be in top spot. The 100-300mm is verty flexible long term as you can add a 1.4x TCon for 420mm of sharp and usable performance.

If money wasn't an issue I would always choose an IS over non IS version and so the Canon f2.8 L IS is a great option.

EOSAddict

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 03:30

Condyk,

I see you like the Sigma 100-300. Do you have any thoughts on the relative merits of that vs the Sigma 70-200 with 1.4 tc?? I am intrigued by the combo of Sigmas 24-70 and 100-300 but not sure what might fill the gap!

condyk

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 03:52

From owning both I would always buy the 100-300mm first. Never seen a bad word said about it anywhere, which is probably unique. The shorter zoom was superb, but for my main interest, basically wildlife in Africa, the 100-300mm is a better all round option.

The f2.8 would be better for dawn and dusk style shooting but I know I would miss the extra length. The 1.4x would still give me less length on the 70-200mm at f4 than the 100-300mm f4. If you add a 1.4 x Sigma to the 100-300mm then you really do have a very usable and fine performing lens at 420mm. Sharp and clean all the way through.

However, the difference in handheld and supported shooting with the 100-300mm can be significant. It's not a lens for P&S style shooting in hand. I have good results at 1/800+ handheld but the number of keepers, at the quality I want, is reduced very considerably.

If you are worried about the 70-100mm range then pop in a Canon 85mm 1.8 long term - you'll always love that lens. Personally, I don't use that range. In fact, 95% of what I shoot is either 20-50mm or 300mm and over. If you don't need the 300mm and over then the 70-200mm f2.8 would be a great buy.

EOSAddict

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 04:02

Condyk - Thanks.

I am finding I am using my Tamron a lot at the 300 end so perhaps a dedicated 300 top end lens would be better... and that is where I am getting frustrated with it! Seems like there are so many to choose from...... 18-50, 24-70, 18-125, 12-24, 11-18, 17-35 decisions, decisions!!!

BtBam

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 06:15

haha and now i just get an email back saying i can get the 100-300 sigma for 1380.. 100$ more then then 70-200...

This is just getting to difficult :( lol

condyk

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 06:34

That's $1 per extra 1mm ... or 42p/1mm where I live :-) The 70-200mm with 1.4x TCon will be f4 and 280mm and cost more with not as good final quality. Hmmmm ... I know what I'd choose.

BtBam

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 11:08

haha so is the image quality of the 100-300 as good?
the 70-200 is 2.8 tho :\ could use it indoors :(

grego

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 12:31

haha so is the image quality of the 100-300 as good?
the 70-200 is 2.8 tho :\ could use it indoors :(

A lot depends upon what you use the lens for. You can never go wrong with the 70-200. It's one of the most versatile lens you can have, especially if it's 2.8. If you need distance and you shoot in a lot of light, the 100-300 would be good for you since you get 300mm + the crop factor so you are essentially getting 480mm if it's a 1.6x.

Evan Idler

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 17:14

In case anybody is interested the new version of the Sigma

the 70-200 F/2.8 EX DG is $725.00 US right not at
http://www.deltainternational.com/
It's their special on the front page.

The older version Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 EX APO is
selling for $680.00 at http://www.sigma4less.com

I've have great service from Delta International
and am very impressed with my dealing with them.
I've never purchased from Sigma 4 Less so i can't
say for sure what they are like to deal with.

--Evan

BtBam

8th of July 2005 (Fri), 20:49

This hobby is against me.

After coming to a final conclusion on the APO 100-300mm F4 EX IF HSM, i recieve an E-Mail saying the price is actually $400 more then the 70-200.

Now, once again. I am not sure. arg

condyk

9th of July 2005 (Sat), 04:02

You have flexibility of f2.8 v's the extra length and arguably a tad better quality of output. Add a 1.4x TCon to the 70-200mm and you're still short of 300mm, are operating at f4 and the price is now pretty close, while you have degraded, if only a little, the 70-200mm output.

Yes, difficult choice. You need to think what you will use the lens for and where. Same problem we all face in balancing compromises. Focus on your majority real world use and choose on that basis. My main interest is wildlife in Africa and so light is no big issue much of the time. At dawn and dusk I might wish for a f2.8 but then I lose the length the rest of the day. I had a Bigma and the 2.8 but carry the two was turning me into a hunchback. For me the 100-300mm f4 and TCon is a great balance of needs.

Ivan mentioned Sigm4less and they have a very good reputation from buyers here.

BtBam

9th of July 2005 (Sat), 06:11

Condy, your help and opinions are more appreciated then i can put words to, thankyou mate.

I have come to the conclusion this lens would be used for outside shooting, i have the sigma 24-70 currently and i could just use that for inside.

What im curious about now is the quality of the image these lenses give, how do they both contend?

Keiffer

9th of July 2005 (Sat), 07:14

I wonder if there is a significant difference between the two or if it's just a marketing scheme.
In case anybody is interested the new version of the Sigma

the 70-200 F/2.8 EX DG is $725.00 US right not at
http://www.deltainternational.com/
It's their special on the front page.

The older version Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 EX APO is
selling for $680.00 at http://www.sigma4less.com

I've have great service from Delta International
and am very impressed with my dealing with them.
I've never purchased from Sigma 4 Less so i can't
say for sure what they are like to deal with.

--Evan

arpi

9th of July 2005 (Sat), 10:59

I bought the sigma 70-200 and I returned it because the autofocus was very poor and it was wasting 90% of my shots. The canon 70-200 is always dead on target. If you get the sigma, make sure you can return it at no charge just in case.

Cheers

condyk

9th of July 2005 (Sat), 13:34

What im curious about now is the quality of the image these lenses give, how do they both contend?

You will be happy with either. I think the 100-300mm is a better all around lens but there is so little in it really overall. I can't really remember comparatively what I got from the 70-200mm f2.8 re. images, but I was very happy with its quality for sure.

CDS had the 100-300mm f4 and a few other people here who's views I would generally respect. They all liked the lens. Understand tho' if you go for the 100-300mm f4 then you really need a tripod or monopod or beanbag rather than handheld to get best results. It's probably a static lens rather than a walkaround and shoot lens, esp. if you add a TCon later. If you're doing sports then a monopod would be good, or rest in on a wall on a beanbag if you can.

Here's a 100% straight from the camera unprocessed image for you to play with if you want to. It's from the 100-300mm f4. Taken around 4.00pm today so light was reducing and overcast too, but no AF issues at all.

It's a typical shot that will no doubt sharpen up with some auto levels and USM. Used a bean bag rather than hand held and had the 1.4x Sigma TCon on, so 420mm. Some image degredation over standard 300mm but nothing worth worrying about! I've had better and worse shots and quality really depends on support more than anything:

www.buzzdns.com/IMG_2229.JPG

At least it will give you an idea what to normally expect, rather than just posting some untypical but stellar image :lol: Taken at f8.0, iso 200, 1/800, 420mm.

Have a look at PBase.com for both lenses too. The best image you see there is probably close to what the lens can deliver. Sometimes you go there tho' and all you see are horrible, compressed OOF images, even if you know the lens is good. Usually a safe enough bet though :D

hotled

9th of July 2005 (Sat), 20:11

Well I had this exact dilema. My personal opinion with lens makers put aside is. What I wanted the lens for. I needed a lens that could shoot my kids outdoor soccer games in any weather, be it early morning or overcast or bright as sin. Plus I wanted a lens that could do some decent family portraits...this way I didn't need to buy 2 lenses or more.
So I opted for the Sigma 70-200 2.8 DG from DeltaInternational.
I walked around the soccer fields and baseball diamonds with my Sigma 55-200 and found that 200mm is enough since I can walk anywhere I want while shooting from a monopod. And just in case I ordered the Sigma 1.4 just for good measure..probably a waste of cash but I looked at it as insurance in the event I can't roam freely.
Also at 2.8 I can shoot indoor events that they may have, like plays etc..
Just boil it down and see what you will shoot the most..I almost got the 100-300f4 but the restriction of f4 in low light stopped me cold,although it is the best f4 lens for the money imho;)

Croasdail

9th of July 2005 (Sat), 20:33

I use the Sigma 70-200 with the 1.4x teleconverter and it works just just fine. Focus slows marginally under non-optimal light conditions with the 1.4x, I imagine the 100-300 would do likewise. I bought both from Sigma4less.com and their service was great. The person who had 90% bad shots obviously had a damaged lens - I can't imagine the difference to be that much. I also have a canon 300 2.8 L IS and the keeper ratio between the sigma and canon is so marginal, I have a hard time believing the 70-200 canon is that much better then my 300 prime. I use the sigma with the tx when I will be moving a lot or want to me more stealth in my shooting - mostly at events.

Keiffer

10th of July 2005 (Sun), 09:18

Are there any side by side comparison shots of the Sigma and Canon?

condyk

10th of July 2005 (Sun), 09:54

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/70200s

Though the comparison is with the Canon IS version ...

dmwierz

10th of July 2005 (Sun), 14:50

hrm well i appreciate all your help

So from thnkng about the 70-200 canon non-is im now back to the sigma..

Does anyone have any review pages between these 3 lenses?
thanks heaps

Canon Non IS samples galore:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70200_28u

Sigma samples:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/70-200_28_ex_apo

Canon reviews:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=13&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

Sigma reviews:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=102&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

Hope these help.

Mohawk

10th of July 2005 (Sun), 15:39

My .02,

Get the Canon, IS or non-IS version of the 70-200mm. Why? Because Canon made them for Canon cameras. I know it may sound like a wierd concept to some, but it still holds water. Spend your money once, and forget about it. I shot Nikon film for years, 3rd party lenses never cut the cake compared to Nikons offerings. I find the same still holds true regarding Canon and 3rd party lenses. Been there, done that.

You say you have a dealer that will cut you a good deal? Take advantage of it. And yes, the IS is worth it in my book. You get an extra stop or two in low light, and it works great for anything that is moving. I had trouble justifying the extra cost of the IS too, but I am darn glad I did it. You cannot beat it, image quality is awesome... Colors, saturation, etc...

Mike