Sigma 70-200 f2.8 versus Canon 70-200 f4L.Things tham make you go hmmm....

[rklepper]

I have the 70-200 f2.8L and I really love it. I use a monopod to steady it and that works great. It does also have its own limitations.

[DocFrankenstein]

Originally Posted by condyk

Make sure you do the same test before you buy or you might just be disappointed.

I doubt he would be. I could see no improvement in sharpness from 2.8 to 5.6 on the L IS

[Croasdail]

Okie Dokie... Last time I was accused of cheating - looking back at old links - that I didn't post 100% crops. So I went out today and shot a box of girl scout cookies on the back porch - and will provide to anyone the source files if they feel they need them. Below are the 100% crops from a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX none-DG version.



To my eyes I see no real difference in sharpness. Maybe you all do... There are a lot of valid reasons that someone may require the L version over the Sigma... but there is just no getting around the extra stop and being able to freeze motion in darker light conditions. Sigma has bad copies that come out and need to be calibrated.... and all you have to do is read these forums to know Canon does as well. I have been real fortunate to not have had the issue with any of the lenses I own - from any of the manufactures. But please don't make blanket statements that the lens soft at 2.8 - some copies may be... but as a general rule it is not true.

Choderboy - send you lens in - it should not be this soft.

For more detail go to these to reviews... you'll find most enjoy either of their decisions...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=37&page=1

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...hp?product=102

[Curtis N]

Serving size 2 cookies? Who are they trying to kid?
Thanks, Croasdail. This time it looks like an honest test to me.
I assume you were zoomed all the way in to 200mm.
Your test was done at a closer distance than mine. I dunno if that would make a difference or not.

[Choderboy]

Originally Posted by DavidEB

here's mine... >>>click me<<<

That's interesting, the Sigma looks clearly sharper than the Canon wide open in that test.
I've done extensive testing , I know MY COPY is soft wide open. I've only had it a few weeks , now I get to find out how I go getting service on a lense with no serial number! (There is a blank space on the barrell where serial number is missing).

[Choderboy]

Originally Posted by Croasdail

Okie Dokie... Last time I was accused of cheating - looking back at old links - that I didn't post 100% crops. So I went out today and shot a box of girl scout cookies on the back porch - and will provide to anyone the source files if they feel they need them. Below are the 100% crops from a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX none-DG version.



To my eyes I see no real difference in sharpness. Maybe you all do... There are a lot of valid reasons that someone may require the L version over the Sigma... but there is just no getting around the extra stop and being able to freeze motion in darker light conditions. Sigma has bad copies that come out and need to be calibrated.... and all you have to do is read these forums to know Canon does as well. I have been real fortunate to not have had the issue with any of the lenses I own - from any of the manufactures. But please don't make blanket statements that the lens soft at 2.8 - some copies may be... but as a general rule it is not true.

Choderboy - send you lens in - it should not be this soft.

For more detail go to these to reviews... you'll find most enjoy either of their decisions...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=37&page=1

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...hp?product=102

Looks like you have a good one. This is my second Sigma 70-200. I'm sure my 1st one was sharper wide open as I never found the need to test it! (1st lense was non DG , current one is a DG version)

[Macavity]

I've been looking at both of these lenses myself, and got to try them out in Dury's this weekend. I think I could get used to the added weight of the Sigma, but the AF concerned me. I was only testing inside the store, so it wasn't the greatest light, but the Canon f/4 appeared to be focusing quicker and more accurately than the Sigma.

I expected the Canon to possibly focus faster, but in that kind of light, shouldn't the f/2.8 locked in more accurately than the Canon?

[DavidEB]

Macavity -- there's no formal standard way of testing focus speed, but I had the opposite impression to yours -- the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 focused noticeably faster than the canon f4 and (marginally) slower than the canon f2.8. The difference inside the camera store was striking -- the f4 hunted and didn't lock, while both f2.8's zipped right on.


Choderboy - the test was with a borrowed 100 f2 prime. I was pleased to see that whatever sharpness differences present were well within what I'm willing to accept. Not bad performance, when your zoom comes close to a prime....

[shiato storm]

just been reading this thread with some interest and notice there's mention of sigma's DG and non-DG versions of the same lens...is there a difference in the quality of either lens and what does the 'DG' get you ant non-DG doesn't have?

[Macavity]

Originally Posted by DavidEB

Macavity -- there's no formal standard way of testing focus speed, but I had the opposite impression to yours -- the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 focused noticeably faster than the canon f4 and (marginally) slower than the canon f2.8. The difference inside the camera store was striking -- the f4 hunted and didn't lock, while both f2.8's zipped right on.

Yeah, that's what I was expecting, just didn't experience it. Like you mentioned, I didn't follow any structured test, I just noticed that the Sigma hunted a few more times.

They both were very impressive lenses.

[condyk]

Originally Posted by DavidEB

Macavity -- there's no formal standard way of testing focus speed, but I had the opposite impression to yours -- the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 focused noticeably faster than the canon f4 and (marginally) slower than the canon f2.8.

My experience owning the f4 and f2.8 would echo your own. I sold the 70-200 f4 because of low light performance, tho' I am in the UK and I doubt it would be any worse than most f4's, and during the time I had the 2.8 I noted a clear difference in speed and usability in the same conditions the f4 had struggled.

When I tried a Canon 2.8 I didn't notice much, if any, difference either way tho' I knew focus speed was excellent in both and I really don't make a fuss beyond a certain level. It's a who cares issue for me when you talk about HSM and USM performance. Both are superb.

AF hunting is affected by a number of things and best to ensure lighting conditions and subject/contrast are as identical as possible if it's something you want to test for. Random pointing and shooting may or may not be helpful.

At the end of the day people will justify their own purchase in their own way and objectivity doesn't necessarily always carry the weight it perhaps should. But as long as the buyer is happy then all is well.

[Macavity]

I would expect that under controlled circumstances, the Sigma would indeed focus more accurately than the Canon f/4. Please don't mistake my earlier comments as fact, as they were not meant as such. Just simple obeservations while doing some window shopping.

OT: Condyk - did you get rid of your 100-400?

[condyk]

Originally Posted by Macavity

OT: Condyk - did you get rid of your 100-400?

I did ... lovely lens but was bought for a specific trip which I then decided to cancel because of a new work project offer. I could have kept it but Simon Spiers here was struggling to find one so I let him have it rather than leave it gathering dust in my bag. I reckoned that in 18 months, when I have my next big trip planned, there may be something else around like a 200-500 IS DO or something Win-Win!

[Falkon]

Falkon gos "hmmm...."

I am between the same rock and hard spot you are. I have the 85mm f/1.8 so I was thinking the canon 70mm-200mm f/4 would be the one for me.

[sharky]

Just to let everyone know, I ended up doing a bit of lateral thinking on this one. Rather than try to sell the Canon f4 to get the Sigma 2.8, I bought a tripod ring for the f4, figuring that a monopod will get me the extra stop if I need it. It took me a long time to get my first white "L", and I guess I was a bit reluctant to give it up. I then bought a 50mm 1.8 for the times when the light gets really low.

On the whole it probably cost me a little more than Plan A, but I think I've ended up with a more versatile kit. Thanks to everone who contributed.