LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 08 Jun 2006 (Thursday) 00:42   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
phazer
Member
Joined Jan 2006
62 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Seems like a good lens according to the review on the FredMiranda site, and it's sooooooo much cheaper than the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. Anyone got this Sigma and feels like posting some photo's taken with it. IS is nice...but not sure if it's really worth the extra price.

Post #1, Jun 08, 2006 00:42:46


My Flickr Gallery
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/wgillmer/external link
ShutterStock Stock Photographyexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
PAFC2004
Goldmember
PAFC2004's Avatar
Joined Mar 2006
1,084 posts
Adelaide, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]

So why not look at the canon f/2.8L non IS also?

Post #2, Jun 08, 2006 00:44:58


Canon 5D MKii |Canon 350D | EF 17-40L | EF 70-200 2.8L | 580EX II | 430EX | EF 1.4x T/C II | EF 50 1.8II | Q6600 + 8800 Ultra

LOG IN TO REPLY
phazer
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Joined Jan 2006
62 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

PAFC2004 wrote:
So why not look at the canon f/2.8L non IS also?

Good point, but the Sigma is still about $200 cheaper than the non IS canon.

Post #3, Jun 08, 2006 00:51:49 as a reply to PAFC2004's post 6 minutes earlier.


My Flickr Gallery
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/wgillmer/external link
ShutterStock Stock Photographyexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
dpastern
Cream of the Crop
Joined Aug 2005
13,765 posts
Ipswich, Queensland, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]
banned

I'd go the Canon lens - non IS. It's the best lens that Canon makes (well, on a par with the superb 300mm f2.8 IS). It's a very solid lens, superb AF. It's worth the extra $200 imho.

Dave

Post #4, Jun 08, 2006 01:24:30


http://www.macro-images.com/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
PAFC2004
Goldmember
PAFC2004's Avatar
Joined Mar 2006
1,084 posts
Adelaide, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]

Any sample pics dpastern?

Post #5, Jun 08, 2006 01:26:56 as a reply to dpastern's post 2 minutes earlier.


Canon 5D MKii |Canon 350D | EF 17-40L | EF 70-200 2.8L | 580EX II | 430EX | EF 1.4x T/C II | EF 50 1.8II | Q6600 + 8800 Ultra

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
dpastern
Cream of the Crop
Joined Aug 2005
13,765 posts
Ipswich, Queensland, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]
banned

Some on this post:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=165497

I don't shoot a great deal with the 70-200 these days as I'm primarily shooting macro. I could dig up more shots if I had to.

Dave

Post #6, Jun 08, 2006 01:34:48


http://www.macro-images.com/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Olegis
Goldmember
Olegis's Avatar
Joined Apr 2004
2,073 posts
Israel
[MORE/SHARE]

I got my 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS) second-handed for less than 800$ - and the lens was (and still is) in near perfect condition. You may want to check the local second-hand ads for it.

I'll tell you the truth - the 70-200 f/2.8L is really the top of the line, there is no better 70-200 lens in the world. If you get the Sigma (which is not a bad lens at all), chances are that you will upgrade later, or you will keep thinking about that Canon untill it will drive you mad :D So in order to save the trouble in the future - get the Canon ...

P.S. look in my gallery for some samples.

Post #7, Jun 08, 2006 01:35:26 as a reply to dpastern's post 10 minutes earlier.


Best wishes,
Oleg.

www.Olegis.comexternal link
My equipment list
'I take orders from no one except the photographers' – Harry S Truman

LOG IN TO REPLY
PAFC2004
Goldmember
PAFC2004's Avatar
Joined Mar 2006
1,084 posts
Adelaide, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]

I'm saving up for the IS version, but I'm starting to wonder if it's worth it. It probably would be for some wildlife situations in low light.. not action shots.

Post #8, Jun 08, 2006 01:38:54 as a reply to Olegis's post 3 minutes earlier.


Canon 5D MKii |Canon 350D | EF 17-40L | EF 70-200 2.8L | 580EX II | 430EX | EF 1.4x T/C II | EF 50 1.8II | Q6600 + 8800 Ultra

LOG IN TO REPLY
dpastern
Cream of the Crop
Joined Aug 2005
13,765 posts
Ipswich, Queensland, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]
banned

Both the Sigma lens and the Canon lens are f2.8, so low light should be equal. As to AF, I'm pretty positive that the Canon will be faster and more accurate with AF than the Sigma, both in normal lighting and low light situations. Note that I said both scenarios. I haven't used the Sigma lens, but since Canon is the leading proponent of Autofocus, I'd expect them to have the lead over opponents.

Dave

Post #9, Jun 08, 2006 01:43:24 as a reply to PAFC2004's post 4 minutes earlier.


http://www.macro-images.com/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
dod
Senior Member
Joined Apr 2005
392 posts
Nairn/Inverness, Scotland
[MORE/SHARE]

I'd say the sigma offers far better value for money, just as sharp, no issues with focus speed. Hardly off the camera.

http://www.photozone.d​e .../sigma_70200_28/ind​ex.htmexternal link

Post #10, Jun 08, 2006 04:50:05


sorry, I went to the dark side

LOG IN TO REPLY
benca1
Senior Member
benca1's Avatar
Joined Jun 2003
480 posts
San Jose
[MORE/SHARE]
banned

Yeah, Photozone found that the sigma outresolves the canon in some conditions.

If you can't tell a difference between the two lenses with a large print, then what's the point of spending several hundred more just for a name?

Post #11, Jun 08, 2006 05:27:09 as a reply to dod's post 37 minutes earlier.


30D / BG-E2 / 3021BPRO & 488RC2 / 420EX Flash /
Sigma 18-50EX / 105EX Macro / Canon 70-200L F4 /

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
aliflack
Senior Member
aliflack's Avatar
Joined Aug 2004
401 posts
York, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

benca1 wrote:
Yeah, Photozone found that the sigma outresolves the canon in some conditions.

If you can't tell a difference between the two lenses with a large print, then what's the point of spending several hundred more just for a name?

Oh I don't know...compatability with future camera bodies and resale value come to mind

Post #12, Jun 08, 2006 06:15:39 as a reply to benca1's post 48 minutes earlier.


40D, 16-35L F2.8, 24-70L F2.8, 70-300mm IS, 100mm F2.8, 85mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, Elinchrom D-Lites, Mid Octa, 580 EX
My Portfolio: Alistair Flack Photographyexternal link
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Olegis
Goldmember
Olegis's Avatar
Joined Apr 2004
2,073 posts
Israel
[MORE/SHARE]

The Sigma has a few quality control issues (always had), so the quality variations between the samples are larger than those of Canon lenses. There are a lot of happy Sigma 70-200 users out there, but there are also a lot of people who complain that the lens performs not quite as expected, especially when used at 200mm f/2.8 (Photozone mentions it also).

When looking at the whole package (build quality, AF speed and accuracy, optical quality) - the Sigma is a fine lens, but the Canon is better in every category, so for me it wins (again, as a whole package).

Also look at the Fred Miranda forums for user reviews of both lenses - the Sigma is good, but the Canoin is better :)

Post #13, Jun 08, 2006 06:21:55 as a reply to benca1's post 54 minutes earlier.


Best wishes,
Oleg.

www.Olegis.comexternal link
My equipment list
'I take orders from no one except the photographers' – Harry S Truman

LOG IN TO REPLY
benca1
Senior Member
benca1's Avatar
Joined Jun 2003
480 posts
San Jose
[MORE/SHARE]
banned

aliflack wrote:
Oh I don't know...compatability with future camera bodies and resale value come to mind

Playing devils advocate here, but is the compatibility insurance really worth hundreds of dollars? How often is the system changed that suddenly every professionals third party lens is now worthless?

Resale value? but if you save hundreds on one lens, why resale value? The sigma 'bigma' sales and the 30mm 1.4 seem to be selling here for as much as you can buy them new.

What if you take the money you save and invest it? Perhaps the interest generated would easily cover any loss in value? But you would still have the principle.

I've never had a hobby where people are so brand obsessed and I still fail to see the rationale generally.

Post #14, Jun 08, 2006 06:38:25 as a reply to aliflack's post 22 minutes earlier.


30D / BG-E2 / 3021BPRO & 488RC2 / 420EX Flash /
Sigma 18-50EX / 105EX Macro / Canon 70-200L F4 /

LOG IN TO REPLY
benca1
Senior Member
benca1's Avatar
Joined Jun 2003
480 posts
San Jose
[MORE/SHARE]
banned

Olegis wrote:
Also look at the Fred Miranda forums for user reviews of both lenses - the Sigma is good, but the Canoin is better :)

9.8 versus 9.1. The Sigma has 20 percent more user reviews too.

The canon is probably a better lens even if the Sigma can outperform it just because the lens speaks the native canon language with the body. But is that worth several hundred dollars more? for many, it sure is.

I just graph price versus performance. I have to have a dual axis graph. I'm not rich enough to not concern myself with price... :cool:

Post #15, Jun 08, 2006 06:43:52 as a reply to Olegis's post 21 minutes earlier.


30D / BG-E2 / 3021BPRO & 488RC2 / 420EX Flash /
Sigma 18-50EX / 105EX Macro / Canon 70-200L F4 /

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
2,909 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00089 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.01s
703 guests, 507 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is Fairy Isabella

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.