Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 08 Jun 2006 (Thursday) 00:42
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

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

 
phazer
Member
62 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Jun 08, 2006 00:42 |  #1

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.


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
1,084 posts
Joined Mar 2006
Adelaide, Australia
Jun 08, 2006 00:44 |  #2

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


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
62 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Jun 08, 2006 00:51 as a reply to PAFC2004's post |  #3

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.


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
dpastern
Cream of the Crop
13,765 posts
Joined Aug 2005
Ipswich, Queensland, Australia
Jun 08, 2006 01:24 |  #4
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


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
PAFC2004
Goldmember
PAFC2004's Avatar
1,084 posts
Joined Mar 2006
Adelaide, Australia
Jun 08, 2006 01:26 as a reply to dpastern's post |  #5

Any sample pics dpastern?


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
13,765 posts
Joined Aug 2005
Ipswich, Queensland, Australia
Jun 08, 2006 01:34 |  #6
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


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
Olegis
Goldmember
Olegis's Avatar
2,073 posts
Joined Apr 2004
Israel
Jun 08, 2006 01:35 as a reply to dpastern's post |  #7

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.


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
1,084 posts
Joined Mar 2006
Adelaide, Australia
Jun 08, 2006 01:38 as a reply to Olegis's post |  #8

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.


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
13,765 posts
Joined Aug 2005
Ipswich, Queensland, Australia
Jun 08, 2006 01:43 as a reply to PAFC2004's post |  #9
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


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
dod
Senior Member
392 posts
Joined Apr 2005
Nairn/Inverness, Scotland
Jun 08, 2006 04:50 |  #10

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


sorry, I went to the dark side

LOG IN TO REPLY
benca1
Senior Member
benca1's Avatar
480 posts
Joined Jun 2003
San Jose
Jun 08, 2006 05:27 as a reply to dod's post |  #11
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?


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
aliflack
Senior Member
aliflack's Avatar
401 posts
Joined Aug 2004
York, UK
Jun 08, 2006 06:15 as a reply to benca1's post |  #12

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


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
2,073 posts
Joined Apr 2004
Israel
Jun 08, 2006 06:21 as a reply to benca1's post |  #13

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 :)


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
480 posts
Joined Jun 2003
San Jose
Jun 08, 2006 06:38 as a reply to aliflack's post |  #14
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.


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
480 posts
Joined Jun 2003
San Jose
Jun 08, 2006 06:43 as a reply to Olegis's post |  #15
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:


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)

4,047 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 the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00163 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is ambrown37
844 guests, 576 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016