70-200 Sigma f/2.8 OS HSM vs Canon f/4 L IS

I own the f4 IS and have used the sigma 2.8 OS. I love my f4 IS but honestly if I was to do it over again I would buy the sigma 2.8 OS.

The sigma was a great lens that to me seemed as sharp as my f4, focused as fast, but had the advantage of f2.8

muusers wrote in post #13234628
*Sigh* You sure are persistent, even if you've got your facts wrong. I'd say call/mail canon... Ask them.

I'm in for a little wager

And where exactly are you getting your facts from might I ask?

I suggest you read this post here:
https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=8911970&po​stcount=12

The quote is from this pdf here (bottom of page 5):
http://www.ejphoto.com …Quack%20Summer%​202008.pdf

And then this post where someone actually did contact Canon:
https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=3135313&po​stcount=31

Sirrith wrote in post #13234830
And where exactly are you getting your facts from might I ask?

I suggest you read this post here:
https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=8911970&po​stcount=12

The quote is from this pdf here (bottom of page 5):
http://www.ejphoto.com …Quack%20Summer%​202008.pdf

And then this post where someone actually did contact Canon:
https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=3135313&po​stcount=31

Will read... My info came from canon. Long story short; I called them asking after a repair.

edit: I've mailed Canon... Now we wait :P

muusers wrote in post #13234880
edit: I've mailed Canon... Now we wait :P

Will be interesting to see what they say

When you say "coated" what exactly do you mean? My understanding is that the body, or "shell" of the lens is made of plastic, whereas the internal bits i.e. the zoom mechanism and that stuff is metal. The bits of the zoom and focus rings that are not covered by rubber are also metal.

Thanks for all the feedback on the two lenses. Seems like we'll figure out soon what the canon is made of heh. From what I gather both are great lenses with similar levels of sharpness. The main trade off is the weight vs faster lens. I plan to use the lens for travels and other situations where i need to 'reach out'. I anticipate I'll use this lens <30% of the time, so the weight will probably not be a big issue. Now just have to play the waiting game, hopefully there will be a good sale over the holidays!

Sirrith wrote in post #13235099
Will be interesting to see what they say

+1.

Well thats what the Canon rep. Told me at the time... A 'Coated metal' I thought he meant the thick white paint...

Those 'bits' are indeed metal, as that was damaged on my lens... and clear to see/feel. But I also had a large and deep scratch near the end of the barrel, and that felt 'metal-ish :P'

We'll see... You got me thinking :P Maybe the Canon rep. told me a load of bull....

I wont debate on metal, coated metal, partial plastic etc, I will say, I had a Canon 70-200 f4 non IS, and now have the Sigma and both are very well made and feel made to last, feel robust and sturdy enough, when it rains I dont go out to shoot, and that is it, so weather seal is not really an issue for me.
When I decided for the Sigma I decided for the faster lens with OS/IS, with nicer bokeh @f2.8, but I assumed that the Sigma simply was not going to be as sharp when open, but I was prepared to live with that.
I was wrong, the Sigma is as sharp as my old Canon f4 non IS (and that is a sharp lens).
This lens has been pleasant a surprise for me.

ar10 wrote in post #13235233
Thanks for all the feedback on the two lenses. Seems like we'll figure out soon what the canon is made of heh. From what I gather both are great lenses with similar levels of sharpness. The main trade off is the weight vs faster lens. I plan to use the lens for travels and other situations where i need to 'reach out'. I anticipate I'll use this lens <30% of the time, so the weight will probably not be a big issue. Now just have to play the waiting game, hopefully there will be a good sale over the holidays!

If you are using it for travel, you will notice the weight. Whether that matters to you is another story. I tried out the Sigma and didn't find it sharp, but ymmv (and probably will with Sigma).

phreeky wrote in post #13233875
Since when isn't the F/4 IS made up largely of plastic? Not that I consider plastic a bad thing anyway, and I agree I do not see how you could criticise the F/4 IS build quality.

probably never seen either lens. that's pretty common on this forum .

ed rader

ar10 wrote in post #13230938
If picking between these two, what's the consensus here? They seem to be comparable in price, yet they are hardly talked about in the same sentence? It seems the Sigma would be a lot heavier, however they offer the same range.

i was an early adopter of the f4 IS and it's a lens i love. if i wanted f2.8 i'd get the canon 70-200L f2.8 IS II because that's really the best and the lens everyone really wants.

otherwise between the two my choice has already been made .

ed rader

It would be nice to see a review of the Sigma OS from Photozone and TDP. I know Markus over at photozone was going to review it in Nikon mount, but has had to send his copy in for issues 4 times. It sounds like Sigma EU doesn't have near the quality that Sigma USA has. Its a bummer there because I have only heard good things about Sigma USA service.

I can only comment on my experiences with the Sigma; focus is very fast, sharpness at 200mm is rumored to be not as good as the Canon mk II but at half the price I can accept that. Used it all weekend at an outdoor wedding with horrid light for the reception, with very good results; the weight, I am a big boy so the weight did not bother me even after 16-hours of lugging around my camera and gear.

Lastly; it does not have a HUGE WHITE target on the end of my camera body that screams steal me.

Given the change I would not hesitate to buy the lens again over the canon.