Help an amateur...70-200 Canon f/4 L IS or Sigma f/2.8 (non OS)

Sorry for starting another new thread on this topic but I didn't want to hijack another member's thread with my question.

I've spent waaaay too much time reading the various threads that talk about both of these fine lenses and looking at the awesome shots that you all have taken with them, but I'm still torn as to what lens is right for me and my somewhat limited budget. I'm a total amateur and doing this as a hobby.

I have a T1i with the 18-55mm IS kit and 55-250mm IS lenses. Most of the time I'm shooting "kid stuff"...my 9 year old daughter's school activities (plays, musical recitals) and sports (outdoor soccer and softball and indoor basketball) and my 1 year old son doing what adorable 1 year old's do. I'm also shooting things like trips to the zoo, family parties, my wife's 5K/10K races, etc. That's probably the extent of my photography needs, with the possible exception of maybe some more outdoor/wildlife photography as spare time permits (HA...spare time...that's funny).

I've read the various pros/cons of both lenses. The Sigma wins out for f/2.8 and cheaper price, but it's heavier and from what I've read here and on other review sites there's a chance of getting one with some QC issues. My wife will be using it for the softball games (I'm a coach and probably should be coaching instead of taking pictures) and I'm concerned about her handling it with the extra weight. The Canon appears to be incredibly sharp, is lighter weight, has IS and is an L lens, but is f/4 and a bit more expensive. Something about the $1000 price point makes it hard to pull the trigger...the Canon is over that and with the recent $150 price hike on the Sigma it's just about there.

Seems like I can't go wrong with either lens, but I'd like to get the "expert" opinions on which one is best for what I'm shooting.

Thanks in advance.

The image quality of the Sigma 2.8 comes nowhere near the F4 IS. I would only get the Sigma if I was on a really tight budget and absolutely needed something right now for low light performance for indoor sports where I cared more about having an image that was decent quality than no image at all.

My suggestion would be to get yourself a lightly used F4 IS for closer to $1000. It sounds like you shoot more outdoor and well-lit venues than the 2.8 would be critical for.

The 2.8 will be very necessary to get properly frozen action for indoor sports, but is that worth the image quality sacrifice? That's the question you have to answer.

I used to own the Sigma f2.8 non-OS, then sold it and replaced it with the Canon f4 IS. There were two reasons for my decision: first the lack of OS/IS, and second, the size and weight. Don't underestimate the utility of IS on a lens in this range; my keeper rate in poor light went way up when I got the f4 IS. As far as weight is concerned, I found I was leaving the f2.8 at home more often than not, just because I didn't want to carry it around. It's a very large beast, and I just didn't want it hanging round my neck for long periods of time on visits to the zoo, trips out with the kid, and so on. If you haven't actually handled the two lenses, I'd suggest you go to a photography store and do so - there's quite a difference. My f4 IS is light enough and small enough to carry everywhere, and is probably my most-used lens now.

One of the reasons I originally chose the f2.8 lens was because I wanted it for indoor sports, but it turned out not to be fast enough; I had to get a fast prime in any case.

The f4 IS is a stellar lens in every respect, and outstanding for the kinds of things you'll be using it for: kids' activities, outdoor sports, portraits and so on. In your shoes I'd have no hesitation in choosing it over the f2.8 non-IS. I've never once, not for a second, regretted my decision to replace my f2.8 non-IS with this lens; it's an awesome piece of equipment.

Edited because I selected the wrong lens.

Sorry about that.

Regards,

Karl

KarlGB77 wrote in post #12039400
This one page alone should answer the question for you.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=2

Is the Sigma I selected the corret one?

Regards,

Karl

The one you selected is the oldest one I think.

I can hand-hold my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens at lower light levels than I can hold an f/2.8 (Canon or Sigma).

I can hand-hold shooting at 200mm using 1/60 second at f/4 and expect 100% sharp images.

I could not hold a non-stabilized lens at 200mm using 1/120 second at f/2.8 and expect 100% sharp imagery.

I can also hand-hold my lens using 1/30 second at f/4 and get a respectable percentage of sharp images. I could not get any sharp images using 1/60 second at f/2.8 on a non-stabilized lens.

RPCrowe wrote in post #12040298
I can hand-hold my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens at lower light levels than I can hold an f/2.8 (Canon or Sigma).

I can hand-hold shooting at 200mm using 1/60 second at f/4 and expect 100% sharp images.

I could not hold a non-stabilized lens at 200mm using 1/120 second at f/2.8 and expect 100% sharp imagery.

I can also hand-hold my lens using 1/30 second at f/4 and get a respectable percentage of sharp images. I could not get any sharp images using 1/60 second at f/2.8 on a non-stabilized lens.

For stationery objects. The difference is when you are trying to freeze objects in (fast) motion. The OP needs to know that Image Stabilization has no stabilizing effect on objects in motion.

Fligi7 wrote in post #12043946
For stationery objects. The difference is when you are trying to freeze objects in (fast) motion. The OP needs to know that Image Stabilization has no stabilizing effect on objects in motion.

You're right, when shutter speeds are very high IS doesn't have an effect. However, it does make for a much more versatile lens. As an amateur photographer who's owned both these lenses and used them for more or less the same types of photography as the OP, I have no hesitation in recommending the stabilized lens. In many situations it makes a huge difference. My keeper rate went way up when I got the IS lens.

Hey, thanks everyone for the advise. I was able to find a pretty good deal on a refurbished Canon f/4 IS for under my price $1000 price point...got it for $999.99.

I should have it in a few days...just in time for the first soccer and softball practices and a zoo trip over my daughter's spring break. Now if the weather would only cooperate and be warm enough.

Congrats on the purchase. The 70-200 f4 is the single reason I am considering switching over to Canon. Make sure you post up some pictures when you get it.

I must have a stellar copy of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG- there's no way I would give up the full stop of light for sports, for IS.

Fligi7 wrote in post #12038762
The image quality of the Sigma 2.8 comes nowhere near the F4 IS. I would only get the Sigma if I was on a really tight budget and absolutely needed something right now for low light performance for indoor sports where I cared more about having an image that was decent quality than no image at all.

You obviously have never owned a Sigma 70-200/2.8, otherwise you'd understand that you are misinforming the OP...The Siggie is every bit as good as the Canon (especially stopped down to f4) I sold my f4IS because I hate slow glass, f4 is f4, it'll never be 2.8...The argument that you can get a sharp shot at 1/60th doesn't really hold water unless you're using your lens for inanimate objects....I personally use my 7-2 for sports and action.
But....The f4IS is a great lens as long as you have light.

Bought my Sigma used for $685.....It Came with a "real" case and a tripod foot too...
it never misses unless I miss

Honestly, I would get a fast prime for sports. 100/2, 135/2, 200/2.8, 85 1.8 are all good choices depending on the sport.

Congrats on the purchase, you're going to LOVE this lens.

Fligi7 wrote in post #12043946
For stationery objects. The difference is when you are trying to freeze objects in (fast) motion. The OP needs to know that Image Stabilization has no stabilizing effect on objects in motion.

This is true... However when then entire frame is fuzzy from camera shake it doesn't matter a tinker's damn if the subject is moving or stable.

The need for higher shutter speed can be mitigated by shooting at peak action and by shooting when the subject is moving towards or away from the camera rather than across the image plane.

Additionally, using mode #2 and panning with a moving image, you can often get a nice rendition of motion.

Finally, when the entire frame is sharp and only the subject is in motion, it often gives an increased impression of motion.

I remember a shot of a Chinese juggler done under fairly low stage lights. The stage and most of the juggler's body was sharp while his hands and the clubs he was juggling were motion blurred. It was a wonderful effect. This was done with IS.

Here is a shot of Chinese dancers done with the 400mm f/4L IS lens. I took advantage of momentary pauses in action to get sharp imagery.

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …d9MD#865511209_​25Fh5-A-LB