I think the sigma is as sharp if not sharper. The canon 70-200s have better color rendition.
nyy Senior Member 616 posts Joined May 2006 Location: New Jersey More info | Mar 19, 2011 11:53 | #16 I think the sigma is as sharp if not sharper. The canon 70-200s have better color rendition. "I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry. And that's extra scary to me, because there's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside." --Mitch Hedberg
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Fligi7 Senior Member 968 posts Likes: 5 Joined Dec 2010 More info | Mar 21, 2011 12:47 | #17 thatkatmat wrote in post #12048004  You obviously have never owned a Sigma 70-200/2.8, otherwise you'd understand that you are misinforming the OP... You're right, I've only exhaustively researched it after personal experience with the Canon 2.8 and 4 IS, of which I saw time and again how it doesn't have the excellent IQ of the F4 IS. At best, I was only finding comparable quality to the 2.8 non-IS. For a long time I was set on trying to save money on a 2.8 lens, which is why I researched the Sigma and ultimately found it to be lacking. To me, the F4 IS conclusively wins for image quality. Your opinion that the Sigma 2.8 has great image quality is in arguable, but it doesn't mean mine is misinformation.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
thatkatmat Cream of the Crop  9,342 posts Gallery: 41 photos Likes: 205 Joined Jul 2007 Location: Seattle, don't move here, it's wet and cold More info | Mar 21, 2011 13:01 | #18 Fligi7 wrote in post #12062963 Sigma and ultimately found it to be lacking. To me, the F4 IS conclusively wins for image quality. Your opinion that the Sigma 2.8 has great image quality is in arguable, but it doesn't mean mine is misinformation. So, you never used it but you found it lacking, you never used it but feel you have read enough to review it against the Canons......OK.... My Flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Fligi7 Senior Member 968 posts Likes: 5 Joined Dec 2010 More info | Mar 21, 2011 13:14 | #19 Correct. What's hard to understand bout that? I don't need to personally test a lens when all of the reviews I've seen from people who have tested it themselves in a controlled fashion show its image quality as less superior to the F4 IS which I have experience with.I don't need to own the lens to know this, just like I don't need to own and personally test the Tamron 70-200 2.8 to see that its IQ is inferior to the F4 IS. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that. You don't have to own a lens to see what it is and isn't capable of. If you feel you do, that's fine.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
thatkatmat Cream of the Crop 9,342 posts Gallery: 41 photos Likes: 205 Joined Jul 2007 Location: Seattle, don't move here, it's wet and cold More info | Mar 21, 2011 13:17 | #20 |
Mar 21, 2011 13:18 | #21 thatkatmat wrote in post #12063054 So, you never used it but you found it lacking, you never used it but feel you have read enough to review it against the Canons......OK....  Agree- it's very frustrating when people come on here, and disparage equipment that they've never handled, let alone used extensively. It does nothing save propagate lies and misinformation.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Fligi7 Senior Member 968 posts Likes: 5 Joined Dec 2010 More info | Mar 21, 2011 13:43 | #22 adamo99 wrote in post #12063148 Agree- it's very frustrating when people come on here, and disparage equipment that they've never handled, let alone used extensively. It does nothing save propagate lies and misinformation.  I have a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG that is sharper out of the box, than ANY of the three Canon 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS) lenses that I've owned, even after having them sent to Canon for calibration. Some people really believe that a red ring at the end of their lens is going to magically make them an award-winning photographer. You might want to re-read what is being compared here - the F4 IS and the Sigma 2.8, not the Canon's 2.8 non-IS which as already mentioned was more of a comparison to the Sigma 2.8 and may be just as sharp or sharper. I wouldn't doubt if the Sigma 2.8 is sharper than the Canon 2.8 non-IS as I wasn't that impressed with it.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 21, 2011 13:46 | #23 adamo99 wrote in post #12063148 Some people really believe that a red ring at the end of their lens is going to magically make them an award-winning photographer. You mean it doesnt...... EOS 6d, 7dMKII, Tokina 11-16, Tokina 16-28, Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8, Sigma 17-50 F/2.8, Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L, Canon 70-200 F/2.8L, Mixed Speedlites and other stuff.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Fligi7 Senior Member 968 posts Likes: 5 Joined Dec 2010 More info | Mar 21, 2011 13:48 | #24 Unfortunate, actually. I'm always up for a constructive and intelligent debate that could change my mind on things. Considering the inability to provide an argument as to how my opinion is misinformation by only providing your opinion, it's probably better this way.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Thought I'd update the thread I started with some shots I took with the new f/4L lens. Check out my post in the Sports photo sharing section. - Marc
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is IoDaLi Photography 1632 guests, 136 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
