Canon 200mm 2.8 vs Sigma 70-200 2.8

Hi there,

I have the Sigma (non-OS) and realised I use it exclusively at 200mm. The idea is to replace it with a prime - would this lens be a good candidate?

thank you for your time.

Really nice lens, traded my Canon 70-200 f4 for it and don't regret. Smaller, faster and produces keepers, even w q tamron 1.4 tc the af is fast smooth and accurate. Look for examples on the forum.

This would be an outstanding candidate! I believe the 200mm 2.8 is the most reasonably priced L lens, and possibly the most underrated L lens as well. To me, it's IQ and bokeh are very similar to the 135mm f/2. It's small, light, easy to handle and is very sharp at 2.8. You won't be disappointed with the black beauty.

If you frame your shots nicely @ 200mm then probably a great idea. If you are always @ 200mm because you actually need a little more reach then consider something longer.

The 200 f/2.8L is the 135L' old brother. The formula optics are very similar and the IQ too... so yes, I would suggest to use this prime instead of a 70-200 if you don't use other focal length. For full frame or APS-C this lens is to have & keep !

Titi

Little bit sharper and much lighter/smaller. If you really only need 200mm, I would do it. The downside is that it won't save you any money and it isn't any faster aperture.

Thanks for confirming... it does look like a very nice piece of glass.

Now who wants to buy my sigma?

nightcat wrote in post #12462360
....
You won't be disappointed with the black beauty.

You mean it's not white ? ? ? Oh, noooooo....