Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS vs Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II

ok, the local dealer has just dropped the price of the sigma version to ALMOST half the price of the canon mark 2.

this IMO makes it deserve a look. i didn't consider the canon version because it was too expensive for me.

anyway, anybody tried both?
comments/opinions?
links to head to head reviews? (except the digitaltev one)

i can't remember which forum i read before that mentioned that the sigma has problems/issues with outer focus points ... is there? (cross type not being crss type?)

bonus question: this of sigma 85 1.4? (i have the canon 85 1.8 which i rarely use)

to what price? It's been $1400 on Amazon since January 2011.

pop-photo says 2-stops of OS on that lens:
http://www.popphoto.co​m …200-f28-ex-dg-os?page=0,1
That may be a complete deal-breaker if you're considering putting a 2x tc on the sigma.

MOkoFOko wrote in post #12619005
to what price? It's been $1400 on Amazon since January 2011.

pop-photo says 2-stops of OS on that lens:
http://www.popphoto.co​m …200-f28-ex-dg-os?page=0,1
That may be a complete deal-breaker if you're considering putting a 2x tc on the sigma.

in php. 112,000 for the canon mark 2. 58,500 for the sigma. (usd : php = 1:44)

ack. 2 stops? digital rev pans the sharpness (well, i guess anything compared to the mark 2 prime-like sharpness will pale against it)

mike cabilangan wrote in post #12619033
in php. 112,000 for the canon mark 2. 58,500 for the sigma. (usd:php = 1:44)

ack. 2 stops? digital rev pans the sharpness (well, i guess anything compared to the mark 2 prime-like sharpness will pale against it)

Well, it could have been a typo. Dpreview gives the sigma OS a highly effective rating, so I can't comment. I do read pretty much across the board that it gets pretty soft wide-open at 200mm... and for anyone putting a 2x TC on for ranged photography (birding), that can be problematic.

It's hardly fair to bash a lens that's so much cheaper than the canon equivalent. I'm pretty shocked that it's as cheap as it is. Given the choice between the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS and the sig 70-200 OS, the choice really should be clear--especially when combined with Sigmas 4-year EX model warranty.

MOkoFOko wrote in post #12619038
Well, it could have been a typo. Dpreview gives the sigma OS a highly effective rating, so I can't comment. I do read pretty much across the board that it gets pretty soft wide-open at 200mm... and for anyone putting a 2x TC on for ranged photography (birding), that can be problematic.

It's hardly fair to bash a lens that's so much cheaper than the canon equivalent. I'm pretty shocked that it's as cheap as it is. Given the choice between the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS and the sig 70-200 OS, the choice really should be clear--especially when combined with Sigmas 4-year EX model warranty.

exactly. i have the f/4 IS. it just wouldn't make sense for me to stable the mark 2. (having a lens below it and above it)

for reference. digital rev "review"
http://www.youtube.com …re=player_embed​ded#at=663

the canon absolutely kills the sigma in 100% crops. but the question is ... what about normal usage (e.g. not 100% crops)

mike cabilangan wrote in post #12619048
exactly. i have the f/4 IS. it just wouldn't make sense for me to stable the mark 2. (having a lens below it and above it)

for reference. digital rev "review"
http://www.youtube.com …re=player_embed​ded#at=663

the canon absolutely kills the sigma in 100% crops. but the question is ... what about normal usage (e.g. not 100% crops)

Seen it before--in the end that review isn't that informative. crop shots shown in low-res video won't mean much to the discerning eye. I love my 70200 II, but I bought it mainly to replace my 100-400L. With the 2x on, my 70200 II was better. In the end, the switch saved me money for my birding habits. The decision wouldn't be as easy with the sigma, as I shoot at the long end 90% of the time.

The sig gets pretty good reviews. It's simply not as sharp as the canon II until f/5.6+. For the price, it's a screaming value. For the same price, I'd take it over the canon 70200 IS mk1.

mike cabilangan wrote in post #12619048
for reference. digital rev "review"
http://www.youtube.com …re=player_embed​ded#at=663

I think DRev reviews are a bit stupid. They're funny, which is why I watch them, and they give you a general idea of how lenses perform, but I would never base my decision on them.

Sirrith wrote in post #12619315
I think DRev reviews are a bit stupid. They're funny, which is why I watch them, and they give you a general idea of how lenses perform, but I would never base my decision on them.

After having a popular photography sub for a couple months now I think the same thing about theirs.

For instance, they call the 70-200 OS "Optically never more than average." and the 70-200 IS II "very sharp".... Yet their stated MTF results for both were Excellent at 70mm and 135mm, and Very Good at 200mm...?????

Anyway, as a former owner of the Sigma 70-200 OS and a current owner of the 70-200 IS II, all I can say is that without a TC the optical difference between the two lenses in regards to sharpness is minimal. I used the Sigma wide-open most of the time and was picking up detail on small pieces of futz on peoples jackets, even at 200mm.

For instance, these are all wide open 100% crops SOOC (5d2), no PP except default ACR:

200mm - f/2.8 - 1/320 - ISO 100