Canon 70-200 f/4L IS or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS???

Kicking around the idea of upgrading to something that can give me a little more flexibility, especially handheld. I shoot mostly landscape, travel and horses. I currently have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 non-OS. It does ok on my 50D but MFA seems to only be accurate at a couple spots in the focal range. It isn't the fastest focusing lens either. I think image quality is more important to me than speed and I'm wondering if the Canon is so much better in IQ as to be worth taking a step down in speed. The Canon f/2.8 IS is just out of my budget for the foreseeable future. Opinions?

Bob

The 70-200 F/4L IS is a fantastic lens. Its stupid sharp, crazy fast AF....id get it, if you dont need 2.8 f stop. If you need the light gathering capabilities of the 2.8 then id keep it.

Otherwise the f/4L is a winner

I have never owned the sigma lens, so I can't offer a comparison, but I agree with fiveohmike: the EF 70-200 f4/IS is a superb lens. AF is fast and silent, and it is extremely sharp. I personally was willing to forgo the 2.8 not only because of the cost, but because of the huge weight difference. The f4 is less than half the weight of the 2.8, if I recall. I don't want the extra weight on my back.

You can do some test comparison on dpreview. Check it out. The new sigma's not a bad lens, just avoid comparing it to the mk2

Of course I would still be somewhat concerned about the focusing issues sigma had before but they seem better lately.

I ended up renting the 4L IS, 2.8L II and the sigma 2.8 OS a couple of weeks ago.

The sigma felt a bit better on the corners than the 4L IS, but center seemed pretty much the same.
The canon is built better, and its much lighter and easier to hand-held.
At f/2.8 compared to the f/4 of the 4L IS, the sigma falls a bit off fully open.
Also I didn't like the sigma focus ring. Its too slim compared to the canon one.

But compared the the canon 2.8L, well... better not go there.

If you already have the 2.8, and if you use 2.8 a lot, get the sigma 2.8 OS. If you are not, the 4L will be better because its feels better and its much easier to work with.

I've owned the 70-200 f4 IS and I'd pick the sigma 70-200 2.8 OS over it because of the following:
better build (canon uses thin, though good quality, plastic throughout, whereas the sigma has metal and thicker good quality plastics)
2.8 aperture
comes with tripod collar
cheaper (where I live)
colour

The f4 IS is overpriced IMO, which is why I downgraded to the non-IS. Its half the price, but much more than half the lens. If I did want to spend that much on a lens again, unless weight was a significant issue, I'd pick the sigma 2.8 OS over the f4 IS any day.

Sirrith wrote in post #12780957
I've owned the 70-200 f4 IS and I'd pick the sigma 70-200 2.8 OS over it because of the following:
better build (canon uses thin, though good quality, plastic throughout, whereas the sigma has metal and thicker good quality plastics)
2.8 aperture
comes with tripod collar
cheaper (where I live)
colour

The f4 IS is overpriced IMO, which is why I downgraded to the non-IS. Its half the price, but much more than half the lens. If I did want to spend that much on a lens again, unless weight was a significant issue, I'd pick the sigma 2.8 OS over the f4 IS any day.

I think the f4L IS is cheaper then the Siggy 2.8 OS.....

Is the extra stop worth carrying that extra weight. It isn't for me! I carry the f/4L IS lens AND a second 1.6x camera at right about the same weight as an f/2.8 lens (take your pick: Canon, Sigma or Tamron) alone.

By the way, I have never had a Canon EF or EFS lens become obsolete because it cannot be used on a newer model Canon DSLR. I do have a Sigma 28mm f/1.8 which cannot be used on any Canon DSLR newer than the 10D because of Sigma's reverse engineering. That was the first and last Sigma lens I ever owned. Sigma cannot/will-not rechip this lens for newer canon cameras.

FOOL ME ONCE, SIGMA, SHAME ON YOU. FOOL ME TWICE, SIGMA, SHAME ON ME!

Hot Bob wrote in post #12780737
Kicking around the idea of upgrading to something that can give me a little more flexibility, especially handheld. I shoot mostly landscape, travel and horses. I currently have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 non-OS. It does ok on my 50D but MFA seems to only be accurate at a couple spots in the focal range. It isn't the fastest focusing lens either. I think image quality is more important to me than speed and I'm wondering if the Canon is so much better in IQ as to be worth taking a step down in speed. The Canon f/2.8 IS is just out of my budget for the foreseeable future. Opinions?

Bob

For that shooting the f/4 IS might be nicer. IQ is a least somewhat better, it has IS which can be perhaps nicer on balance for that sort of shooting, other than maybe horses, than f/2.8, it is a lot lighter and more compact which is way nicer for travel, can even stash it in a large cargo pants pocket, the 70-200 2.8s won't quite fit.

The 70-300L is very nice too if you think a little extra reach would matter more than having f/4 200mm. Tentatively the 70-300L seems to have better image quality than the 70-200 f/4 IS from 70mm-110mm or so, a bit worse at 135mm, a trace worse at 165/170mmish and perhaps trace better at 200mm. Noticeably better 280mm than the f/4 IS + 1.4x TC.

MFA is very consistent across the entire range of my 70-200 f/4 IS, tentatively it seems to be ok with the 70-300L too. It was not so hot with my 70-300 IS non-L. The sigma 70-200 non-OS I used from a newspaper had a bit dodgy, if reasonably fast AF. It had a bit more PF than the f.4 IS and f/2.8 non-IS and had worse resistance to flare. It was reasonably sharp compared to the f/2.8 non-IS (the f/4 IS is a bit sharper than the f/2.8 non-IS). The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS original seemed to be the least sharp of all of the 70-200s (although still not bad by means. It did have a lot more PF than the 2.8 non-IS).

The canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS focused more reliably than the sigma 70-200 non-OS copies.

The 70-200 f/4 IS is one of the finest zooms ever made and the 70-300L is right up there. The 70-200 2.8 IS II is supposed to be completely insane, likely better than those two everywhere but at the very last bit near 200mm. It is also much more of a beast and not so friendly for travel if you will be doing a mix of all sorts of stuff all day long all over though.

I've never used the new sigma 70-200 OS.

70-200 F4 IS rarely leaves my 5D

HorizonPhoto wrote in post #12783676
70-200 F4 IS rarely leaves my 5D

been my single most used lens on 5D2, although the 70-300L might end up replacing it

my new sig 70-200 2.8 os took my 200L's spot in the carry bag. it seemed about even in most aspects and even took a 2x kenko tc better than the 200 2.8

fiveohmike wrote in post #12780976
I think the f4L IS is cheaper then the Siggy 2.8 OS.....

re-read my post properly please.

Well, comments are pretty much what I expected...all over the place. After I posted this yesterday, I threw the old Sig on and went out to snap some shots of my horses as I was turning them out for the evening. I shot handheld in ai servo at f/2.8. The light was somewhat flat and still fairly bright so shutter speeds ranged between 1/800-1000 @ iso 400. I tend to lean toward slight overexposure to reduce noise in the shadows then pull the highlight details, contrast, and saturation back up in PP.

Overall, I was happy with the lens performance. The horses didn't give me much, but the lens kept up with them and the images were reasonably sharp. I was originally thinking I would sell this lens to offset the cost of buying either the f/4L or the Sig OS. Now I'm leaning more toward adding the f/4L IS as an option to the Sig f/2.8 non-OS. I know the weight savings would be nice and I believe the sharpness and contrast will be better with the f/4L but I probably need to keep the speed of the f/2.8 for horses. Maybe I should even add a 85mm f/1.8 to the mix.

Bob

What type of shots are you shooting of your horses? About the only time I use f/2.8 or faster is when I'm shooting horse portraits or indoor equestrian events without flash. Outdoor events involving horses with riders normally require an aperture smaller than f/2.8 if you want to keep both the rider and horse in focus. I shot an event Saturday and most shots were at 200mm, f/4, ISO 100 and for most shots the shutter speed ranged from 1/800s to 1/1000s. I think the 70-200 f/4 IS would be ideal for most outdoor equestrian events.