70-200 Sigma f/2.8 OS HSM vs Canon f/4 L IS

If picking between these two, what's the consensus here? They seem to be comparable in price, yet they are hardly talked about in the same sentence? It seems the Sigma would be a lot heavier, however they offer the same range.

Canon advantages: size, weight, sharpness, weather sealing, super-fast and accurate focusing (not that the Sigma is bad, but in good light the Canon is great)

Sigma advantages: 2.8

What do you need?

I had the f4 IS before, and if I was buying a new lens in that price range and in the 70-200 range, unless I needed the light weight of the canon, I'd go for the sigma no question.

Its going to depend on what you are wanting to do. The F2.8 will work better for you in low light if that is what you are needing it for. I have not used the Sigma, but have good things about it.

I would buy the Sigma for now and use it until you could afford the Canon version. The sigma lens should hold most of its value for resell.

I haven't used the canon f4 with IS. I just upgraded my f4 non IS with the sigma.
My un scientific comparison suggest that at f4 sharness with the sigma and the non is is very close.
The f4 with IS should be a little sharper at f4 but if you need low light I'd choose the Sigma as the Canon can't do f2.8.
That is what I did.
Look into the lens threads see if you like what you see.
Weight is something also to consider. The canon is lighter and more compact, but again is f4. No f2.8 will be a light compact lens.
Look here
https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=9155​16&page=29

botw wrote in post #13230975
Canon advantages: size, weight, sharpness, weather sealing, super-fast and accurate focusing (not that the Sigma is bad, but in good light the Canon is great)

Sigma advantages: 2.8 better build (I've held both, that is my opinion), includes tripod mount ring, zoom and MF rings feel smoother, comes with a proper soft case instead of a floppy bag, much longer warranty

What do you need?

Fixed that a bit.

Sirrith wrote in post #13233482
Fixed that a bit.

Better build? So NO weathersealing and plastic materials are BETTER?

Odd.

muusers wrote in post #13233566
Better build? So NO weathersealing and plastic materials are BETTER?

Odd.

The f4 IS is plastic as well.

Have you used either of those lenses?

Edit: Actually now that I think about it a bit more, I'm sure the sigma has a section made from metal near the mount before the zoom ring, so in fact the f4 IS has MORE plastic than the sigma.

muusers wrote in post #13233566
Better build? So NO weathersealing and plastic materials are BETTER?

Odd.

Since when isn't the F/4 IS made up largely of plastic? Not that I consider plastic a bad thing anyway, and I agree I do not see how you could criticise the F/4 IS build quality.

ar10 wrote in post #13230938
If picking between these two, what's the consensus here? They seem to be comparable in price, yet they are hardly talked about in the same sentence? It seems the Sigma would be a lot heavier, however they offer the same range.

I had the Sigma non-OS and swapped it for the Canon f4 with IS (and am much happier). The weight was a big factor for me. I found I was leaving the Sigma at home more often than not, just so I wouldn't have to carry it around with me. Of course, it depends how you're going to use your lens. Mine is often used for activities with my kid, and I find the smaller build of the f4 IS to be much more convenient. I also use it for portraits and outdoor sports, where the Canon also shines. The f4 IS is an outstanding lens in every respect - very hard to find fault with it.

However, my Sigma non-OS was also an excellent lens - just not for me. If you need the f2.8 and don't mind the weight, the Sigma OS seems like a really good purchase. I loved the build and quality of my Sigma, and would certainly consider the OS version if ever I moved back to a f2.8 lens.

Sirrith wrote in post #13233872
The f4 IS is plastic as well.

Have you used either of those lenses?

Edit: Actually now that I think about it a bit more, I'm sure the sigma has a section made from metal near the mount before the zoom ring, so in fact the f4 IS has MORE plastic than the sigma.

I've owned a 70-400 f4 IS for over a year. The external housing is coated metal. The black filter thread, the switches and the focus window are plastic, the focus and zoom ring rubber. Overall the thing is build like a tank ánd weather sealed.

I've never owned the sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS. However I did play with it at my local vendor, as im very interested in that lens...

phreeky wrote in post #13233875
I do not see how you could criticise the F/4 IS build quality.

I'm not. In fact, i cant see how the sigma's build quality could be better than that of the F4 IS.


As for the OP; i'd pick the Sigma. Better said; I AM picking the sigma. As phreeky said, plastic doesnt have to be a bad thing... Im sure he sigma is build just fine. As long as you dont throw or drown it.

I've owned a F4 IS, its a wonderfull lens... MFD is a bit shorter than the sigma (1.2 vs 1.4). Its sharp, but from what i read on the interwebs, the sigma is aswell. I sold my F4IS for a 100-400 as I needed more reach. Now i need more speed... So im opting for the sigma.

muusers wrote in post #13234182
I've owned a 70-400 f4 IS for over a year. The external housing is coated metal. The black filter thread, the switches and the focus window are plastic, the focus and zoom ring rubber. Overall the thing is build like a tank ánd weather sealed.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but its not coated metal. Its plastic. Thin plastic at that. I've owned the f4 IS before and own the non-IS now.
The internal parts are probably metal, but then that goes for pretty much all lenses.

I'm also interested. As far as optical performance, would the Sigma 70-200mm OS be on par with the Canon F4L IS?

I'm thinking of selling/trading in my Canon for the Sigma. Can I expect the same/similar optical performance (sharpness, color rendition, bokeh)?

Would the Sigma's AF be as fast and accurate as the Canon's?

Performance will be similar. You won't notice any difference except maybe the colours unless you pixel peep.

AF on the sigma is very good. The canon is slightly faster.

Sirrith wrote in post #13234267
Sorry to burst your bubble, but its not coated metal. Its plastic. Thin plastic at that. I've owned the f4 IS before and own the non-IS now.
The internal parts are probably metal, but then that goes for pretty much all lenses.

*Sigh* You sure are persistent, even if you've got your facts wrong. I'd say call/mail canon... Ask them.

I'm in for a little wager