Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS question

Ok so I know there are tons of threads on this, but i am still having issues. I sold my canon 100mm f2.8 non is and 200mm f2.8 L. I want to get back into a 70-200 f2.8 lens. I have never owned a lens with image stabilization. I have owned the canon 70-200 f4 non is but traded it for the 200 f2.8 for the wider aperture/speed. I want the best bang for my buck and want a fast lens that gets sharp shots, even wide open.

I am down (right now) to the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 OS and the Canon 70-200 non IS. I will be using it for sports, and also portraits of my kids as well as street photography (i travel internationally for work at least a few weeks a year)

On paper the Sigma seems to be the winner, but when i look through sample pics i see more average than "wow". I wanna believe that I can get really good results with it, but..

With the canon 70-200 f2.8 non is, the 2 knocks for me are the non iS (do i even need it?) and the whiteness of it. As i said i travel and I like black lenses better for blending in, especially for street photography. But if the results are too good to pass up vs the sigma? Another plus is price as these tend to go for around 900 used-like new. Not sure i would want to buy a sigma used as my concern is getting a lemon.

Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions would be much appreciated. Anybody who owns/owned either lens with real life experiences?

Thanks much!

John

johnandbentley wrote in post #15351050
Ok so I know there are tons of threads on this, but i am still having issues. I sold my canon 100mm f2.8 non is and 200mm f2.8 L. I want to get back into a 70-200 f2.8 lens. I have never owned a lens with image stabilization. I have owned the canon 70-200 f4 non is but traded it for the 200 f2.8 for the wider aperture/speed. I want the best bang for my buck and want a fast lens that gets sharp shots, even wide open.

I am down (right now) to the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 OS and the Canon 70-200 non IS. I will be using it for sports, and also portraits of my kids as well as street photography (i travel internationally for work at least a few weeks a year)

On paper the Sigma seems to be the winner, but when i look through sample pics i see more average than "wow". I wanna believe that I can get really good results with it, but..

With the canon 70-200 f2.8 non is, the 2 knocks for me are the non iS (do i even need it?) and the whiteness of it. As i said i travel and I like black lenses better for blending in, especially for street photography. But if the results are too good to pass up vs the sigma? Another plus is price as these tend to go for around 900 used-like new. Not sure i would want to buy a sigma used as my concern is getting a lemon.

Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions would be much appreciated. Anybody who owns/owned either lens with real life experiences?

Thanks much!

John

What about the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC?

The QC on the sigma 70-200 OS is much, much better than that of the 30, 50, and 85 primes. I wouldn't worry about getting a lemon. I find that the 70-200 OS is a very, very nice lens, has better optics than the 70-200 2.8 non-IS and ALSO has IS. For me it would be a no-brainer. Sometimes the reason a lens database doesn't have a ton of "wow" photographs is because there aren't a ton of "wow" photographers that own that lens and post images.

Give the sigma a try, I don't think you'll regret it.

drzenitram wrote in post #15351258
The QC on the sigma 70-200 OS is much, much better than that of the 30, 50, and 85 primes. I wouldn't worry about getting a lemon. I find that the 70-200 OS is a very, very nice lens, has better optics than the 70-200 2.8 non-IS and ALSO has IS. For me it would be a no-brainer. Sometimes the reason a lens database doesn't have a ton of "wow" photographs is because there aren't a ton of "wow" photographers that own that lens and post images.

Give the sigma a try, I don't think you'll regret it.

Thanks for the intel and reassurance. Of course I had thought about the people actually taking the pics and misusing such nice equipment, etc.... Appreciate your time!

davidc502 wrote in post #15351116
What about the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC?

Dont know much about the new Tamron. Pricewise Siggy is around 1150 new and Tamron seems to be 1500. Would much rather stay closer to the 1100 mark.

Another factor that may contribute to your finding is that the nature of the customers buying the 2 lens. (professionals likely buying the canon L vs hobbyist buying the sigma in that they can't justify buying the L given the limited use they'll have for it.)

I have the sigma 70-200 os and I have absolutely no complaints about it.

I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS. I like it. The OS is a bit quirky, it jumps and is a bit noisy, but the IQ is great. The only problem is a tiny bit of softness at 200mm & f/2.8. By f/3.5 it is excellent. At all other FL it is excellent wide open. I take your point about black being less noticeable. This lens is about 11" long with the hood. You will get noticed. Add another inch of the APS-c hood adapter, if you use it.

Another POTN member has done a nice real-user review of the Sigma. Find it here:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1255382

giCe wrote in post #15354058
Another factor that may contribute to your finding is that the nature of the customers buying the 2 lens. (professionals likely buying the canon L vs hobbyist buying the sigma in that they can't justify buying the L given the limited use they'll have for it.)

I have the sigma 70-200 os and I have absolutely no complaints about it.

Ty much appreciated

giCe wrote in post #15354058
Another factor that may contribute to your finding is that the nature of the customers buying the 2 lens. (professionals likely buying the canon L vs hobbyist buying the sigma in that they can't justify buying the L given the limited use they'll have for it.)

I have the sigma 70-200 os and I have absolutely no complaints about it.

TSchrief wrote in post #15354705
I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS. I like it. The OS is a bit quirky, it jumps and is a bit noisy, but the IQ is great. The only problem is a tiny bit of softness at 200mm & f/2.8. By f/3.5 it is excellent. At all other FL it is excellent wide open. I take your point about black being less noticeable. This lens is about 11" long with the hood. You will get noticed. Add another inch of the APS-c hood adapter, if you use it.

Another POTN member has done a nice real-user review of the Sigma. Find it here:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1255382

Good to know on softness wide open. I can deal if it's only at long end as I can make up speed for action shots with a bump up in iso. Thanks for the link

I"ve owned the Sigma OS and every version of Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 so I guess I can answer with some credibility. For weddings, kids, stills, etc. The Sigma is top notch. The IQ is superb and nearly on par with Canon MkII. Easy call then, right? Not so fast....what it doesn't do that well is sports. Its not a dog by any means, but even the Canon non-IS versions did a much better job at tracking and expecially at retaining focus on quickly approaching objects. The Sigma was always a bit hit or miss in that department. Also, as mentioned, I had to stop the Sigma down slightly to get things crisp, something I never have had to do with any of the Canon's.

I think the Sigma has its place but if you are primarily buying it for sports use, I think your money is better spent on Canon glass. As an added point, you aren't likely to be using IS shooting most sports anyway as your shutter will generally be high enough already. If its for sports as mentioned, I wouldn't let IS be a factor in the decision at all.

Hope that's useful info...

johnandbentley wrote in post #15358175
Good to know on softness wide open. I can deal if it's only at long end as I can make up speed for action shots with a bump up in iso. Thanks for the link

YMMV with regards to softness... A lot of times- it's not softness- it's a matter of tolerances - between the body and the lens.. MFA can correct for this- sometimes. Other times- a trip back to Sigma can fix it. Sometimes- changing how you do MFA also helps-- kind of like changing tactics.

The best way to judge how good the lens COULD be- is to put the camera in liveview and take some pics that way- wide open.. If it is sharp- mine was- then MFA or calibration are the ways to get it all the way there. For me, I found I had to change how I did MFA to make it better.. My Sigma was a little soft- not significantly soft- about as soft as the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II was- maybe a little softer- but not very much.. Stopping it down to 3.2 or 3.5 helped immensely- with closer subjects.. So, rather than adjust MFA at 50x the focal length- I adjusted for where it was softer- closer... At longer distances, DOF helps with keeping things sharper... Odd, but it works...

namasste wrote in post #15359064
I"ve owned the Sigma OS and every version of Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 so I guess I can answer with some credibility. For weddings, kids, stills, etc. The Sigma is top notch. The IQ is superb and nearly on par with Canon MkII. Easy call then, right? Not so fast....what it doesn't do that well is sports. Its not a dog by any means, but even the Canon non-IS versions did a much better job at tracking and expecially at retaining focus on quickly approaching objects. The Sigma was always a bit hit or miss in that department. Also, as mentioned, I had to stop the Sigma down slightly to get things crisp, something I never have had to do with any of the Canon's.

I think the Sigma has its place but if you are primarily buying it for sports use, I think your money is better spent on Canon glass. As an added point, you aren't likely to be using IS shooting most sports anyway as your shutter will generally be high enough already. If its for sports as mentioned, I wouldn't let IS be a factor in the decision at all.

Hope that's useful info...

Very helpful. I go to 1-2 rodeos per year and part of my drive to a 70-200 vs the two primes was being able to zoom in and out to capture action. Plus I usually chase eagles a couple times a year. I know birders will chime in and say 200 isnt long enough but with a 1.4 and in certain locations it gets me close enough for feeding action. Thanks for the explanation in regards to maintaining focus.

The price of the Tamron will drop. It's 120000yen in Japan and that mean the price in USA should lower to at least 1250$ soon enough.The Tamron reviews are very impressive already.

Earwax69 wrote in post #15361305
The price of the Tamron will drop. It's 120000yen in Japan and that mean the price in USA should lower to at least 1250$ soon enough.The Tamron reviews are very impressive already.

Good to know. I'm heading to shanghai for a month in February. I would rent a lens but for that length I am looking at 325$usd. I'd rather buy a new lens and if it's not up to snuff I can sell used upon return