Sigma 70-200 F2.8/Canon 70-200 F4L

Hi all,

I currently have a Canon 70-200 F4L and as much as I really like this lens I am thinking of swapping it for the Sigma 2.8 version. Mainly because I do a lot of off road cycling pictures and find myself in the woods quite a bit and think the F2.8 might help just that little bit more.

Do you think it is worth it? It wouldn't cost me much to change over to the Sigma.


Phil

Between the wife and I we have both. She has the f4L, I use the Sigma 2.8. I, like you tend to more low light sports shooting. I like the Siggy.

Well, I don't have either of those lenses, but I do have the 70-200 f4 IS and I know that it's the sharpest zoom I've ever used. If the non-IS is similar, the obvious risk in going for the Sigma is that it won't match up IQ wise. From what I've read, the Sigma is pretty good, but performance tails off at the long end.

I know someone who swapped his Sigma 70-200F2.8 for a Canon 70-200F4L (non IS) and is very happy. The contrast and color are way better on the Canon lens.

This has been discussed before a few times. Actually there are quite a few people here who swapped their canon 70-200 f4 is for the Sigma in need for a faster lens.
The Sigma has virtually the same IQ at f/4 as the Canon at f/4. But with the Sigma you can do f/2.8 if needed and the sharpness is still very good, in fact it's sharper than Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 version I at f/2.8 (search for Teamspeed's review of the 2 lenses).

What you lose by swapping is the lighter, more compact size of the Canon, weathersealing (?), and perhaps a tiny bit faster AF. But you gain a stop of light which can be a huge deal in certain situations.
I have the Sigma and most of the time I use it at 2.8 or 3.2. I used to have an older Canon f/4 tele zoom and the Sigma makes my job a lot easier by beong a stop faster.

Quality of the 70-200 2.8 OS is generally good with not too many duds. In fact it lists better on Lensrental's defect list than Canon's new, expensive 70-200 2.8 II. So I'd say it's a safe bet.

But it's up to you search and read more here before you make a decision.

Don't have much to add, other than the 70-200 F4L is not weather sealed.

gabebalazs wrote in post #15376677
This has been discussed before a few times. Actually there are quite a few people here who swapped their canon 70-200 f4 is for the Sigma in need for a faster lens.
The Sigma has virtually the same IQ at f/4 as the Canon at f/4. But with the Sigma you can do f/2.8 if needed and the sharpness is still very good, in fact it's sharper than Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 version I at f/2.8 (search for Teamspeed's review of the 2 lenses).

What you lose by swapping is the lighter, more compact size of the Canon, weathersealing (?), and perhaps a tiny bit faster AF. But you gain a stop of light which can be a huge deal in certain situations.
I have the Sigma and most of the time I use it at 2.8 or 3.2. I used to have an older Canon f/4 tele zoom and the Sigma makes my job a lot easier by beong a stop faster.

Quality of the 70-200 2.8 OS is generally good with not too many duds. In fact it lists better on Lensrental's defect list than Canon's new, expensive 70-200 2.8 II. So I'd say it's a safe bet.

But it's up to you search and read more here before you make a decision.

Rewind wrote in post #15377156
Don't have much to add, other than the 70-200 F4L is not weather sealed.

Oh I see, my bad.
Maybe I actually misinterpreted the whole thread..
I porbably wrongly assumed this was about the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS vs. Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, when in fact it may be about the non-stabilized versions of each.

Judging by their signature, I believe it's the non-IS.

gabebalazs wrote in post #15377176
Oh I see, my bad.
Maybe I actually misinterpreted the whole thread..
I porbably wrongly assumed this was about the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS vs. Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, when in fact it may be about the non-stabilized versions of each.

It is the NON IS version I have, also worryingly I was not aware it was weather sealed, always assumed it was.

That was one factor for keeping the F4, perhaps I will change my mind now then and plump for the sigma 2.8.

Confused!?!?! lol

Haha, sorry to introduce that extra fear. Honestly, I think you're going to have to maybe try and rent the Sigma, and see how you feel about it / if it suits you better.

penfolduk wrote in post #15380462
It is the NON IS version I have, also worryingly I was not aware it was weather sealed, always assumed it was.

That was one factor for keeping the F4, perhaps I will change my mind now then and plump for the sigma 2.8.

Confused!?!?! lol

penfolduk wrote in post #15380462
It is the NON IS version I have, also worryingly I was not aware it was weather sealed, always assumed it was.

That was one factor for keeping the F4, perhaps I will change my mind now then and plump for the sigma 2.8.

Confused!?!?! lol

Is the Sigma 2.8 that you want to "upgrade" to the OS or non-OS?

(Assuming you don't mind the extra weight over an f/4.0) If it is the OS version, I'd definitely make the switch. If it is the non-OS version, I'd still probably make the switch as I like f/2.8 in that zoom range.

penfolduk wrote in post #15380462
It is the NON IS version I have, also worryingly I was not aware it was weather sealed, always assumed it was.

That was one factor for keeping the F4, perhaps I will change my mind now then and plump for the sigma 2.8.

Confused!?!?! lol

The non IS is weather sealed just like the IS version except that the IS version has the additional gasket where the body meets the lens at the mount.

I use my f4 IS for cycling and the focus accuracy is flawless where as I am not sure with the older 70-200/2.8 HSM II that you would get the same hit rate. I hear better things about the 70-200/2.8 OS though, but still less than the Canon ones.

Bonbridge wrote in post #15376186
The contrast and color are way better on the Canon lens.

I love unsubstantiated blanket statements like this.

It is not a unsubstantiated blanked statement at all.

FEChariot wrote in post #15382184
The non IS is weather sealed just like the IS version except that the IS version has the additional gasket where the body meets the lens at the mount.

I use my f4 IS for cycling and the focus accuracy is flawless where as I am not sure with the older 70-200/2.8 HSM II that you would get the same hit rate. I hear better things about the 70-200/2.8 OS though, but still less than the Canon ones.

But wouldn't that imply a higher risk of intrusion at the mount = therefore not "weather sealed"?