Better shots with 70-200 then my sigma 70-300mm...

I photographed some of my friend, while they playd ishockey with some younger people.

Its shot with my Canon 350D with my very cheap lens: Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super II. They are shoot at ISO 400 and in RAW. I have used Shadows Highlights, color boost and USM.

My question is: Will I get better qulity at my shots with a 70-200mm F4 L lens then the sigma I own? I have croped some images too...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I would imagine. I had the Sigma 70-300 for about 8 months. When I bought my 80-200 f/2.8L it took me all of about 15 minutes to decide to sell my Sigma (though occassionally I miss the macro capability). The range didn't matter too much, as the 80-200L at 200mm f/5.6 then enlarged in Photoshop to the size that 300mm would fill gave more detail than the Sigma at 300mm f/5.6. By f/10, the Sigma made it close, but not better. Considering my 80-200L was still sharp at f/2.8, and glass cutting sharp by f/4, there was no need to keep the Sigma for the reach. Now, I tested my 80-200L against a 70-200 f/4L, and my 80-200L was a smidge sharper, but by a very small amount. The Sigma takes good shots with the right conditions, but you will likely get a higher percentage of keepers with the 70-200, as well as the extra stop of light at the long end, which will help a bunch, especially for sports (though an f/2.8 would of course be better for that).

The color and contrast of the Canon L will blow away the Sigma hands down...that is for sure.

In my opinion you'd be better off working on your composition than buying new lenses.

Thank you mr offtopic. Or you have a very bad taste for good composition. Hehe!

Your question was "Will I get better qulity at my shots with a 70-200mm F4 L lens then the sigma I own?". The answer is maybe they'll be slightly sharper, but sharpeness without good composition isn't helpful... it's like having a horse drawn cart, and getting faster horses.

This pictures is just to show what img qulity I get, nothing else.

The image quality looks good good to me. Unless you're pixel-peeing I don't think you'll see a huge difference.

My apologies if my last post was a bit sharp.

I have the 70-200 L4 and it is a great lens, the best value from Canon, it is capable of fantasic photos. You will not regret buying it but I have taken great photos with my Tamron 80-210 and Canon 18-55 (which is junk). It is a matter of capability of the lens.

I used to own the newer Sigma DG version of that lens and the canon 70-200mm f4. Honestly IMO The sigma in terms of center sharpness was very close to the canon, hardly noticeable. The DG version seemed to have more brightness to the pics as well, maybe because if it being a DG lens?

Anyway what really stood out for me wasn't the picture quality, but more for the physical aspecs of the lens. The USM motor was heaven compared to the noisy sigma motor. Build quality on the canon is far superior. Canon's had internal zooming while the Sigma extended and suffered from zoom creep. Canons AF was way faster, Sigma hunted and was slow.