Just got a 70-200 f/4 USM. Sell the Σ70-200 OS?

I just shot an evening of comparison shots between my Σ70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM, which I've had for years, and the 70-200 f/4 USM I got today. Both wide open, the Canon is much sharper. There is very little IQ difference with both at f/4, at any focal length. The Canon is faster to focus and is 1/2 the weight, which is why I bought it. About 96% of my 70-200 library is at 1/200 or faster. Most of my 70-200 work on the 6D is flash or outdoor kids' stuff. All of my 70-200 stuff on the 60D is larger field outdoor stuff.

One thing that was apparent in the direct comparison: If the Canon really is 70-200, the Sigma is probably 65-175. The difference at the long end is easily noticed. After I saw it, I compared the wide end. Not as pronounced, but certainly there.

I know I'll get more use out of the smaller, lighter Canon. I'm thinking I should just sell the Sigma, but I hate to regret selling things (135L and my XSi kit come to mind) a few months down the road. Are there any good reasons to hold onto the Sigma 70-200?

If you can live without the f/2.8 maximum aperture, I would go with the Canon. I own the 70-200 f/4 IS, and love the lens for it's image quality, quick focusing and relatively small size and weight. It has become my "compact" telephoto to take in place of the 100-400L when I want to travel lighter and can live without the additional focal length.

f2.8, and image stabilization are the reasons...if those don't appeal to you over the weight savings

if i were you, and wanted the f4, i'd at least get the IS version

Scott M wrote in post #17384617
If you can live without the f/2.8 maximum aperture, I would go with the Canon. I own the 70-200 f/4 IS, and love the lens for it's image quality, quick focusing and relatively small size and weight. It has become my "compact" telephoto to take in place of the 100-400L when I want to travel lighter and can live without the additional focal length.

Exactly. The 70-200 2.8 is hardly compact. The f/4 does that job MUCH better.

DreDaze wrote in post #17384655
f2.8, and image stabilization are the reasons...if those don't appeal to you over the weight savings

if i were you, and wanted the f4, i'd at least get the IS version

I went back and forth several time on IS or no-IS. I settled on the no-IS for the $500 savings, and the fact that most of my 70-200 stuff, on either camera is at 1/500 or faster, with a heavy concentration at 1/640. At those speeds, especially while tracking in Servo (yes, the 6D does that), I don't think IS helps much. That said, I've got some really nice shots of my baby girl and her son with the Siggy at 1/60. Not doing that w/o IS!

Update:

I tried the non-IS for a week. It is going back. It did OK on the 6D, but I couldn't get a non-motion blurred shot at 200mm on the 60D at 1/800. I NEED IS at 300mm!

Some interesting notes:
Assuming the Canon really is 70-200mm, the Sigma compares at ~65 and a confirmed 175mm.
With both lenses at 200mm and f/4, the Canon is noticeably sharper and more saturated. I knew that would happen with the Σ at f/2.8. Did not expect it at f/4.
I could not detect a focus speed difference in AI-Servo on either the 60D or 6D. Surprised me.

Right now, I am thinking sell the Sigma and order the EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM. I'll see how I feel when Canon credits my card.

The IS version of the Canon 70-200 f/4 does have a newer optical design than the non-IS version. There has been some debate on here as to how much difference that makes in image quality between the two versions. I have never personally owned the non-IS version, so I cannot comment based on personal experience.

Almost feel like I'm talking to myself here. OK. The decision still needs to be made. I spent some time over the last few days playing with the Sigma on my 60D. That will be its predominant use; I shoot grandkids' sporting stuff in nicer weather. Anyway, I have discovered that by properly tweaking the f/2.8 output in Lightroom, I can get nearly the IQ that f/4 affords. Some fine detail is lost, but I'd be hard-pressed to notice it if I weren't looking at two shots side-by-side. I think for my money, I may just keep the Sigma and be happy. Smaller and lighter would be nice, but f/2.8 and OS have to count for something. The only catch so far is that I like the general shooting length of 70-200 a lot on full frame. I know I'd use 70-200 a lot more if I had an f/4 IS lens.

The battle rages on....

It's hard to really offer up much advise to you- you know the pros and cons of each...it pretty much comes down to a personal choice...personally I think if their close in IQ, you probably wouldn't notice, unless you are printing big...I think most here get a bit obsessed with 100% crops

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17384551
I just shot an evening of comparison shots between my Σ70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM, which I've had for years, and the 70-200 f/4 USM I got today. Both wide open, the Canon is much sharper. There is very little IQ difference with both at f/4, at any focal length. The Canon is faster to focus and is 1/2 the weight, which is why I bought it. About 96% of my 70-200 library is at 1/200 or faster. Most of my 70-200 work on the 6D is flash or outdoor kids' stuff. All of my 70-200 stuff on the 60D is larger field outdoor stuff.

One thing that was apparent in the direct comparison: If the Canon really is 70-200, the Sigma is probably 65-175. The difference at the long end is easily noticed. After I saw it, I compared the wide end. Not as pronounced, but certainly there.

I know I'll get more use out of the smaller, lighter Canon. I'm thinking I should just sell the Sigma, but I hate to regret selling things (135L and my XSi kit come to mind) a few months down the road. Are there any good reasons to hold onto the Sigma 70-200?

Heya,

I see no reason to keep the Sigma 70-200 OS. The fact that you bought a slower aperture Canon version tells you everything you need to know about whether you care about F2.8 or not.

But that said, you tried the non-IS version and shot at fast shutter speeds, not sure IS will help that truly? I think you will find it does the same thing. IS helps for panning and motion blur (from you) at low shutter speeds only. At 1/500s+ you're not going to get a real benefit other than mental. But, that said, I shoot with VC (same thing) on even with 1/2000s shutter on my 600mm lens. The reason for me is not for the motion blur, since it's that fast, but because it stabilizes the view finder so I can more easily keep my target on the cross hair. So it does have benefits even at high shutter speeds, but really, it's biggest benefit is the slower shutter speed. Regardless, try out the F4L IS, it's an excellent lens.

The F4L IS however is optically superior to the non-IS, and still very light. If you can swing it, go for it. It's better than the F2.8 version wide open (only the MKII tops it).

If you find you need a 200mm F2.8 lens, without the weight, look to the old MK1 prime, or the new MKII prime (same optically). Light weight, sharp wide open, really good bokeh.

Very best,

it is possible to get motion blur at shutters faster than 1/500...just depends how much he shakes...the 1/focal length is just a rule of thumb, it all depends on the user in the end

there's been other users in the past that have had physical issues where they need a faster shutter, and IS

Thanks for the opinions and advice. I had some problems getting crisp shots with the non-IS lens at 200mm on the 60D. On the 6D I did OK. I had the 200L II and had the same problems a few years ago. Maybe I am a nervous kind of guy. I want to use the lens on my 6D for more general purpose shooting. IS will come in handy, there.

Anyway, I think I am going to try a copy of the f/4 IS. If I buy used, I am out approximately what I pay for shipping. The used market is pretty steady for those.

Oh, I did discover one nice thing about the Sigma. I compared the f/4 and Σ for FOV in my living room. The shot was taken at about 16 feet. I had to set the f/4 to 175 to cover the same FOV. I thought the Sigma was just 'shorter'. It turns out that is called 'focus breathing'. The closer some lenses are focused, the shorter the apparent focal length. I never heard of that before.

Sent back the non-IS 70-200 f/4. I have to sell the Sigma before ordering the IS version. It is listed in the SALE forum. Link in my sig.

Let us know if you like the IS model.

I have had it for several years. If's one of the first L lenses I acquired new when I started DSLR shooting several years ago. It's an excellent lens.

I have temped to buy 70-200 f/2.8 II. But the weight and size issue always holds me back.

I am in the process of buying a new 24-70 f/2.8 II. Received a very good offer. It will be paired with my 70-200 f/4 IS.

Sounds like focus breathing. At line distance, the issue should clear up.

l89kip wrote in post #17408500
Let us know if you like the IS model.

I have had it for several years. If's one of the first L lenses I acquired new when I started DSLR shooting several years ago. It's an excellent lens.

I have temped to buy 70-200 f/2.8 II. But the weight and size issue always holds me back.

I am in the process of buying a new 24-70 f/2.8 II. Received a very good offer. It will be paired with my 70-200 f/4 IS.

When I first bought the Sigma, I didn't mind the weight. After trying the f/4, I was blown away by how much smaller it feels, lighter too. I don't really do anything that requires f/2.8. Heck, I use my 100-400L at baseball games; I'm sure I can do just fine with f/4. I am ready for something that doesn't weigh 3+ pounds. I will order the f/4L IS as soon as my Sigma sells. (see signature for link)

Charlie wrote in post #17408508
Sounds like focus breathing. At line distance, the issue should clear up.

Yep. That is the problem. It was very evident when shooting at 16 feet, in my living room. At more practical distances for 200mm, it is not even noticeable.