Sigma vs. Canon

I have decided to expand my wedding photography gear with a 70-200 2.8

Now I saw that the Sigma is half the price of the Canon. Am I paying by getting less quality? What is your opinion or experience?

This is probably the most discussed topic on Canon photography forums. The Sigma is a great lens, so is the Canon, if you don't need IS IMHO get the Sigma. The search function will give you more results than you could possibly wnat.

The Canon has the advantage of IS, and personally I find IS invaluable, especially in dark churches. Instead of having to use a tripod I can stand anywhere I want (eg on benches, lying on the ground, etc) and get the benefit of the invisible tripod. I hate tripods, they're just not practical for most weddings. Camera shake is unacceptable from a professional photographer, and to hand hold a 200mm lens you need 1/200th, which is hard to get in churches. You owe it to your customers to have the best equipment.

Get the Canon IS lens, I promise you won't be disappointed.

I should get a comissions from Canon.

Lol Tim, yeah you should... and from Amazon and from ebay and from ProShow Gold......

makes sense what you say and I would like to have IS...

I think Photodex should sponser me... I can make some cool fancy shows, even though latel I prefer to keep things simple so the show doesn't distract from the photos. Give me a copy of producer and i'm sure i'll come up with some cool stuff to help them sell some more of their rather cool program

I must agree that the 70-200 f2.8L IS is my favourite lens. Very useful in a number of low light situations and a super portrait lens too.

The IS really is incredible. Super sharp shots at 1/30th sec (sometimes less) @ 200mm!! If you can't afford the IS then the Sigma is also a nice lens. I have used it and it feels good too. You will always want the IS though and that's why I bit the bullet.

Jim

I have to agree with everyone here. I bought a Canon 80-200 2.8L (without IS) last year and really loved it...outdoors. It was sharp and contrasty and made beautiful pictures. Indoors, however, I had a tough time getting usably fast shutter speeds - even with a flash.

This year I bit the bullet and bought a 70-200 IS. At first I was a bit ambivalent about this lens (I traded the 80-200 for a 135 f2 and was AMAZED by that lens). Then I shot my first wedding with it, and discovered how good the IS really was. 3 weddings later, and I'm completely sold. IMHO, it's one of the most useful lenses that a WP can have. I even used it on a bunch of the formals, and loved the results. In a dark church, the IS lets me turn off the flash and have images as sharp as I could get with one of my faster primes. I used to used my 85 f1.8 for church available light stuff, needing a SS of 1/100 @ f2 to get motion free shots. Now I can shoot at 1/60 and zoom to 200mm's without camera shake.

Most reviewers have the Sigma as good as the Canon 2.8 EXCEPT at 2.8, The Sigma buyers will justify their purchase with this. However I buy a 2.8 lens so that I can use it wide open. The Canon f4 is cheaper than the Sigma and lighter, you can work out the rest.

Personally I bought the Canon 2.8 non-IS second hand, for similar money to the Sigma. I'd like the IS (for weddings) but I have many other priorities. A monopod is cheaper, and almost as flexible.
If you can afford the 2.8 IS, don't scrimp, if you simply can't afford it, then list your priorities and make a sensible choice.

geeez...there's some big heads in this thread....lol

Song...im not much help, i only have Canon lenses and i will probably only buy canon because i like their range and i KNOW they are going to work warranty is good etc etc.

Del

One thing that is commonly overlooked when choosing lenses is how long they will LAST - this is very improtant to me, as I want a lens that will still work after an accidental drop or in the rain. For this, you need Canon, and you need L. No other manufacturer comes close to bulletproof.

If you treat all your lenses like a baby - then you can get a non - canon lens and be happy - but if you want a lens which will survive a few knocks - then Canon is the only choice.

(Yeah - I've dropped a few L's in my time - not on purpose - just trying to get 'the shot'.)

I agree 100% with this! If your doing this as a business, you can't afford to use anything but the best in quality! Canon lenses are a lot more expenssive, but they offer, build quality, optical quality, and for me... a much higher percentage of keepers. Your Canon body is just going to work better with Canon lenses.

Sigma does make some nice lenses, but I wouldn't use anything but Canon "in the business."

JMHO

If you're just starting out and finances won't allow it...you sometimes need to look for the top value...which can be 3rd party lenses. Not everyone can plunk down 35 grand on a setup from the get-go.

If you're bringing in the money and charging top dollar...then yeah go for all the best. If your customers aren't discriminating enough to pay you for great shots, they aren't going to know the difference between an L shot and an EX shot. Heck some can't even tell slightly OOF from pin sharp.

IF you need IS (which in a church during ceremony you will..........go Canon.

I agree with Don here. I have the 70-200 IS this year because it was in the budget to buy it. When I first started I determined that I would not go into debt for my business. I wanted to be able to quit the business at the end of my first year (if it didn't work out), and not owe anyone anything.

I would spend money as it came in the door. To me, that meant signed contracts. I bought my 20D at the beginning of '05 when I had enough in contracted "accounts receivable" to pay off the "one year no interest" deal at Ritz - and I paid it off in three months. The same with glass. I bought fast lenses as I could afford them. I went as fast as I could for the money, and started with third party equivalents. I missed shots due to my issues with the third parties, but none that the clients complained about. I looked for solid values in fast quality glass (like the 50 f1.8, 85 1.8, and 35/2), so I could handle the low light stuff.

By the end of the year I had sunk all of my profits into a solid kit of quality Canon glass (minus a PSP for myself and a diamond necklace for my wife). Now I don't miss shots because of my equipment.

Bottom line, my experience with third parties has made me believe that Canon pro glass is the best/most reliable/most accurate/most durable equipment you can own - but if the business hadn't paid as well as it did, I'd still be shooting with the best third parties I could afford.

...and I've never had a client look at a print and say, "wow, you must have used an "L" lens to take that". As a matter of fact, I visited a clients' house recently who had an 11x14 of a shot I took of her little girl matted, framed, and proudly displayed on her wall. I took the shot with the atrocious Sigma 55-200DC on a 300D, and to my eyes it's soft as he!!. But I captured a beautiful moment in her daughter's life - making it fine art to her!

Jamie, that pretty much what I am doing now... every payment for a shoot goes straight into equipment... I know I will stick to this and I know I want to offer best possible quality to my clients so I have decided to just wait a couple more month (Tim has cost me a lot of money lately..lol) to save for the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS rather than going for second choice.

Thanks everyone, you are all great!

Wow...some excellent points made here everyone. I remember starting three years ago with a digital rebel and thought it was a great camera with the kit lens (ROFLMAO!!) and now shooting with two 20D's and my main lens, 24-70mm L, I can't ever imagine going back to my first setup. Building clients, booking weddings, selling your work takes a lot of time, effort, and patience but if you stick to your guns and really grind it out it can and usually will be profitable. We are buyinga 1Ds Mark II this week with a 70-200 IS lens. I'm like a little kid right now waiting for Christmas because I know that it will be even a bigger jump for me and my business. Is it breaking the bank?? No, I have enough work booked for the rest of the year to cover my expense for this set-up but it's taken me three years to get to this point. I think it took Jamie only two years to get profitable but I could be off. Sorry if I am ....