In a quandry!! Sigma or L???

Hi,

Am looking at the 70-200, either Canon 2.8 without IS or the equivalent Sigma (which is a lot less!). Am I going to notice a big difference if I go with the Sigma? Is the Canon the better quality lens for the extra money?

Any advice much appreciated!

Thanks

David

The canon might be just a tad better IQ and the AF just a tad bit faster, but quite honestly, if you would be hard pressed to really notice either in day to day activities. The Sigma is a very, very good lens for the money, I have had a few of the 70-200s and was pleased with each and every one of them.

Here is the Sigma archive: https://photography-on-the.net …light=sigma+200​mm+archive

I don't have first hand experience with either, so take this with a grain of salt, but the word on the street is that the Canon takes the cake for low light AF...if that sort of thing is important to you.

Thanks guys...

Yeah, would be interested in better low-light capabilities, and I am leaning towards the Canon! But the cost...

bacchanal wrote in post #5819679
I don't have first hand experience with either, so take this with a grain of salt, but the word on the street is that the Canon takes the cake for low light AF...if that sort of thing is important to you.

I don't understand? They are both 2.8, and both do quite well. I have had both and I noticed no additional "low light magic" on the Canon over the Sigma. The body has more to do with low light AF when comparing two similar 70-200 f2.8 lenses, than each individual lens, at least in my experiences.

Here is an idea, buy a used sigma 70-200 here or on FM, try it out. If you find you cannot make it work for your application, sell it for the same and buy the Canon. This way you personally can attest to which is the best bang for the buck.

A few weeks ago I pulled the trigger on a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM II and overall I think it's a great lens, but it's not perfect.

In autofocus, it tends to front-focus by a few millimetres. This is noticeable close-up at f2.8, but is not noticeable at f5.6 due to increased DOF.

If I manually focus the lens, it is sharp throughout.

There's a thread here : https://photography-on-the.net …75&highlight=si​gma+70-200

The build quality feels very good, very smooth and solid. Focus speed is only fractionally slower than the Canon L zooms that I've tried. It's not as fast as the Canon 300mm f2.8L IS, but then so far that has been the fastest focusing lens I've ever tried (I don't own one, but borrowed one for a few shots last year).

A few weeks ago it was possible to get a non-IS Canon 70-200 f2.8 for an aditional GBP150 and with the GBP50 cash-back, it was very tempting to go for one. But in the end I decided that I didn't want a 'big white' for general use.

Good luck..

TeamSpeed wrote in post #5819749
I don't understand? They are both 2.8, and both do quite well. I have had both and I noticed no additional "low light magic" on the Canon over the Sigma. The body has more to do with low light AF when comparing two similar 70-200 f2.8 lenses, than each individual lens, at least in my experiences.

That was just something I heard from a (pro) friend of mine. And yes, the lens can have a lot to do with low light AF performance. Ex. Tamron 17-50 vs. the Canon 17-55.

if your not going with IS..then I would say get the Sigma Macro II and save some money. There is NOTHING the canon will provide over that sigma that would make you get a better shot or miss a shot cause you have the sigma.
I think the only thing you will see is a black or white lens.
Even if the canon has a very slight lead(and I mean very small) on the sigma with sharpness at 100% who looks at 100% views anyway.

05Xrunner wrote in post #5820070
if your not going with IS..then I would say get the Sigma Macro II and save some money. There is NOTHING the canon will provide over that sigma that would make you get a better shot or miss a shot cause you have the sigma.
I think the only thing you will see is a black or white lens.
Even if the canon has a very slight lead(and I mean very small) on the sigma with sharpness at 100% who looks at 100% views anyway.

Exactly. I agree. As much as I love "I heard from a friend or a photographer that x is better than y", first-hand experience sometimes has to be that trump card. I would also add that the older non II versions (there are 3, APO, APO DG, and APO DG Macro) are also very good performers (maybe as good), and I would never hesitate to buy any of these prior 3 models which can be find around the $600 mark from forum members.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #5819749
I don't understand? They are both 2.8, and both do quite well. I have had both and I noticed no additional "low light magic" on the Canon over the Sigma. The body has more to do with low light AF when comparing two similar 70-200 f2.8 lenses, than each individual lens, at least in my experiences.

Here is an idea, buy a used sigma 70-200 here or on FM, try it out. If you find you cannot make it work for your application, sell it for the same and buy the Canon. This way you personally can attest to which is the best bang for the buck.

might be true if both used the same drive motor. i find USM to be the fastest focusing of any of the vibromotors, but that only really matters for sports or people moving towards you, but it is camera limited in most cases (1d/1ds, especially mkiii versions will show a difference). for normal stuff, it's non-IS either way so you might as well get the cheaper one and spend the rest on lightroom, so you can correct the lower contrast.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #5819749
I don't understand? They are both 2.8, and both do quite well. I have had both and I noticed no additional "low light magic" on the Canon over the Sigma. The body has more to do with low light AF when comparing two similar 70-200 f2.8 lenses, than each individual lens, at least in my experiences.

Here is an idea, buy a used sigma 70-200 here or on FM, try it out. If you find you cannot make it work for your application, sell it for the same and buy the Canon. This way you personally can attest to which is the best bang for the buck.

i think most would just buy the canon in the first place. it is afterall the best 70-200 lens for canon cameras and there are four versions to choose from .

ed rader

05Xrunner wrote in post #5820070
if your not going with IS..then I would say get the Sigma Macro II and save some money. There is NOTHING the canon will provide over that sigma that would make you get a better shot or miss a shot cause you have the sigma.
I think the only thing you will see is a black or white lens.
Even if the canon has a very slight lead(and I mean very small) on the sigma with sharpness at 100% who looks at 100% views anyway.

besides superior AF speed, how about wide open performance? or IQ with 1.4 TC?

c'mon guys....you know the canon is just a better all around lens !

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #5820722
besides superior AF speed, how about wide open performance? or IQ with 1.4 TC?

c'mon guys....you know the canon is just a better all around lens !

ed rader

If nothing else, it certainly allows me entrance to the super secret Canon L club, that I am absolutely sure of.

Now in the interest of the increasing my ratio of photo_revenue / lens_cost, my decision would be different.

ed rader wrote in post #5820722
besides superior AF speed, how about wide open performance? or IQ with 1.4 TC?

c'mon guys....you know the canon is just a better all around lens !

ed rader

You would recommend a canon over anything even if it sucked. Your not out for trying to get the best bang for the buck. All you care about is if it says canon

05Xrunner wrote in post #5820753
You would recommend a canon over anything even if it sucked. Your not out for trying to get the best bang for the buck. All you care about is if it says canon

if the best costs $1000 and the runner up costs $800 i think the best bang for buck is the $1000 lens.

and canon does make the best 70-200 lens for canon cameras .... .

ed rader