why not buy sigma 70-200 F2.8

ok, I'm starting to be a believer...shot these tonight at around 5:00

#1 1/250 Av 7.1 ISO 400 70-200@200

#2 1/1000 Av3.5 ISO 400 70-200@ 200 same focus..not as sharp

#3 1/250 Av 5.6 ISO 400 70-200@159 grandson, Myles, untouched w/pp

these photos are shown for display of settings and not necessarly for artisticviews...but have you way with them!

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I was only allowed the 1st 2 photos on the upload...here is #3, Myles

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

PEACHMAN wrote:
...I didn't see anyone from the Canon side saying why they would not buy the Sigma...

Some of that is because when someone "from the Canon side" tell it like it is they subject themselfs to petty criticis who attack the writer and not the facts. I'd be surprised if one (or more) dosen't respond to my reply. But, I will answer your question as you have asked and leave it at that.

1-I have always wondered why Sigma's focusing and zooming rings rotate in reverse direction of Canon's if they are "Canon compatable"?

2-I may be wrong, but, I don't think the Sigma has full time manual focusing over ride.

3-The Sigma may not work with new cameras yet to be introduced.

4-Some Sigma lenses are "multi-step" to switch from auto to manual focusing and back.

5-The optics and end result of the Canon is almost always superior.

6-Canon's AF system is the best, period.

7-Canon boxes are better looking.

Now, watch the personal attacks come. If only I was a betting man.

Hey, stand up to those critics and say what you believe !! It's only words and we're all here for the exchange! I'll tell you right now I don't do much backing down when I believe I'm right ( especially if there are miles of cable between me and my sparing partner) and if someone proves me wrong then great..I've learned something new...and that , my friend, is my conception of what this place is all about...Thanks for the response and I think you are probably right...however I have already bought the Sigma so now I really gotta suck it up if I'm wrong in my choice...I did save a little cash right now and that does mean something to me....If I was flush then there would not have been a choice...Canon has never let me down...But my son has been a sigme camera man for 10+ years and he has never been let down either...who knows? Actually, I think I'd reather be saving my extra cash fot a new body, such as say...the 20D !!

No personal attacks, just a question;

What car(s) do you drive?

Yep. i'll respond to your post, that's the whole point of the forum, no personal attacks from me unless you really want it ?

I have a foot in both camps, with both Canon and Sigma lenses so i have no axe to grind either way....

1 - The rotation of the rings is pretty much irrelevant to comaptibility. They zoom, they focus, they take pictures, ergo they are compatible.

2 - You are totally wrong. The 70-200 EX Does indeed have full time manual override.

3 - Conjecture. It may or may not work but the 70-200 EX DG can be flashed with new firmware to overcome this. Equally, Canon might change lens mounts and cause all of us some headaches. Also, what about the numerous error 99 issues with the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS?

4 - I have no idea what you mean by multi step, but my Sigmas are the same as my Canons, a simple switch for manual / autofocus.

5 - Superior optics?...In most cases probably, but the 70-200f2.8, 100-300f4, 120-300f2.8 and the Bigma can match anything Canon has to offer. For the premium price you pay for a Canon L, you damn well better get something special.

6 - See answer 5. In the case of Sigma's best lenses, the difference in focus speed is close enough to be irrelevant for most people. Even my "cheap" 135-400 can track the new RAF Typhoon at a display.

7 - Boxes? Oh come on it's a lump of cardboard that will fall apart eventually anyway. If you want to make that sort of comparison then the Sigma 70-200 EX comes with a vastly superior carry case to the Canon 100-400L (i have both). Does that matter to me? Nope, the lenses go in my backpack and the cases go in the cupboard....with the boxes

Is that polite enough for you?

as a neutral arbitrator , I find your response most gentlemanly like..........score one for geoff !

I like the first two. The 2nd one is sharp, but just has less depth of field, so less is going to be sharp. But that's how that's the cool thing about being able to shoot very wide open with a constant 2.8 lens(even though you were at 3.5).

I'll go with GSH Given the price difference, the fact that most EXs are pretty damn good and some are better than L's shows that Sigma know how to make a good lens. Whether you prefer Sigma or Canon its up to you.

Thanks for getting back Grego...These were all just the first things I could find outside to see what the lens would do...my grandson was not going to be helpful in this endevor so I just got a shot of him sitting still and ignoring me so I could see what DoF would be in that light and circumstance...I was encouraged by the detail and DoF and light for that time of day...and the flowers were on thier way out for the season...had to crop out some dying petals...

EOSAddict wrote:
I'll go with GSH Given the price difference, the fact that most EXs are pretty damn good and some are better than L's shows that Sigma know how to make a good lens. Whether you prefer Sigma or Canon its up to you.

score 2-zip

Actually not true. The XT has full time AV/TV/M/P with AI Servo in all. I have never used the other zones (Sports, whatever, etc.). Never

Absolutly correct..I just checked mine...I don't think I ever saw that in the manual...but it's working on my camera! !! Thanks for the tip!!

Hey Peachman, photos looking good there. This lens is my best hope of getting portraits of my 16-year old who ducks or covers his face whenever he sees me point the camera. Length = Stealth.

I own the sigma and am happy with it, but I'll take a stab at defending a decision to purchase the canon instead. First, I don't think any of GSH's reasons sway me. Most are just wrong and apply only to sigma's cheaper lenses, not to this one. I did try the 70-200 f2.8 L on my camera at the same time as I tried the sigma. It does focus a tad faster, but the difference is exceedingly small. I shoot sports and the sigma focus has never ever been the factor in my missing a shot. The sigma f2.8 focusses faster than the canon f4 (my experience on a 20D), and you don't see people criticizing that lens. As for optics, direct comparison posts show them neck and neck. Some show the sigma sharper at the short end, and the canon sharper at the long end, but the differences at either end are miniscule. The sigma zooms the same was as nikon, pentax, and other lenses. the canon is backwards. I get used to whatever lens I have on. so what.

Here are the two reasons I'd consider paying more for the canon non-IS (though they didn't sway me in the end...) first, the canon is weather-sealed and someday I might buy a 1-series body. Second, if there was a focus adjustment problem (not that I had one...) I could send camera and lens both to canon and they couldn't avoid responsibility. Both are hypothetical for me and didn't add up to over $500 difference in value. not even close.

Err now i'm confused. You post that then go on to agree that the difference between the Top Sigma's and Canon's is not that much in reality....

I was posting "in defence" (so to speak) of the Sigma EX's (70-200 2.8 in particular, which i own).

I'm fairly confident any info i have posted about the lens is reasonably accurate, unless i've been extremely drunk since i bought it 2 months ago.