70-200 Sigma or Canon?

john t

john t

Messages
128
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi
I hear a lot about the Canon 70-200 f2.8 but is it much better than the Sigma.
What's your opinion?
 
I had this dilemma recently, and in the end I went for the Tamron 70-200 VC. I tested it alongside the sigma and it was faster to focus and sharper, even wide open, it is good. In fact if you check out the reviews, it is every bit as good as the Canon L IS ii apart from at 200mm, where the canon is marginally better.
 
I have tested the canon 70-200is and the sigma 70-200is both are very good i think the canon is the better lens though. in the end i went for 70-200is f4, although i loose a stop for me it was lighter and easier to use and to that fact it has gone round the world with me
 
had two sigmas (first of the "macro" versions) and were absolutely great.

by the way this is a very common subject, if you have a search there are a tonne of example shots from the sigma camp.
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
I had this dilemma recently, and in the end I went for the Tamron 70-200 VC. I tested it alongside the sigma and it was faster to focus and sharper, even wide open, it is good. In fact if you check out the reviews, it is every bit as good as the Canon L IS ii apart from at 200mm, where the canon is marginally better.
Click to expand...

As Chris said the Tamron is certainly a contender in this market segment!

The canon mkii is the daddy but I'm not sure it's worth the money! If you can afford it or you can't afford a compromise then go for it but personally my money would go on the Sigma or Tamron with the new Tamron VC probably leading the way
 
Here we go ..lots of people telling you how great the sigma or the tamron is... and I wont argue any of that.. had a siggy 70-200 for years was great...

But to answer your question rather than tell you how great a lens is.... The canon is better.. no if/but/maybe

The problem you ahve when asking this is the experience people answering have.. if your shootng flowers on a nice sunny day your probaly not going to see enough differene to warrant the price... but if your shooting in poor light.. indooors wiht no flash or somehting like that.. the canon beats the others hands down.. I suppose I better add... IMHO .. But really.. its not :)
 
neil_g said:
yeah because we never used our sigmas professionally in low light..
Click to expand...

like I say.. I did for years.. great lens... did you miss that bit on purpose ?




ADDYONBIT
In fact dont bother.. i made a long post.. i started by saying the sigma is great and used one for years.. then i went on to offer my comparison which i truly believe.. daytim pretty equal.. low light canon is better.. i didnt say sigma was unusable or anything...


hopefully others will see what I wrote and not just be looking for an attack point :(
 
Last edited:
You'll struggle to find anyone who owns the canon is ii version who has any complaints - its universally accepted as a lens of the highest quality.

However, there are several versions of each manufacturers 70-200 f2.8, and it may be that a tamron or sigma stabilised version may be better for your needs than a non-is canon. What is your budget and intended use?
 
I dont think anyone is disputing how good teh Canon is. The OP is asking for opinions as to whether it is worth spending the extra £1000 on the Canon, when for the same money he could buy BOTH the Sigma and the Tamron. We are simply adding our opinions. Having been in the same predicament recently, I know where he's coming from.

but if your shooting in poor light.. indooors wiht no flash or somehting like that.. the canon beats the others hands down..
Click to expand...
Really, not what the video says, and having used the Tamron at an evening reception. I would tend to agree.
 
The digital picture sharpness comparison shows the Tamron marginally better than the IS and marginally worse than the IS2.

The sigma OS falls behind them all.

I don't think there's a huge difference between them all though to be honest, I'd probably pay an extra £300 for the IS2 optics over the OS but I don't think there's enough of a difference to justify spending loads more...
 
Phil Young said:
The digital picture sharpness comparison shows the Tamron marginally better than the IS and marginally worse than the IS2.

The sigma OS falls behind them all.
Click to expand...

When I got the Sigma the Tamron wasn't available so given the choice now I couldn't say which I would choose.
I do know for certain though that the Sigma works with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters which is a big plus point for me.

These are quite heavy crops.

With a 1.4x



With a 2x

 
Owned the Sigma 70-200 OS and it was a superb lens. Now own the VR2, not a whole lot in it but its built better and has a higher "keeper" rate
 
Guys
It's been interesting reading all your comments and I appreciate your opinions. I'm so much on a budget and will wait a bit longer to pay for a Canon. However, if I can get equally good, sharp pictures with a Tamron, I'm happy to go in that direction.
I find that I lean between portrait, landscape and cityscape photography.
 
In that case get yourself the Tamron. The only lens better than it would be the IS2 and unless you can spend an extra £800 without thinking about it too much or you really want the white lens with a red ring, you may well find yourself regretting the spend.

Even if I had the money to go spending on nikons equivalent, no way hosay! That extra could get me a really good ultra wide and an 85/1.8

Tamron have done really well with their 70-200. Sigma also but it doesn't quite rival the big boys as much. I'm very impressed.
 
Given your intended subject and the fact you're on a budget, I'd seriously consider getting the Tamron. The canon may be a little better but the Tamron is no slouch and should give you what you want at a lower price
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
I had this dilemma recently, and in the end I went for the Tamron 70-200 VC. I tested it alongside the sigma and it was faster to focus and sharper, even wide open, it is good. In fact if you check out the reviews, it is every bit as good as the Canon L IS ii apart from at 200mm, where the canon is marginally better.
Click to expand...

I take it that was the mk 2 Tamron? The mk 1 is light years behind the Siggy AF wise.

EDIT - ignore me, I see its the VC (mk2!).
 
Last edited:
I've seen sharp Sigmas, and I've seen soft Canon's, conversely I've seen soft Canons and sharp Sigmas. Both are subject to stringent QC control measures, both have a tolerance. Whose to say that my opinion of the Canon is better isn't based on me getting a great Canon and a Friday afternoon Sigma? If anything the Canon is focuses faster and works with my 7D better - I can make use of a lot more of the microadjustment feature. But ultimately, you pays your money and gets what you pay for. Final word would be look how many Sigma owners are looking to part exchange for a Canon ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top