70-200mm help please!

R

robbytherobot

Messages
209
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I've just started shooting sports for the college paper, and having a pretty good time (i LOVE seeing my photos in print!) :D however, i haven't got a telephoto lens, and i've been using my friend's 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.

clearly, if that lens wasn't so amazingly expensive, i'd just buy that, but well as one might think life's decisions are never so simple. especially when it comes to camera gear!!

So, I believe before the next term rolls around (october-ish), I will have saved about £400. The question is, should I go for a 70-200mm f/4L, or a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8?

I am more inclined towards the L route, for a few reasons: its weight means I can use it when I travel as well; it's an L lens; it holds value well; its an L lens; i'm more likely to get a good copy; and hey, have I mentioned its an L lens? :thinking:

the only thing is, while I don't see myself shooting in super low light conditions, I've only been shooting sports in summer. So, I don't know if the extra stop of light is going to come in a lot more useful when I start shooting when winter comes around and light gets... lesser. I've shot in the three weeks hockey, rounders, rowing, frisbee and varsity polo. So its really any and all college type sports! also, I'm not sure if there's an appreciable difference in DOF, as i would like to better be able to isolate subjects, especially since players play very close to each other in some of these sports!

well, what do you think? and if your vote goes with the sigma, is it true that the macro version is not as good as the previous one? also, is the AF speed as fast as the L lens?

(i'm also worried that after shooting with the 2.8 IS, everything is just going to suck in comparison :shake: well fine. i think that’s a given. lol.)

thanks for all the responses in advance. cheers! :D
 
Don't be a brand whore or an L whore.

Certain Sigma lenses, such as the 70-200 2.8, hold their value aswell as L lenses do - similarly not all Canon lenses retain their value.

If you buy the Sigma from a store, rather than online, you can try several lenses and take it back if you're not happy or send it to Sigma to get it callibrated to your camera to ensure it is 100% accurate

Personally I think you'll need the extra stop for low light conditions and so would need to the Sigma or to find some more cash from somewhere else
 
For the sort of stuff you are planning to shoot, I think you should go for the fastest lens you can get you hands on. I've been shooting gigs, golf and water skiing and a few other sporting events and the like and had been using a 28 - 135 3.5 - 5.6. and a Canon 70 - 300 5.6 (I think it was). I thought I was doing quite quite well until I bought a Canon 70 - 200 2.8L (non IS). It has transformed my results and the enjoyment of photography.

There are loads of reasons to go down the L route. For example, I don't need to worry too much if it rains or if I get a soaking in a boat. The speed and accuracy of focus is amazing, the quality of image is as good as it gets and as you say, it's a L series lens!

But I think the biggest difference is the speed of the lens. In sport, the difference between f4 and f2.8 is massive. With 2.8, you will get a much better chance of getting your picture and in the type of work you are looking at, that is the difference between success and recognition and the dissapointment of 'the one that got away'.

so....

go for the f2.8.
 
I shoot for my uni magazine sometimes, and would, and did, go for the sigma, and I'm really pleased with it.

If you buy it second hand, just make sure to ask for some pictures taken wide open so you can check it's a sharp copy... mine is, and I'm really happy with it... it handles sports, gigs, portraits, news, anything, brilliantly...
 
I tried my friends Sigma. At 70mm it is amazing, probably too sharp. Unfortuantely, by 200mm the results were pretty soft and the contrast was low. If you pixel peep then Sigma might not be the best option.
F/4 is great at 200mm, but at 70mm and 100mm it looks pretty average. Also f/2.8 will save you buying 135mm f/2L and 85mm f/1.8 unless you prefer several lighter lenses instead of a single monster.
 
Thank you very much for all the comments. Very compelling arguments which I feel very persuaded by... but!

1) Will I really need the extra stop of light, as I foresee myself shooting (probably exclusively, since its weight will preclude me travelling with it) outdoor sports?

2) BadgerUK: would you mind explaining how the difference between 2.8 and 4 is massive in sports? like I said, i've really only just started so appreciate what help is possible!

3) itsdavedotnet: awesome... which version of the sigma do you have? am i right to say that there is a non-macro version, then two versions of the macro? I've heard that the macro version is not as good, but i'm not sure? :shrug:

I think you guys are right. At any rate though, it'll be a couple more months till I can afford it, so i'll be doing a lot more research. thanks all for your help :)
 
I love my Sigma 70-200 2.8, best lens I ever bought. Yes it's sharper at the 70mm end but I just move around more so that I don't have to use the 200mm end too much. That said it still produces perfectly good photos at the 200mm end after a bit of photoshopping. I use it for horses and rugby usually and it's the best piece of kit I ever bought, it's produced some stunning photographs. I got mine from a pro and paid £300 for it, it was in excellent condition :)
 
just a thought, could you hire a sigma and see how you get on with it, then you can decide for yourself if the extra stop would be useful?
 
i use my sigma max'd out at 200 a lot.. soft? nope.

re the person saying the canon is okay to get a soaking, thats nice as long as the body is weather sealed also. if not if counts for toffee.
 
I've got the Sigma 70-200 2.8 non macro version and I'm extremely happy with it. I find it sharp through most of the range (okay a bit soft at 200 if you look for it). It focuses really quickly and I wouldn't swap it for anything. I take photographs of my son playing footie and the extra stop come in handy when it's overcast.
 
another vote for the sigma , if you can find a non macro version go for that one
 
thank you everyone! looks like the 2.8 is a clear choice, i take the comment about overcast days as well. guess that happens a lot, huh?

then specifically about this sigma lens, i can't seem to find much info about the different versions! am i right that there is a non-macro version, then there is a macro mark I and mark II? wack, why is the non-macro one better? is the difference/discrepancy significant? I guess I will wait around for the best deal, but what are the problems with the macro version, if any? and if the macro version is just as fine, then what is the difference between the mark I and II?

sorry for the nooby questions and thanks all for help :D
 
if i remember rightly the only difference between the non macro and the gen 1 is they increased the amount of elements inside the lens and the "macro" has a closer minimum focusing distance (i.e. - you can get closer to the subject). im not sure on the chances between the macro 1 and 2.
 
focus tends to be quicker on non macro lenses but I know nothing about this particular lens

I'd take the sigma for the f2.8 unless weight is an issue, if you want to be using f2.8 a lot (I LOVE it) then its defo worth the weight and quality sacrifice (70-200 f4 is sharper than a sharp thing and I'm not being an L whore here)

Something else to consider are the canon 80-200 f2.8Ls they come up occasionally on here (where I got mine) and are great, built like a brick privvy but dammed heavy.
 
I'd go for the L lens. From my personal experience, Canon's lens (expecially L lens) have more hit rate/keepers than Sigma or Tamron. I used to own Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and it is a very sharp lens. It gave me quite a lot of sharp images but also quite a number of miss-focused images as well.

IMHO, there is no point having a sharp lens when you miss the focus. Of course, focus accuracy depends on the lens and the camera being used but you are using Canon camera and Canon should know best about their AF system.

Just MHO based on my personal experience :)
 
robbytherobot said:
thank you everyone! looks like the 2.8 is a clear choice, i take the comment about overcast days as well. guess that happens a lot, huh?

then specifically about this sigma lens, i can't seem to find much info about the different versions! am i right that there is a non-macro version, then there is a macro mark I and mark II? wack, why is the non-macro one better? is the difference/discrepancy significant? I guess I will wait around for the best deal, but what are the problems with the macro version, if any? and if the macro version is just as fine, then what is the difference between the mark I and II?

sorry for the nooby questions and thanks all for help :D
Click to expand...


I have a sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG APO (non macro) for sale,am after a decent wide angle .. up to yourself:shrug:
 
Cool. Thanks david, the weight IS indeed one thing that concerns me, as I do think I might use the f/4 more than just for sports if I can bring it around easier. I take yours, and packhams point about quality as well. I think its undeniable that Canon L will always be more than third party lenses on a canon body, but perhaps the right question to ask is whether it is worth the 2x prices, huh?

I *might* have something that *might* interest you mxfun. will send you a PM pronto.
 
robbytherobot said:
Cool. Thanks david, the weight IS indeed one thing that concerns me, as I do think I might use the f/4 more than just for sports if I can bring it around easier. I take yours, and packhams point about quality as well. I think its undeniable that Canon L will always be more than third party lenses on a canon body, but perhaps the right question to ask is whether it is worth the 2x prices, huh?
Click to expand...

I have used my Sigma for 10 hours at a time without breaks... by the time you're out shooting I hardly notice the weight. I find it bulky rather than heavy, but the quality of the pics make up for that :clap:
 
the sigma 70-200 doesnt feel too heavy in the hand, and i use mines all day without any problems. it balances out with the A700 and grip.(y)
 
Can I ask a daft question... as im swithering between the f4 and the f2.8 also...

I shoot with a ff 5d mk1... to gain that extra shutter speed would it not be a cheaper alternative to switch ISO from say 400 to 800 to gain the extra stop of light... What I mean is would the increase in noise actually be that noticable... that its better to spend the extra £500 aprox to upgrade from the f4 to the f2.8.... either IS or non IS.... also for practicle reasons I just think the f4 would suit me better mainly weight wise...

M
 
the thing with bumping up the ISO, is noise..... but certain cameras handle it well enough. IMO, buy the fastest and best glass you can and keep the ISO as low as possible, it makes a difference! i have learned that since buying the sigma 2.8, i thought i was fine with my sony 75-300, but just so much of a difference!:D
 
actually, the extra stop also does wonders for bokeh so theres that too i think.

anyway, the 70-200mm is about 1.3kg if i'm not wrong. I've carried the 70-200mm 2.8 IS for a whole day, and that’s 1.5kg or slightly more, and while i had no problems during the day, the next day was spent groaning in bed. :LOL: that’s why i think i wont bring about the 2.8 as much as the 4.

ah dilemmas dilemmas. have still got some time though, so keep it coming!! :D if anyone has used both the macro and non-macro versions, is the AF slower on the macro one? or is it so fast already (i hope!) that such a slight difference doesn't matter? :)
 
i have the macro hsm II version, the AF was slightly slower on my a200 than the a700, but check out my website www.paspixx.com, all the pictures are taking with the 70-200!:D
 
neil_g said:
what happens if youre already at ISO800..

(im going to ignore those saying go to ISO1600 lol)
Click to expand...

I am assuming that most would be on 400... and I was not really suggesting an 800-1600 move either....

But seriously... as a light user of telephoto anyway.... but who likes it when I want it... then would buying the f4 do me fine and if I really did move from 400 to 800.... would I really notice it much...

M
 
if your shooting mainly sports then when winter rolls round your going to be struggling with f2.8 let alone f4

go sigma its a good cheep lens, just keep it out of the rain
 
Also, as its a f2.8 there is more light available for the autofocus
 
Can someone confirm... IF I bought the f4 IS version what would be my min apature with the 1.4x converter....

I hear the f4 with a x2 converter does not really work properly? Is this true? Do you loose autofocus? And what is the min apature?

Im thinking if I really want to cover the 100-400 lens i'd just be better getting the 100-400 but it is a monster... and most of the time the 70-200 would be ok! It would just be the very odd ocassion
 
The aperture would be f5.6 on the F4 using a 1.4 tc
 
markelliot said:
Im thinking if I really want to cover the 100-400 lens i'd just be better getting the 100-400 but it is a monster... and most of the time the 70-200 would be ok! It would just be the very odd ocassion
Click to expand...

The 100-400 weighs the same as the 70-200 f2.8, to my mind they are both big lumps. That was the reasoning behind getting the f4, it would be carried much more of the time, the 100-400 mainly goes out for special trips or when a porter is available.

As I understand it only the professional canon bodies can a/f below f5.6, so that is the limitation on using extenders. (I'm assuming that the 1.4 will work on the f4 but I'm sure somebody can confirm)
 
trapper501 said:
The 100-400 weighs the same as the 70-200 f2.8, to my mind they are both big lumps. That was the reasoning behind getting the f4, it would be carried much more of the time, the 100-400 mainly goes out for special trips or when a porter is available.

As I understand it only the professional canon bodies can a/f below f5.6, so that is the limitation on using extenders. (I'm assuming that the 1.4 will work on the f4 but I'm sure somebody can confirm)
Click to expand...

So is a 5d mk1 classed as a professional canon body... and would the f4 is version work with a x2 converter... If so am I right in thinking min apature would be f8?
 
AFAIK, f/4 with x2 converter will only autofocus on 1D/1Ds series only and has to use the center focus point. The AF system on 1D series is a different class to the rest, even 5D series. That's why they are so expensive :wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top