buy a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 or Say with what of have

captainjack

captainjack

Messages
495
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
I shoot as a 2nd tog with a wedding photographer, I chatted with him on his advice I brought a canon 70 - 200 F4L lens as I just shoot mostly candid shots
at Weddings and he shots from the back of the church. Where I am up closer to and shoot the side of the bride, but it not going to always be like this, I hope.

I was thinking of getting the Sigma 70 -200 F2.8 and get rid of the canon F4 for the extra stop any advice on this, I thinking on the low light in churches and the Bokeh.

Any advice with picture Quality and would I be correct on thinking the extra stop will be a big help or not, the camera I use them on are a 7d and 50D
 
I have the Siggy 70-200 2.8 (EX HSM II) and its a lovely lens. I should imagine the extra stop would be useful to you for low light shots. I use mine for indoor (well, and outdoor!) sports and its never missed a beat.

IQ is very good indeed.
 
Personally I wouldn't go for a Sigma. If you are going to go for a 70-200 2.8, save up your pennies and go for the Canon L. I have both the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and the Canon Mkii L. There is no comparison IMHO. Of course, maybe my Sigma is a bad example, but once bitten and all that.

Dav
 
FlyTVR said:
Personally I wouldn't go for a Sigma. If you are going to go for a 70-200 2.8, save up your pennies and go for the Canon L. I have both the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and the Canon Mkii L. There is no comparison IMHO. Of course, maybe my Sigma is a bad example, but once bitten and all that.

Dav
Click to expand...

Have you tried micro adjusting?

The Canon MKII IS is better, but its 3 times the price!
 
Thankyou for the advice can you really notice the difference of the image quality using a Sigma to a Canon I thought it would be hard to tell unless you looked really hard or know what your looking for, is it the quality of the colours produced through the lenses and the sharpness of the image, would there be more CA on the sigma to the canon ?.
 
Well I cant see anything wrong with those Images and even the cat at 800 iso
on a 20D looks good.


neil_g said:
if this helps, these were all shot on a sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG MACRO (not the MACRO II):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/neilgates/sets/72157625340171838/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/neilgates/sets/72157606924003544/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/neilgates/sets/72157616047866809/

thats all ive got online at the moment im afraid..

but in my experience (we have 2 of these lenses in our house) theyre really nice lenses. fast AF, sharp through the focal range and really nice bokeh.
Click to expand...
 
Yes I remember and I gave you advice on trying the pen tool in photoshop, at college we (Computers in photography lesson) have to use it at least 20 mins each week to keep our hands in with it, cracking tool, so easy to go round curves.
 
Had the siggy and had a nightmare with it. Very soft wide open back to sigma was adjusted then err99 on my 40d back to sigma got a replacement copy all ok, upgraded to 7d and at full chat every other shot over exposed. Sent to Japan for repair got it back with paperwork saying changed all optics, had fungus on elements! Got that sorted. Finally worked ok. Happy after a year. Sold the lot and switched to NIKON.
 
Christ nightmare then, why make it worse and change to Nikon LOL


pmaccyd said:
Had the siggy and had a nightmare with it. Very soft wide open back to sigma was adjusted then err99 on my 40d back to sigma got a replacement copy all ok, upgraded to 7d and at full chat every other shot over exposed. Sent to Japan for repair got it back with paperwork saying changed all optics, had fungus on elements! Got that sorted. Finally worked ok. Happy after a year. Sold the lot and switched to NIKON.
Click to expand...
 
one of ours was new and one was 2nd hand (from classifieds on here)..

i guess if you listen to those who have had issues with 2nd hand ones you can get example shots from a lens before you buy. on the other hand you could send a new one back for replacement/repair..

swings and roundabouts?
 
Yes very true about new and second I need a Mod to let me into the the for sale section
and I will have alook whats for sale.
 
odd jim said:
Have you tried micro adjusting?

The Canon MKII IS is better, but its 3 times the price!
Click to expand...

Yes fella - I did.

I appreciate that L glass is MUCH more than Sigma, and I went through the same deliberation when I bought the Sigma lens.

For me, I wish i'd just bought Canon in the first place. With the Canon lens I have confidence that I can shoot sharp at 2.8. The sigma lens never gave me this confidence.

I'm not Sigma bashing, and am only speaking from my experience.

Cheers.

Dav
 
Last edited:
I am looking to get this very lens in the coming months for the same job. I have done hours of research from reviews to speaking with people who own one and not a bad word about it, and for the price, well theres no complaints from me :)
 
neil_g said:
:thinking:

huh?
Click to expand...

I didn't get that either? It's probably something to do with elitism...?
 
odd jim said:
I didn't get that either? It's probably something to do with elitism...?
Click to expand...

Dont think I have ever seen daugirdas have a good thing to say about Sigma.

To the OP I love my sigma 70-200 hsm II I really have no complaints with mine, plus it matches up to the 1.4tc really well.
 
I think the telephoto end is what I'll be upgrading next. Currently have the 55-250mm but I'm slightly torn between the Canon f/4 and the Sigma f/2.8.

I think if you manage to source a sharp copy of the Sigma it'll be a nice improvement over the Canon. And some say that the Sigma is slightly sharper than the Canon f/2.8 at the long end?
 
Razor-BladE said:
I think the telephoto end is what I'll be upgrading next. Currently have the 55-250mm but I'm slightly torn between the Canon f/4 and the Sigma f/2.8.

I think if you manage to source a sharp copy of the Sigma it'll be a nice improvement over the Canon. And some say that the Sigma is slightly sharper than the Canon f/2.8 at the long end?
Click to expand...

Personally I would go for the Canon f4. Funny enough though the guy at sigma said their lenses work better with Nikon bodies. Wish I asked why....
 
pmaccyd said:
Personally I would go for the Canon f4. Funny enough though the guy at sigma said their lenses work better with Nikon bodies. Wish I asked why....
Click to expand...

Why? The sigma 2.8 is sharper than a sharp thing with better low light capabilities.

I would have liked to know why he thinks they work better with Nikon too, mine is certainly nigh on perfect on my canon!
 
pmaccyd said:
Personally I would go for the Canon f4. Funny enough though the guy at sigma said their lenses work better with Nikon bodies. Wish I asked why....
Click to expand...

Why on earth would a representative of a company effectively slate a large proportion of their kit? Unless he was referring to much older lenses that need to be rechipped.

Either way 5 out of 5 fully working Canon fit sigmas over here.
 
We've got the siggy 70-200 and the canon 70-200 lenses in the bag, the canon is a potential sale item because the siggy is equally quick and sharp and 1/2 the weight.
 
neil_g said:
Why on earth would a representative of a company effectively slate a large proportion of their kit? Unless he was referring to much older lenses that need to be rechipped.

Either way 5 out of 5 fully working Canon fit sigmas over here.
Click to expand...

I put a quite a bit of thought into it myself. I had been there quite a few times (only 20 mins from me) and was chatting to the guy about moving to nikon, maybe it was that. I know people at my local camera club who are pleased with their siggy 70-200 (on Canon). If you read my previous post, I did have a bit of a nightmare with mine, It just seems that you have less issues overall with Canon lenses.
 
The thing is, if I go for the Canon, I can see myself using it and thinking.. I wish I had faster glass.

Canon users seem to be perfectly happy with the IQ, compared to the Canon f/4 and as such, true or not, that statement doesn't justify not buying it over the Canon f/4.
 
I have a sigma mk2 (sony mount) which i've used on the odd friend's wedding, very content with the image quality the, bokeh is very nice and (unlike many of my other lenses) it doesn't hunt in low light.


DSC05884 by godsakes, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top