Canon 70-200 f/2.8 or Sigma plus loads of stuff?

dakid

dakid

Messages
561
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, so which of these would you go for...

1x Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM

Total: £929

OR

1x Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG APO Macro Canon fit
1x Hoya 77mm SHMC PRO-1 UV Filter
1x Sigma Microfibre Cloth
1x Sigma 1.4x Converter EX DG APO Canon fit
1x Manfrotto MN681 Professional Monopod Black
1x Manfrotto MN234RC Monopod Tilt Head with Quick Rel
1x Lowepro Slingshot 300 AW

Total: £921.21

The choice seems fairly easy to me, but I was just wanting to make sure that people agreed?
 
Canon.

That sigma lens has awful front and back focusing issues. Would avoid it if I were you.
 
I went through this and ended up going for the Sigma , no focus problems (y)
 
Both great lenses I have used both and am a fan of Sigma lenses, I have a few. But the Canon wins it for me, so thats what I use for the 70-200 end the IS is great.
 
Forget the bits and bats.. the lens is whats important.

A canon lens is better than a sigma lens... thats it..

However I got the sigma 70-200 because i couldnt afford the canon version at the time (couple of yrs ago) I love it and theres no way I would spend the difference to go canon even though I know its a fact canon are better. I am just plain happy with the sigma lens :)
 
I have got the Sigma and 1.4 convertor, other than my shaky hands and lack of knowledge I don't have a problem with it and no lens can cure those things! for my use it compared well with virtually the same pictures taken by someone with the canon 2.8L who was about 5 feet away from me.

Its going to depend on your use and what you have at the moment, if I were looking to add to my kit and did not have a tripod and the other bits then I would go for the sigma, if I had a bagful and wanted to upgrade the lens I would get the Canon but wait a bit longer and save for the IS version!
 
KIPAX said:
A canon lens is better than a sigma lens... thats it..
Click to expand...

All I can say is I preferred my sigma 70-200 to my Canon 70-200 F2.8IS. Never had an issue with focus accuracy or speed. I certainly wouldn't say the canon was "better". Different features and characteristics but not better.

They're both good lenses.
 
dod said:
All I can say is I preferred my sigma 70-200 to my Canon 70-200 F2.8IS. Never had an issue with focus accuracy or speed. I certainly wouldn't say the canon was "better". Different features and characteristics but not better.

They're both good lenses.
Click to expand...

didn't you read the rest of my post ? the fact that i wouldnt change my sigma for a canon one? :(
 
yep, it's the blanket assertion that Canon is better than sigma I disagree with. Sorry if that wasn't clear :)
 
dod said:
yep, it's the blanket assertion that Canon is better than sigma I disagree with. Sorry if that wasn't clear :)
Click to expand...


I repeat what I originally wrote.. sigma is a great lens and I wouldnt swap mine for a canon.. however I do think canon is a better lens.. few would disagree TBH .. but that doesnt mean sigma is bad ...
 
Gah ... came here, hoping to make things simpler and it's now more difficult. Everyone's said that they think the Sigma is worthwhile, apart from the one person whose photography I most want to emulate! Thanks, Pete! :)

Is it worth me going to somewhere like Digitalrev? They do the 70-200 non-IS Canon for £717 including import...
 
dakid said:
Gah ... came here, hoping to make things simpler and it's now more difficult. Everyone's said that they think the Sigma is worthwhile, apart from the one person whose photography I most want to emulate! Thanks, Pete! :)

Is it worth me going to somewhere like Digitalrev? They do the 70-200 non-IS Canon for £717 including import...
Click to expand...

If you are going to pay the extra money to buy the "Brand Name" try Kerso , he gave me a good quote (y)

(Still prefered to save the £200 :D)
 
dakid said:
Gah ... came here, hoping to make things simpler and it's now more difficult. Everyone's said that they think the Sigma is worthwhile, apart from the one person whose photography I most want to emulate! Thanks, Pete! :)
Click to expand...

getting the same kit as pete wont get the same pics.. Pete could get equally as good pics with a different setup.

IMHO :)
 
Yes, that's very bloody true! LOL

I really do want to be physically capable of getting that sharpness though ... I realise that it would take a long time to be able to get the photos, but I'd certainly be happier knowing that it wasn't my equipment holding me back in terms of image quality :)
 
Ok ... have been emailing Kerso, and I shall be putting through a bank transfer this evening when I get home. He'll do the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS and a Hoya UV filter for £1,008 incl. delivery. Too good to refuse, really :)
 
The right decision, IMO. Short of buying a second hand one from someone reliable (I got lucky and was able to do that when I got mine) you'll not get a much better deal than what Kerso can do for you. If there was one thing only that, for me, makes the Canon worthwhile, it's the IS. I don;t rely on it often, but when I do it's a godsend. (y)
 
Got my 70-200 f/2.8 IS from Kerso for a very good price. Lovely bit of kit but I would say look at the Sigma offering too, if you have issues with it they should deal with those under warranty. Might be worth asking for details of how Sigma deal with such issues prior to purchase though.
 
I have the Sigma version (original pre DG and not macro), and I have been quite happy with it. Though I must say that I usually use either a Leica 90 F2 or Canon 135 F2 in this range so I don't actually use the 70-200 very much.

One thing you should remember is that the two lenses will produce different types of images, and the bokeh on the Sigma can be quite harsh in some conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top