Canon 70-200 f2.8 L vs Sigma 70-200 f2.8

Gary.D

Gary.D

Hoodie
Messages
2,499
Name
Gary Derbridge
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey Guys, I need your opinion.
I am looking for a longer low light lens to use at a wedding and at the moment I am torn between the canon L and the sigma of the 70-200 f2.8.

I have found the sigma for £500 brand new.

I have found the canon for around £770 brand new.

Has anyone got any views if the canon is worth the extra £270, or would you say it is not.

I know often people say buy the best you can afford but im wondering if its really worth that much more for the L lens

On the other hand, is there any other low light zoom lens that you would recomend.

Thanks
Gary :)
 
Its teat time give them time to answer. Free bump by the way. If you can afford it go Canon.
 
Both excellent but Canon holds value better and guarantees compatibility with future bodies. Much prefer Canon's finish,

Phil
 
I've got the Canon f4 and the Sigma f2.8 and although I have heard complaints about some Sigma's being soft (make sure you buy one with a warranty) I can have absolultey no complaints about mine.

I have shot with the Canon f2.8 IS head to head against my Sigma and at any size of print you are ever likely to make you would be very hard pressed to tell the difference.

I really do rate the Sigma and it's weddings I use it for. The extra weight of the 2.8IS really puts me off. A 12 hour day is gruelling enough without carrying that beast around! Last week I shot from the back of the venue as I was shooting second for a friend and I simply popped the Sigma on the monopod and went to work. :)

I use the Canon f4 for taking pics of the dogs at home :)
 
Canon all the way!

Where can you get the 2.8 for £770 brand new ?

Cheers,
 
A few years back I went through this, I ended up getting a Sigma 24-70 AND 70-200 for less than the Canon.


Never had any complaints with the results (so far) ..........


:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top