Canon 70-200 F4 L 'V' Sigma 70-200 f2.8

locostbob

locostbob

Messages
1,071
Edit My Images
Yes
hey up...

trying to decide between these lens Canon 70-200 F4 L [non IS as too expensive!] 'V' Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX APO DG Macro HSM

just wodering if any body has experiance of both and which would be the better option...both seam around the same price range...going onto a 40d

any opinions on the image quality, the f2.8 would be an advantage over the f4 for me but which will produce the better image?! :thinking:

many thanks

bob :)
 
Unless you want it to be lightweight, the Sigma every time.

a) Corners won't be seen on a 40D so the L, which will probably be better in the corners, won't be missed there.

b) Neither have IS, but the 2.8 is twice as fast.

The 2.8 might look a bit daft on a 40D though.

if you want the lightweight package and don't tend to shoot moving objects, save a little longer and get the f/4L IS - it's even better optically than the non IS, and the IS will give you four stops advantage in low light.
 
trencheel303 said:
Unless you want it to be lightweight, the Sigma every time.

a) Corners won't be seen on a 40D so the L, which will probably be better in the corners, won't be missed there.

b) Neither have IS, but the 2.8 is twice as fast.

The 2.8 might look a bit daft on a 40D though.

if you want the lightweight package and don't tend to shoot moving objects, save a little longer and get the f/4L IS - it's even better optically than the non IS, and the IS will give you four stops advantage in low light.
Click to expand...

it will be for things that move [mountain bikes, motorsport, action... etc ] is the canon a little slow focusing then? or is the sigma just nice and fast focusing?? looking at the HSM and not the HSM II lens...

cheers

bob :)
 
trencheel303 said:
Unless you want it to be lightweight, the Sigma every time.

a) Corners won't be seen on a 40D so the L, which will probably be better in the corners, won't be missed there.

b) Neither have IS, but the 2.8 is twice as fast.

The 2.8 might look a bit daft on a 40D though.

if you want the lightweight package and don't tend to shoot moving objects, save a little longer and get the f/4L IS - it's even better optically than the non IS, and the IS will give you four stops advantage in low light.
Click to expand...

Why would the 2.8 look daft on a 40D?
 
locostbob said:
it will be for things that move [mountain bikes, motorsport, action... etc ] is the canon a little slow focusing then? or is the sigma just nice and fast focusing?? looking at the HSM and not the HSM II lens...

cheers

bob :)
Click to expand...

Personally, as a totally impartial advisor, I'd say the Sigma ;) :lol:

Seriously though, it totally depends whether you need f/2.8 or not. The 70-200 f/4 variants are considered to be the sharpest zooms Canon make, but there's no point in them being super-sharp if you get motion blur as you're in a dingy wood and you can't get the shutter speed up.

The 70-200 f/4 I'd imagine focusses faster, but the post that you're quoting refers to the speed of the lens not the speed of the autofocus (i.e. f/2.8 is 'faster' than f/4, faster=bigger aperture).

I guess it depends really on how dark the places are shooting are. If you're doing moving stuff in a dingy forest in England, then your requirements will be different to being on the side of a French mountain in the middle of summer :)

Chris
 
Last edited:
By fast he means f numbers e.g. f4 vs f2.8

Ive just got an original siggy 2.8 non dg and so far its been spot on, i think the canon versions especially the IS ones are vastly better but are a lot more expensive.
 
cheers for your thoughts guys really apperciate it :)

i moved over from olympus to canon for a better range of lens.... now i seam to have too many to choose from and dont know where to turn! :0

more research and thinking....

cheers

bob :)
 
daugirdas said:
Canon every time. More contrast, more resolving power, much sharper at 200mm and very fast USM while being very light. It holds value much better too.
Click to expand...

:plusone:

The f4 non IS is very sharp and very light.

Steve
 
I have the Canon F4 non IS. It's so sharp you could cut yourself on it... Ms Arad85 had it on her 450D as a walkabout lens for most of Sunday afternoon (shooting deer) and didn't complain about weight once.

Here's one I took with it on my 5Dm2


IMG_5228.jpg by arad85, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I've owned both and would go for the Canon everytime. Quicker AF and better IQ
 
Sigma. You'll need 2.8 in gloomy woods for mountain bikes.

The sigma macro in my experience (we have 2) is very fast af for sport and Sharp all the way through. no brainer. Not really heavy either.
 
locostbob said:
it will be for things that move [mountain bikes, motorsport, action... etc ] is the canon a little slow focusing then? or is the sigma just nice and fast focusing?? looking at the HSM and not the HSM II lens...

cheers

bob :)
Click to expand...

F/2.8 being a whole stop faster than f/4 means that the lens is getting twice as much light, enabling you to have double the shutter speed at f/2.8 that you would have at f/4. When you are pushing every other setting to the max that extra stop can count for a lot.

Obviously there are always going to be people who tout the OEM equipment but for action shots I wouldn't reccommend an f/4 lens, unless you are always going to be shooting in daylight, preferably under sun. It just doesn't happen.

Don't get hung up on brand names. A tool for the job is a tool for the job.
 
The theory of shooting at f2.8 only works if the lens is sharp at f2.8. My experience of a number of f2.8 sigma lenses is that simply wasn't the case.
My Canon f4 was sharp at f4 so I'd still go for the f4 lens and bump the iso. I'd rather sort a noisy image than a soft one
 
I had the Siggie and traded it for the Canon.

The main reason was the weight of the Siggie.

I have found the Canon to be much better suited to my needs ~ faster focussing, sharper and sooooo much lighter.

So far, I haven't missed the F2.8. I can just shove the ISO up on the 7D.
 
not to worried about branding... as you say the right tool for the job :) i have a sigma lens which i prefer to my canon! :0

to throw another lens into the mix, an older canon 70-200 f2.8 [non IS] could be in budget with some saving, how does that compair to the canon f4? some say the f4 is better and sharper?!

many thanks

bob :)
 
the thing is with these people saying F4 is sharper, is this not just the DOF and misfocus making it seem that way?

couple example shots of the sigma for reference.. http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=260909 (they should have exif, but i think theyre all f2.8 shots)

people are saying the canon f4 is faster focusing, that may or may not be the case but the sigma IS NOT slow. it can certainly cope with motorsport, which i think youll agree is pretty fast action.
 
Last edited:
ive had mine (like i say, 1st generation "macro") for over 4 years now and it hasnt failed me on my old 300D then 20D and now the 1D. its just come back from a service at sigma (after 4 years i thought it probably should, moving parts and all that..).

if its 2nd hand, get test shots before hand to check for any issues. if its new then youve always got warranty to fall back on and like i say sigma service is red hot (search threads started by me with "sigma" in the content and youll get a few praise threads).
 
great shots Neil but there's something mega funky going on with the bokeh. What's with all them lines? :thinking:
 
You on the left? The lens looks shorter than I anticipated.

(And I don't mean the guy with the unhooded 24-70 :p)
 
neil_g said:
the thing is with these people saying F4 is sharper, is this not just the DOF and misfocus making it seem that way?
Click to expand...

I guess this would play a part if you were comparing f2.8 shots against f4 shots - when I had both I tested them at a range of apertures and the Canon was sharper throughout. I have no idea if there was a focus issue with my Sigma, but for me if a lens doesn't perform out of the box then I'm not going to muck about getting it calibrated to see if it's any better.
 
trencheel303 said:
You on the left? The lens looks shorter than I anticipated.

(And I don't mean the guy with the unhooded 24-70 :p)
Click to expand...

green t-shirt :) that is un-hooded if that makes any difference.. but yes in comparison to my 120-300 its about 2/3 the length..

scuse the cack photo but a better idea of lenghs - http://www.flickr.com/photos/neilgates/3681638693/in/set-72157620865614964/

I guess this would play a part if you were comparing f2.8 shots against f4 shots - when I had both I tested them at a range of apertures and the Canon was sharper throughout. I have no idea if there was a focus issue with my Sigma, but for me if a lens doesn't perform out of the box then I'm not going to muck about getting it calibrated to see if it's any better.
Click to expand...

fair enough.. out of interest if the canon was a duffer out of the box would you have switched to another lens too?
 
Last edited:
I had an older Sigma 70-210mm F2.8 which was fine for a while but I soon realised that it was not as sharp as I wanted it to be. I was faced with the choice of a newer Sigma or a Canon 70-200mm. Eventually I went for a used Canon F2.8 L because I wanted low light capability for sports and I knew in my heart of hearts that if I got the Sigma, I would still be hankering after the Canon.
 
neil_g said:
fair enough.. out of interest if the canon was a duffer out of the box would you have switched to another lens too?
Click to expand...

Absolutely - if the Canon hadn't been an improvement I would have returned it and kept the Sigma. So far I have only had one Canon lens that performed below my expectations (a 100 f2.8 macro) which I quickly got rid of, I use teh Sigma 105 instead.
 
I traded my 70-200 f/4L and a few quid for the latest version of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

Overall, I think it was well worth it. The Canon is super sharp, quick to focus and is white however, the Sigma seems no different and I love having the ability to go to f/2.8 for low light or superb DoF. Yes, it's a heavy beast but on a 1 series it is very balanced and IMO actually feels better.

The only thing that I don't like is the fact it's not Canon, I just prefer everything to be from the same brand but the 70-200 f/2.8L would've cost double.
 
Is it just me or is it pretty pointless comparing which lenses are the sharpest by showing off "resized for web" images?
 
SLRUser said:
Is it just me or is it pretty pointless comparing which lenses are the sharpest by showing off "resized for web" images?
Click to expand...

I guess it depends what you do with your final images. If you only show them as 'resized for web images'.............;) :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top