canon 70-200is II v sigma 120-300 f2.8 os

pooley

pooley

Messages
6,032
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm thinking ahead a month or 2 but will hopefully soon be in a position to upgrade.

The main 2 things I'll be shooting with the lenses will be junior football and wildlife. From a personal perspective, the football is more important to me as its family life, so this is the most important aspect when it comes to image quality but obviously I'd like the quality to be as high as possible for the wildlife as well.

After doing a few sums, I've come up with the following options, some of which need to be bought second hand and was after a few opinions other than what I can read on review sites.

I'll be using a canon 7d.

Option 1 is a canon 70-200mm is II, which will need to be used with a 2x converter for birds.

Option 2 is the sigma 120-300 os along with a 1.4x converter when necessary.

Option 3 is to get a canon 70-200mm f2.8 non is and either a 400mm f5.6 or the 100-400mm

As its kids footy on a crop camera and I can get as close to the pitch as I want its rare that I actually need more than 200mm, although there is the odd shot where I have to crop a bit more than I like.

Any thoughts?

Mike
 
Well, I run a 7D and have managed to shoot some half decent wildlife with my 70-200 IS (Mk1). I've also used it with a 2X and got pretty good results, but you are shooting at f5.6.

I also have access to a 100-400 which is sharp, but I find the speed of focus is compromised at the longer end. I even used this with a 2X and manually focused some shots of the moon which were quite good. The 100-400 is f5.6 at the long end.

I have often thought about the Sigma, and with a 1.4X you get 420mm @ f4 which is a better solution all round, but I've never actually used one. I'd be interested in how good they are as I need to get some more length :D

Steve
 
Can't help re canon but did a similar comparison with nikon last year. I shot my 120-300 with the sigma 1.4 tc alongside my mate who used his Nikon 70-200 f2.8 and nikon 2x tc. Both gave a similar focal length and comparing images it was a splitting hairs job to be honest, little to differentiate them. I'm sure the canon is every bit as good as the nikon so I wouldnt expect too much difference? I no longer use my sigma with the sigma 2x, its simply not good enough for my use but thats the sigma 2 x tc not the lens. If your happy with 400 mm as a maximum focal length go for the canon, the sigmas a lot bigger and heavier to lug around and sometimes for that reason it gets left behind!
 
Cheers for the replies. Really stuck at the moment as I've always worried about sigmas quality control, even though I know the vast majority are fine.

Thanks for the 300mm suggestion but despite how highly its rated it doesn't tick the right boxes for me
 
Football with the Sigma....

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=16127506&postcount=3847

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=16106930&postcount=3811

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=16091747&postcount=3802

Those are all from the same thread. There are wildlife and motorsport examples and other subjects in there too.

Other miscellaneous examples with and without 1.4X TC in this thread - http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=498899
 
Sorry if this is a bit of a hijack, does the Sigma work OK with the Canon 1.4 converter?
 
I don't have the Canon 1.4X TC, but where the 2X TC is concerned the Sigma version produces better results with this lens than the Canon 2X III. I have both and bought the Sigma TC specifically because the Canon was not performing well.
 
Cheers Tim, I thought you might popup in this thread! The sports examples certainly look good enough for my current needs, and your shots aren't too shabby either!

Matt, I believe the canon converter fits physically but obviously I can't comment on the quality differences. I'd like to know the answer to that as well, so no hijack problems!
 
300 f4 great little lens. Sharp and pretty decent with a 1.4 but AF is slow and the IS is two stop and getting a bit long in the tooth now.

70-200 f2.8 IS MkII is a fantastic lens and well worth the money IMHO. Only used it with a 1.4 and still gives great results. The 4 stop IS is excellent. If you don't need IS then the non Is version must be in the running.

Can't comment on the Sigma as never owned one but if it can match the canon for sharpness id be surprised.
 
pooley said:
Tim,

very interesting (and slightly surprising) regarding the 2x - one to remember for the future
Click to expand...

The tables are turned with my Canon lenses, where the Canon 2X III beats the Sigma quite convincingly. It's a bit of a puzzle that there is such a difference.
 
I think the sigma tc are matched for there lenses. Best off brand for Tc is kenko
 
Peter - I take it you had the 120-300. How did you find the sharpness towards the edge of the frame. All the online tests sem to point to excellent centre sharpness which drops off towards the edges of the frame.

As I'm using a crop, I'll avoid most of the issue, just wondered what it was like in real world situations.

Mike
 
tdodd said:
I don't have the Canon 1.4X TC, but where the 2X TC is concerned the Sigma version produces better results with this lens than the Canon 2X III. I have both and bought the Sigma TC specifically because the Canon was not performing well.
Click to expand...

Is the Sigma TC that much better with the 120-300. I've got a MKIII 2x and the results are, pretty rubbish considering the cost of the converter. In fact it's only marginally better than the MkI I had :(
 
I wouldn't call it a leaps and bounds difference, but at around half the price (I bought mine from Digital Rev for £170) of the Canon 2X III the Sigma 2X does deliver better results. Nonetheless I'd strongly recommend stopping down to at least f/6.3, but f/7.1 or f/8 would be better, if you can afford the light loss. If you can't afford the light loss you may find it a better option to stick with a 1.4X and crop tighter. You'll gain a stop or more of light and have a sharper, if smaller, image to work with.

By the way, I'm not the only one to find the Sigma 2X to outperform the Canon with this lens. There are other reports in the huge (261 pages and counting) thread on POTN saying the same thing. Here's the thread....

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=934592


EDIT : Here is a comparison of f/5.6 vs f/8 with the Sigma 2X TC at 100% on a 7D. As you can see, if you want to hang on to any kind of fine detail stopping down is essential. Things improve further at f/11, despite diffraction softening starting to make an appearance...

20130808_090920_.JPG


Unfortunately those kinds of compromises are pretty unwelcome when shooting action (e.g. BIF) and needing to trade shutter speed, ISO and aperture against each other. For easier subjects, with big, bold details such as found in motorsport the limitation is more tolerable. For slower (or static) subjects, possibly with the assistance of a tripod, hopefully the limits would be even less of a problem.
 
Last edited:
I have both the Sigma 2X and Canon 2X III very little in it with the Canon just edging it very slightly if you pixel peep, but certainly not worth the extra cost over the Sigma.
 
pooley said:
Peter - I take it you had the 120-300. How did you find the sharpness towards the edge of the frame. All the online tests sem to point to excellent centre sharpness which drops off towards the edges of the frame.

As I'm using a crop, I'll avoid most of the issue, just wondered what it was like in real world situations.

Mike
Click to expand...

I used mine on a 7D and was happy with the sharpness across the frame. Without any tc it was as sharp as the Canon 300 f2.8 IS that I tested it against, and still of a very similar standard when used with either the 1.4x or 2x tcs. I was using it to shoot wildlife (mainly birds) so often edge sharpness wasn't and issue as my subject was fairly central. Looking back at some of the shots those where the subject covers the frame seem fine at the edges.

All told I was very impressed with the lens, it was so much better then the previous non-OS version that I had which needed to be stopped down a fair way to get to a useable level of sharpness. My main issue with it was the lack of reach, as with many zooms it wasn't really a 300mm when used at close range (more like 260mm ish). When shooting birds you often need as much reach as possible so this did have a impact especially when using with a tc. The difference between 600mm and 520mm is quite significant and I couldn't get past it so ended up lending the lens to a friend in exchange for the loan of some of his gear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top