Canon or Sigma

Jo Davies

Jo Davies

Messages
53
Name
Jo
Edit My Images
No
I recently went to the Photography show in the NEC and tried the Sigma 70-200 2.8 plus the Canon 70-200 f4 - I am on a limited budget so buying the Canon second hand would be the most cost effective option but something keeps telling me to hold on for the Sigma - can anyone help me with this dilemma.

Thanks
 
what you are shooting will dictate what you want but when i tried out these lenses the other factor was weight i went for the canon 70-200L f4is. it easier to carry and goes every where with me,. in the end it was only one stop and that wasn't a problem for me
 
wave01 said:
what you are shooting will dictate what you want but when i tried out these lenses the other factor was weight i went for the canon 70-200L f4is. it easier to carry and goes every where with me,. in the end it was only one stop and that wasn't a problem for me
Click to expand...
Same choice I made. The 70-200 2.8L is twice the weight, it's a monster - awesome lens though.
 
I went from the F4 to the F2.8 the monster...and even I feel the pain of the weight, I feel it was worthy to make the change, Awesome pictures even in low light.
 
I have had many lenses over many years, mainly Canon, but also Sigma EX, and Tamron SP, and the only lens that I have ever had a fungus problem with (growing on the lens coating in between the elements), was a Sigma.

A Google search for fungus problems with Sigma lenses, indicated that it was worryingly common.

A shame really, as I found the build quality and optical performance of the Sigma EX, to be excellent.

Since this problem, I have stuck with Canon L series lenses.

Dave
 
I shoot mainly maternity, baby, children (mainly lifestyle, a little studio) and weddings.

The additional weight would be a big problem for me - I need something that I can carry around for at least a couple of hours and I have concerns that I wouldn't be able to do that with the Sigma.
 
I have the 70/200 F4 IS L - its a fantastic lens, it never dissapoints. What camera body will you be using, the difference in Iso required between f2.8 and f4 in low light might be a deciding factor.
 
You have the option of f/4 zoom and a couple fast primes like 135mm and 85mm. The combined weight and price may exceed that of f/2.8 pretty quickly that way, but then you have a lot of flexibility.
 
If you ahve a straight choice between f2.8 and f4 as you seem to suggest..then remember these words


it's better to have and not need than to need and not have..

get the f2.8 :)
 
KIPAX said:
If you ahve a straight choice between f2.8 and f4 as you seem to suggest..then remember these words


it's better to have and not need than to need and not have..

get the f2.8 :)
Click to expand...

Unless it's so bleedin heavy you leave it at home :)
 
KIPAX said:
If you ahve a straight choice between f2.8 and f4 as you seem to suggest..then remember these words


it's better to have and not need than to need and not have..

get the f2.8 :)
Click to expand...

Some people always stop down their 2.8 zoom to f/4 or below to get more DOF. This is probably not applicable in sports though where available light and speed are the priority. So it depends.

Still, a thought of shooting with something like 85mm f/1.2L at f/5.6 hurts me. 70-300L serves that market a lot better
 
daugirdas said:
Some people always stop down their 2.8 zoom to f/4 or below to get more DOF. This is probably not applicable in sports though where available light and speed are the priority. So it depends.
Click to expand...


eeerm I always shoot f4 if I can... but the 2.8 is there if I need it..so its not used as a prefernce..its used as a neccesaty :)
 
DaveS2 said:
I have had many lenses over many years, mainly Canon, but also Sigma EX, and Tamron SP, and the only lens that I have ever had a fungus problem with (growing on the lens coating in between the elements), was a Sigma.

A Google search for fungus problems with Sigma lenses, indicated that it was worryingly common.

A shame really, as I found the build quality and optical performance of the Sigma EX, to be excellent.

Since this problem, I have stuck with Canon L series lenses.

Dave
Click to expand...

odd, never had any issue with the 8 sigmas we've owned.

damp storage conditions wont help of course.
 
neil_g said:
odd, never had any issue with the 8 sigmas we've owned.

damp storage conditions wont help of course.
Click to expand...


yes agree.. fungus isnt a sigma problem.. treat any lens the same way the sigma was treated and you will get same effect.. had the sigma 70-200 for years. used in rain sun and snow (not all same day) no problems
 
KIPAX said:
yes agree.. fungus isnt a sigma problem.. treat any lens the same way the sigma was treated and you will get same effect.. had the sigma 70-200 for years. used in rain sun and snow (not all same day) no problems
Click to expand...
indeed. both of our 70-200 and our 120-300 have been used in downpours (obv with rain covers) and no fungus in sight. but they are/were always dried out thoroughly and then stored in a Peli case with a Peli silca gel pouch.
 
KIPAX said:
treat any lens the same way the sigma was treated and you will get same effect
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a presumptive comment, and implies that I was less than careful in the way that I treated the Sigma lens. How judgemental :rolleyes:

I'm not an all-weather photographer, so my gear never goes out in the rain. My house is certainly not damp, with an average RH indoors of around 45%.

I keep a multi-holed-holed container of Silca Gel in my large camera bag, which gets replenished at regular intervals.

The Sigma was stored in the same bag, along with the other lenses, some much older than the Sigma, but only the Sigma developed the problem.

Maybe I was unlucky, in that I got a rogue example, but then it would appear from researching the problem, so did a lot of other people.

Dave
 
Last edited:
DaveS2 said:
That's a bit of a presumptive comment, and implies that I was less than careful in the way that I treated the Sigma lens. How judgemental :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

oh stop being such a big baby!!! I was generalising on lens.. all lens and all users.. I have no way of knowing your lens history.. if you bought from new or used.. i wasnt saying anything about you.... judgemental? your very easily upset arn't you :)
 
DaveS2 said:
That's a bit of a presumptive comment, and implies that I was less than careful in the way that I treated the Sigma lens. How judgemental :rolleyes:

I'm not an all-weather photographer, so my gear never goes out in the rain. My house is certainly not damp, with an average RH indoors of around 45%.

I keep a multi-holed-holed container of Silca Gel in my large camera bag, which gets replenished at regular intervals.

The Sigma was stored in the same bag, along with the other lenses, some much older than the Sigma, but only the Sigma developed the problem.

Maybe I was unlucky, in that I got a rogue example, but then it would appear from researching the problem, so did a lot of other people.

Dave
Click to expand...

Apart from certain storage conditions the fungus may have only originated from contaminated damp assembly workshop or fungal disease affected engineer. That doesn't sound very likely, but could explain an odd problematic batch. Was it an old lens?
 
KIPAX said:
oh stop being such a big baby!!! I was generalising on lens.. all lens and all users.. I have no way of knowing your lens history.. if you bought from new or used.. i wasnt saying anything about you.... judgemental? your very easily upset arn't you :)
Click to expand...

Waldorf, if indeed that is your name, although I suspect you are one these people that are very bold and arrogant when hiding behind the anonymity of cyberspace, but very different in a face to face situation, Man to man.

Quote: "I was generalising on lens.. all lens and all users"

No you weren't, you were quite specific in what you said: Quote: "treat any lens the same way THE sigma was treated and you will get same effect".

Generalising, I don't think so, poor choice of words, maybe.

When I mentioned to some photography friends on another forum, that I was going to join TP, I was warned that it could be very vitriolic and arrogant at times, and was given a few names to that followed this trend. Do I need to say anymore??

Its a great pity that what are supposed to be groups of like-minded photography enthusiast, meeting online to chat and share experiences, are always soured by a handful of individuals that like stir up confrontation, while hiding in cyberspace.

Duagirdas, and Neil_G, that could well offer a logical answer to the problem, in that fungus spores were already present when I bought the Lens.

The Lens was bought new from a 'mainstream' UK Sigma dealer, and it wasn't until I went to part exchange the lens for the later IS version, some four years later, that the dealer inspected the lens, and pointed out the fungus problem. As such he was obviously not interested in taking it in p/ex.

Having been made aware of this problem, I came home and checked all my other lenses, and thankfully they were all fine.

I then did a Google search on Fungus problems with Sigma lenses, and was quite surprised at just how many people had experienced it.

Jo Davies, I'm sorry that your 'thread' took an unpleasant turn. I only wanted to pass on my personal experience with a Sigma lens. Had I known the type of comment it would attract, I wouldn't have bothered.

Dave



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