Sigma 70-200 2.8 or canon 70-200 f4

Cris_L

Cris_L

Take That's Biggest Fan
Messages
1,923
Name
Cris
Edit My Images
Yes
I need something longer than the 24-105 but the pennies won't stretch to a canon 2.8 so I'm wondering if the sigma would be a worthwhile substitute, would it's extra stop of light be more advantageous than getting the canon f4?

It's going to be mostly hand held work, mostly portraits...would I miss IS?

Opinions and advise much appreciated!
 
If you been happy at f4 with the 24-105 I'm sure you'll love the Canon. IS is probably better value for portraits than the extra speed.
Get the 70-200 f4 and save for when you can move it on in favour of Canon 70-200 f2.8
 
I had my very first studio enviroment time last Tuesday and my 70-200 f4 non IS was permanently attached and afterward some of the questions I asked myself were...

would I have benefitted from 2.8 instead of 4 ? absolutely not, I didnt go wider than 5.6 and most of the time was 8+, also remember the 2.8s are bigger and heavier so more strain when shooting HH

would I have benefitted from IS ? I cannot say I am unhappy with the results but I reckon IS couldve probably helped me out in that situation, plus the IS versions have weathersealing and apparently an edge on IQ compared to non IS

as I say it was my first time and thus have lots to learn but was happy with how the 70-200 f4 performed but in the future if the IS version came along cheap I would defo upgrade whereas I wouldnt feel that way with the 2.8, certainly not for studio/portrait anyway.

IMG_0795.jpg
 
Last edited:
i had the same dilema... i went for the canon 70-200 F4 NON IS and love it! i shoot action [cars mountian bikes etc] in low light and felt the f2,8 would have let me shoot in lower light but i figured the shallow depth of field for me was little use as so much of a car / bike would be out of focus i would just bin the shots... i picked up a 50mm f1.8 as well for lowlight / shallow depth of field when i fancy it...

i find at F4 i can get plenty of light and the depth of field is lovley just off setting the background enought for my taste... and the images are so sharp!

bob ;)
 
Cris_L said:
would it's extra stop of light be more advantageous than getting the canon f4?
Click to expand...


Are you ever going to shoot moving stuff in low light?

If not, the canon is lighter and sharper
 
I did consider the sigma 70-200 f2.8 but went for a 2nd hand canon 70-200 f4 IS and love it. It's very shap, af is fast too and IS is worth having if you have the budget.

If and when funds allow I might trade up to a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS Mkii but this wont be for a long while.
 
Hmmm. I'm pretty concerned about missing IS but that version starts really pushing the budget. Could do with having a play with each I guess.
 
Cris_L said:
Hmmm. I'm pretty concerned about missing IS but that version starts really pushing the budget. Could do with having a play with each I guess.
Click to expand...

well if you're ever passing Leicester just shout and the 70-200 f4 non IS will be at your disposal...

VFM and affordability wise the f4 non IS is an absolute bargain and the price you can pick them up for 2nd hand is amazing.
 
I had the same predicament, both looked like damn good lenses. I opted for a brand new 70-200mm F4 non-IS, it's the best purchase I've made yet! Seriously blew my 75-300mm f4-5.6 USM out of the water...

Having said that, my main reason was that I was going to use it mainly outdoors during the day, thus no need for f2.8. I'd also tried a friend's canon 70-200mm f2.8 non-IS and was shocked by the weight. The F4 non-IS is lightweight, but still feels remarkably solid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top