Sigma 70 - 200 f2,8 or Canon 70 - 200 F4

desperatedan1992

desperatedan1992

Messages
677
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello All

Im sure you have seen this all before but i want 2.8 without the £800 - £1000price tag, is the sigma plenty capable as i have heard bad stories, however i could settle for F4 with the canon

Many Thanks

Dan
 
I've just bought the Canon 70-200 F2.8 but so far only seem to use it at F4 and above. I'm sure the 2.8 will come into play if in low-light conditions. I previously had a Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 and found it a bit soft, although some shots were pin sharp so may have been my lack of technique! :D
 
I have just got this a couple of weeks ago & i love it.
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 APO EX DG Macro II Lens
 
This is exactly the same quandry I was in. In the end I settled for the Canon (non IS makes it cheaper) due to weight and lack of need for f/2.8.

Tis your choice - evaluate your needs (would you need f/2.8 for instance) and then see how you get on with costs etc.
 
Thansk for the advice people, i do see these threads all the time, im thinking f4 canon as im sure its going to be capable in the conditions i will use it for, hopefully i wont be taking pictures in caves so im sure that will be enough.

Thanks for advice
 
If you need to stop down for greater DOF, then canon is miles better. IS version is highly recommended with f/4. Visually photos at f/4 look nearly the same as f/2.8 so no big loss there. Only sports, weddings and photojournalism require f/2.8.
 
The way I see it, you can often get a slower lens (say, f/4 rather than f/2.8) and if you find it isn't quite good enough for low light abilities, you can buy a flashgun with some of the money you saved. Fair enough not all venues allow flash photography but it does cover most bases.

I'd rather buy a slower lens that was lighter and better quality than a faster one that might be a bit iffy. That's not to say the Sigma is iffy but it sure is heavier!

I'm also not a great believer in the 'necessity' of fast zooms given very fast and very good quality primes can often be had for cheaper - and they are lighter than their f/2.8 zoom counterparts.
 
I already had both the lenses and, in my opinion, the Canon is sharper. On the AF and build quality departments there is not a big difference, but I give the Canon the edge.
If you think it's important to you to have the large aperture of the Sigma, go for it and you won't regret. On the other side, if f/4.0 is good enough for what you want, then the Canon is a better lens.

The Sigma I had was the first DG, not the MKII.
 
I would probably lean towards the Canon although it would limit your flexibility.

If you think you might want to shoot in low light conditions and would be annoyed at yourself for getting the Canon then go for the Sigma. I've seen plenty of shots from the Sigma and you can't fault it really.

I'm currently saving for the Canon 2.8 IS but appreciate that is a lot of money and not for everyone when the Sigma is there at half the cost!
 
Chances are my photography style will lead more towards wedding and portrait but i have seen plenty of togs produce a fantatsic wedding package only using F4, the light and DOF isnt a great loss to me and i know how well rated the Canon F4 is in regarding to be a sharp lens. I think when i weigh up all the pros and cons the canon will come out top trumps.
 
The only thing I'd say is that if you are going to shoot weddings then a lot of the shots you'll want to take will likely be in very dim churches and the lower f stop will really help you get them. Other than that one aspect I'd say you could go for either and be extremely happy with your choice.
 
Gareth,

On a crop body at a distance of 20ft and aperture of f/2.8 the depth of field at 70mm will be 2.66ft and at 200mm it will be .32 ft.

So it is a big difference, the size of sensor also makes a difference too.

I got the calculations from http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html it is a very useful tool. It also allows you to produce a quick paper calculator for each focal length you use.

Hope this is useful.

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