Sigma 70-200 f2.8 or Canon 70-200 F4??

BooBear

BooBear

Messages
391
Name
Becky
Edit My Images
Yes
Both lenses are about the same price (here in Brisbane, anyway!). Does anyone have experience of both lenses to know which gives best IQ? I will not be shooting weddings or particularly low-light situations so wondered whether the compromise on choosing the F4 was worth it to get a Canon L lens? The canon is the non-IS version. I shoot mainly family portraits, using natural light or studio. Grateful for any advice!
 
For a general purpose zoom, I'd probably get the Canon f/4, it has excellent IQ. For family portraits regardless of light, you need at least f/2.8 to blur the background.. so I'm going to say go cheap with the EF 85/1.8 here :) But from those two, the Sigma for sure because of the wider aperture.

Since I have the 70-200/4L (the 2.8 is in the mail!), I've been using my 100/2.8 Macro for portraits.
 
Thanks Vaizki. I should also have pointed out that I already have the sigma 24-70 f2.8 and tamron 90 macro, and am on a full-frame camera. I'm leaning towards the sigma, but hope to upgrade to canon lenses in the next year or two when I've saved some money.
 
You can get perfectly good background blur with an f/4 70-200 lens.

The f/4 will be smaller and lighter, but not as good in low light. Compare Sigma's 70-200 and Canon's at the-digital-picture.com.
 
Thanks for the website link - very helpful! I'm torn between the two lenses. I don't shoot weddings and if I'm shooting indoors it's usually with strobes or plenty of natural light. Tempted now to go with the Canon and see how I get on. Maybe try it for a year or so then upgrade to the Canon F2.8. These decisions are never easy!!
 
To get the best out of a 2.8 lens it needs to be stopped down a bit.
Basically set the aperture at around f4-f5.6.

The Canon f4 can be used successfully at f4 and will still produce amazing results.
It's smaller, MUCH lighter and it's an L :D
(The L police will be after me now!!!)
 
If you're only going to be using it in outdoor natural light or in a studio where you have control over the light then I'd suggest going for the EF 70-200 f/4 L to save a few pennies, if you find you need the upgrade then you've already got a good base model 'L' lens from which to compare the others you might want to upgrade to in the future :thumbs:
 
andy_fozzy said:
To get the best out of a 2.8 lens it needs to be stopped down a bit.
Basically set the aperture at around f4-f5.6.

The Canon f4 can be used successfully at f4 and will still produce amazing results.
It's smaller, MUCH lighter and it's an L :D
(The L police will be after me now!!!)
Click to expand...

Conversly while the sigma may not be tack sharp at f2.8 it is an awful lot better at that aperture that the 70-200 f4L!

Not sure what the earlier response about bokeh was on about, obviously the f4L isn't the cream machine that the 85mm f1.2 L is but you can achieve perfectly adequate blur especially if you are carefull with your backgrounds.

For me the decision isn't easy, I'd love the option of the f2.8 speed but I wouldn't relish the additional bulk, I currently use an old 70-210 f4 and I really like the size and weight of it.

Basically if you don't think you need the f2.8 get the f4L as it is a sharper better built easier to handle lens, only get the Sigma if you need the speed.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Conversly while the sigma may not be tack sharp at f2.8 it is an awful lot better at that aperture that the 70-200 f4L!

Not sure what the earlier response about bokeh was on about, obviously the f4L isn't the cream machine that the 85mm f1.2 L is but you can achieve perfectly adequate blur especially if you are carefull with your backgrounds.

For me the decision isn't easy, I'd love the option of the f2.8 speed but I wouldn't relish the additional bulk, I currently use an old 70-210 f4 and I really like the size and weight of it.

Basically if you don't think you need the f2.8 get the f4L as it is a sharper better built easier to handle lens, only get the Sigma if you need the speed.
Click to expand...

That is indeed a very good point!

But yes, for the extra few stops, there's a HELL of a weight difference!
Damn, if I put one on my 1D MKII I'd need a flippin crane to carry it :D
 
andy_fozzy said:
That is indeed a very good point!

But yes, for the extra few stops, there's a HELL of a weight difference!
Damn, if I put one on my 1D MKII I'd need a flippin crane to carry it :D
Click to expand...

I often wander around all day with two mark ii's a 17-35 2.8 on one and 70-200 2.8 on the other!!!

'ye pansy!!'


Seriously however, look for the old sigma (non-dg non-macro IIRC) it's just as sharp as the MKI IS) TBH the only advantage I've noticed since upgrading) was the IS & sealing apart from that. I think they are optically identical.

(I can post full size jpegs if you wish to see the optical quality)
 
JEmerson said:
I often wander around all day with two mark ii's a 17-35 2.8 on one and 70-200 2.8 on the other!!!

'ye pansy!!'


Seriously however, look for the old sigma (non-dg non-macro IIRC) it's just as sharp as the MKI IS) TBH the only advantage I've noticed since upgrading) was the IS & sealing apart from that. I think they are optically identical.

(I can post full size jpegs if you wish to see the optical quality)
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:

I always remember a clip from Snatch, one of my fave films:

(In a dodgy Russian accent :) )
"Heavy is good, heavy is reliable.
If it doesn't work you could always hit him with it"!!!
 
andy_fozzy said:
That is indeed a very good point!

But yes, for the extra few stops, there's a HELL of a weight difference!
Damn, if I put one on my 1D MKII I'd need a flippin crane to carry it :D
Click to expand...

the sigma isnt at all heavy on the 1Dmk3 to be honest.. its a walk in tha park compared to the 120-300 but even thats doable :D

personally id get the sigma but then we have 2 and are more than happy with both. we've got 2 of the first gen macro versions, if i was infront of LR i could probably find you examples of sharp images all the way through focal and aperture ranges..
 
BooBear said:
Thanks for the website link - very helpful! I'm torn between the two lenses. I don't shoot weddings and if I'm shooting indoors it's usually with strobes or plenty of natural light. Tempted now to go with the Canon and see how I get on. Maybe try it for a year or so then upgrade to the Canon F2.8. These decisions are never easy!!
Click to expand...

I did some quick tests last night and if I remember the Sigma performed better than the Canon 70-200 f/4L (non IS) at the short end of the focal length but anything past 100mm ish or so and the f/4 Canon handed the Sigma its ass. The Canon f/4L IS just completely owned the Sigma. It was mainly in the corner sharpness (or lack of) so on a full frame camera it would be much more important.
 
trencheel303 said:
I did some quick tests last night and if I remember the Sigma performed better than the Canon 70-200 f/4L (non IS) at the short end of the focal length but anything past 100mm ish or so and the f/4 Canon handed the Sigma its ass. The Canon f/4L IS just completely owned the Sigma. It was mainly in the corner sharpness (or lack of) so on a full frame camera it would be much more important.
Click to expand...

The non-macro non-dg is the other way around. 200mm is PIN sharp.

100% crop - Sigma non-DG non-macro f/2.8
RAW sharpening 0
USM of 150,0.3,0 (actually probably oversharpened - I use 200,0.2,0 for printing and 100,0.1 for web!)
JPEG 75
2mo302x.jpg
 
That's a corker. Being non DG does it fit on full frame too? If it's that sharp I would get one without hesitating for my 1Ds... how's corner sharpness though - as I note that's where the Siggy in my tests failed most.
 
trencheel303 said:
That's a corker. Being non DG does it fit on full frame too? If it's that sharp I would get one without hesitating for my 1Ds... how's corner sharpness though - as I note that's where the Siggy in my tests failed most.
Click to expand...



I have the siggy 70-200 2.8 non macro jobbie matey and it works a treat on the 1DS " I know this well lol"

keep an eye out in the classifieds.... I need a new bike so it might be going..

MD
 
^
I'll post a corner crop in a sec. Yep, it fits on FF. It's an old lens and they tend to fetch more money than the newer versions [£450-£500]. Most of them also have started the 'ex' flake process where the outer coating peels.

This crop is the same settings as above. His face is the very far top right of your AF points. It's a bit softer but not too bad. (Excuse ISO1000 noise)

s6o2120.jpg
 
Proof, I think. I've heard it many times before and Josh's images make me quite interested.

MD - I'll keep an eye out.
 
Have you compared the ones you have to the non Macro?
 
Canon f/4 is a fantastic lens without the extra weight (unless you also want an integrated lifting weights system). It is pin sharp at all F wide open without the silly 150% USM (in fact, 0% USM and 20% RAW is all it needs for a well focused shot). Background blur is virtually identical at 2.8 and f/4. In fact I find myself stopping down to 5.8 or even f/8 for more DOF and IS would help there. Overall Canon f4L is excellent for studio, portraits, reportage, etc in good to below average light. Only very poor light requires f/2.8 and under.
 
Thanks for all the advice and views posted on here - just what I needed. I'm going with the Canon - now all I need to do is finish saving my pennies!
 
daugirdas said:
Canon f/4 is a fantastic lens without the extra weight (unless you also want an integrated lifting weights system). It is pin sharp at all F wide open without the silly 150% USM (in fact, 0% USM and 20% RAW is all it needs for a well focused shot). Background blur is virtually identical at 2.8 and f/4. In fact I find myself stopping down to 5.8 or even f/8 for more DOF and IS would help there. Overall Canon f4L is excellent for studio, portraits, reportage, etc in good to below average light. Only very poor light requires f/2.8 and under.
Click to expand...

The f/4's are very sharp ( I had one). No sharper than the sigma though. Tge USM was used to show typical 16x12 sharpening.
 
I've been thinking about something similar. I've decided I will go for the canon f/4 is model. If I find I need larger aperture for portraits I will supplement it with the 85mm 1.8 non L lens. I already have 17-55 2.8 is so will start with that for portraits.

I don't shoot sports but I do shoot small radio control planes. The 2.8 would make sense but I can't justify the cost and the extra weight I would be lugging around when not shooting planes.
 
Interesting comments everyone... I know this isn't my thread but I am being tempted by the Sigma or the f/4 non IS as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top