Sigma 70-200 f2.8 or Canon 70-200 f4
- Thread starter wibbly
- Start date
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This has been covered loads of times on here, it might be worth using the search engine to look at the other threads.
But, it depends what you shoot. Although they are both 70-200 telephotos, the Sigma is faster than the Canon, so is more useful in low light, such as indoor sports.
They are both supurb. I own the Sigma and have used the Canon. IMO the Siggy is just as sharp but has the advantage of f/2.8. Both have lightning fast focusing, but the Sigma is heavier.
But, it depends what you shoot. Although they are both 70-200 telephotos, the Sigma is faster than the Canon, so is more useful in low light, such as indoor sports.
They are both supurb. I own the Sigma and have used the Canon. IMO the Siggy is just as sharp but has the advantage of f/2.8. Both have lightning fast focusing, but the Sigma is heavier.
- Messages
- 992
- Name
- Dave Pickett
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have a 70-200 f2.8 sigma and find it really hard to get a sharp image. I dont think there is a problem with the lens, its just that the depth of field is very small so focussing must be spot on. Its easier at f4, so my thinking is you may find the f4 lens a bit easier to use.
Either will be good if you are able to use them properly......
I am a Nikon user and the 70-300 Nikon produces (in my hands at least) far sharper images...............
Either will be good if you are able to use them properly......
I am a Nikon user and the 70-300 Nikon produces (in my hands at least) far sharper images...............
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I find that at f/2.8, focus locked correctly, its very sharp. But yes, anything under f/3.2 is going to have a minimal depth of field, but there are ways to bring the DOF out further using the same aperture, such as trying to shoot the subject at the angle at which its at its flattest etc.
- Messages
- 894
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well, if you have problems with DOF at 2.8 then just bump it up to f4. Not really an option with the Canon is it?
I'd always go for the faster option myself but I'm used to 2.8 lenses or faster. Unless the weight was an issue then go for the Sigma. Of course both are great so whichever one you chose you'll be happy.
I'd always go for the faster option myself but I'm used to 2.8 lenses or faster. Unless the weight was an issue then go for the Sigma. Of course both are great so whichever one you chose you'll be happy.
chris321
I like the ginger one
- Messages
- 3,574
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've seen this question asked a few times, and as ever it depends on what you shoot.
The Canon 70-200 f/4 is widely regarded as just about the sharpest zoom that canon make, reasonably priced, and relatively small and light.
The sigma is bigger, heavier, slightly less sharp, but an absolute steal at the price.
However, the big question comes down to whether or not you need the f/2.8 aperture. If you shoot in low light situations, and you can't make use of any of the canon's plus points, then you'll have a blurry mess. If you don't need the f/2.8, then the canon will do a stellar job and be easier to carry around as well. They're two very different animals!
Chris
The Canon 70-200 f/4 is widely regarded as just about the sharpest zoom that canon make, reasonably priced, and relatively small and light.
The sigma is bigger, heavier, slightly less sharp, but an absolute steal at the price.
However, the big question comes down to whether or not you need the f/2.8 aperture. If you shoot in low light situations, and you can't make use of any of the canon's plus points, then you'll have a blurry mess. If you don't need the f/2.8, then the canon will do a stellar job and be easier to carry around as well. They're two very different animals!
Chris
