Sigma Or Canon?

desperatedan1992

desperatedan1992

Messages
677
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello TP

Looking for my next lens.

I did some light research on this a few months ago and it didnt really help me so im asking the pros now.

70 - 200 F2.8 Sigma

Or

70 - 200 F4 L Glass

I havent thought of going to the f2.8 L glass because im not rich. But i have heard good things from the Sigma and obviously its fair share of bad.

So many people say that when your buying a Sigma you must get a good copy???????????

Not sure what to think with that having never used a Sigma. I have used my dads 70 - 200 F4 and i like it but i would prefer to have the better light with 2.8.

I here the quality is near identical although most people say it can be because its L glass.

Please send some advice my way its just a lens i want to take nice sharp images with for all aspects of photography.

Many Thanks

Dan :thumbs:
 
I am considering the same canon as you but also seen this:

Tamron SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro Lens for Canon

Another option...I dont know...maybe...!!!

It seems to be Canon Versus f2.8...
 
The Canon is a smashing little lens nice and sharp 4 stop i.s and it fits in a jacket pocket at a push saves lugging the 2.8 around when i dont need it
Regards
Lost
 
I'm a big fan of IS. There's another thread on here currently discussing it.

So I would say 70-200L 4 IS which is what I have.

I would rather have the 70-300 IS than the 70-200 without IS. Honestly.

Sure we all manged before without IS, like we did with film etc etc. We also used to get by on horses.
 
Oh don't get me wrong Hoppy I prefer IS too, I think I said as much on the other thread too. But if cost is an issue then you can live without it.
 
depends if you need f2.8 really..... I do so went for sigma 2.8, and I'm completely pleased with it... other people don't need 2.8, so the canon f4 is a great lens for them :)

depends what you shoot really - the f4 is lighter than the 2.8 too.
 
Well I tried a a few 70-200mm. Firstly, a brand new friend's Sigma was extremely sharp at 70mm wide open but quickly deteriorated zoomed in. At 200mm things looked very smudged even at f/5.6 and the contrast was low.

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is very good. At 200mm f/2.8 it is very usable but slightly softer than 200mm prime. Personally I would shoot wide open with that lens all the time if I could afford it now. IS really helps to get sharp pictures.

f/2.8 non-IS is perhaps even sharper (not tested) and at f/2.8 the shutter speed will be very fast, but indoors it would be a struggle.

Canon f/4 non-IS is really lightweight and still good. I use it myself. The best sharpness is at f/5.6 (for landscapes), but still very good at f/4 if focus is good (portraits, wildlife). I will try a monopod and see if it helps to replace the IS. Subject movement is an issue with f/4 at lower light.

Tamron has excellent reviews for the best optics of the pack, but the autofocus accuracy and speed are somewhat substandard.

If you can get f/2.8 L IS.
 
Thanks for all the comments guys i appreciate the help. I have never really minded about IS so thats not the issue. I am thinking about going for a 2.8 L but the price is so high, then agen you get what you pay for. The other lens im looking to upgrade is a 28 - 135 IS for a 24 - 105 F4 i have decided completely on this lens but i havent seen many results with the lens. Could anyone show me how they have got on with the lens themselves???

Many Thanks and Kind Regards
 
Do you really need a 24-105? you have a 17-40 already would you miss the 40-70 if you got the 70-200? Why not save the money from not buying the 24-105 and get the 70-200 2.8 IS?

For what its worth i had a 24-105 and have not long sold it and got a 17-55 IS & 70-200 2.8 non is. I loved the 24-105 but the 17-55 is something else.
 
Euan said:
Do you really need a 24-105? you have a 17-40 already would you miss the 40-70 if you got the 70-200? Why not save the money from not buying the 24-105 and get the 70-200 2.8 IS?

For what its worth i had a 24-105 and have not long sold it and got a 17-55 IS & 70-200 2.8 non is. I loved the 24-105 but the 17-55 is something else.
Click to expand...

That's really going to depend on the sort of shooting you do, I have the 17-40 f4 and the 70-200 f4 yet neither see much use as my 28-70 covers the range I need most, I'd hate not to have the 40-70 range covered.
 
thats what i meant, you can get that software that analyses the shots you take etc. was asking if they actually used or would miss the 40-70 mm, or do they need the 17-24 etc
 
Skoda or Volkswagen?

I'm not being flippant I think its actually quite apt. Sigma have a bad reputation for their older lenses but do produce very nice newer products at competitive prices. In a like for like comparison the sigma will most likely be 90-95% as good as the Canon but 50-65% of the price.
 
I have only ever owned 2 sigma lenses, both the same lens, 10-20 mm, dissapointed with both as they were soft. Just my experience of them.
 
Personally, I'd get the CANON. I've had nothing but trouble with stigma lenses.
 
Not a bad lens at all. I must admit im not sure if a 24 - 105 is a great move but it is a nice portrait lens. I think i would rather save the money and get the 70 - 200 f2.8. I do like the 17 - 40 also its a lovely lens and i dont think i even considered the 24 - 70 that might be a better option 24 - 70, 70 - 200 all in 2.8 Oooooooo Christmas

Thanks for the help guys i really appreciate it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top