Sigma vs Canon 70-200mm

U

uptherighttree

Messages
38
Name
Graeme
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm torn between choosing a lens

there's the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM or the Canon 70-200mm L f2.8

These two are the same price but the canon lacks the IS (i can't afford the extra £800 for the IS version)

I prefer having the OS for indoor stuff but it's not L glass

does anyone have experience of either of these lenses together to compare?
 
You will get mixed comments back on this. I bought a secondhand Sigma and I'm now very happy with the results after a bit of practice with the lens. I only have a 10mp camera so I can't comment on results with 15 or 20mp. Have a look on Flickr and look at peoples results with both lens.
 
I also have a Sigma (Non OS) and it's comparable to the L lens I borrowed from someone for a week. If you get a good copy, at 'normal' print sizes I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference between the two......
Obviously the Canon has better weathersealing (though I still wouldn't want to soak it in a heavy downpour) and arguably better build quality but how much do you really need the IS ??
 
Strangways said:
You will get mixed comments back on this.
Click to expand...

I'll second that! at least one person will come into this thread and pan the sigma based on something they read somewhere or a quality control issue to years ago on a 10-22!

Personally in that range i'd rather have the OS than not so given the choice so I'd go with the sigma lens unless of course you are an obsessive pixel peeper in which case buy the cannon as you will only spend 6 months looking at 100% crops of focus charts convincing yourself the sigma is rubish and then go out and buy the canon.
 
The Sigma 70-200 EX HSM II is easily as good as the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non IS (mk1 at least) in speed and sharpness, but is far better value for money. Really it's a no brainer.
 
I have the Canon 70-200 non is mk1. Brilliant lens, I love it but if I had to replace it I'd buy the Sigma. Canon are just too expensive at the moment.
 
I agree about Canons prices. The 70-200 variants, 17-55 IS etc. Silly prices, and IMO the Sigma 70-200 and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 are every bit as good as the OEM versions.

Time for Canon to justify it's existence and give us something that's worth paying the extra for!
 
Can't see it would make a blind bit of difference?
 
uptherighttree said:
if I said it was for weddings would that swing the vote or change minds?
Click to expand...

Nope, wedding i was at a couple of weeks ago the og was shooting both a sigma 24-70 and a sigma 70-200 and the pictures I've seen didn't look any worse than others i've seen recently shot on white lenses. Think of the extra mney you'll have in your pocket that is afer all the whole point in doing it!
 
uptherighttree said:
I'm torn between choosing a lens

there's the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM or the Canon 70-200mm L f2.8

These two are the same price but the canon lacks the IS (i can't afford the extra £800 for the IS version)

I prefer having the OS for indoor stuff but *******it's not L glass*******

does anyone have experience of either of these lenses together to compare?
Click to expand...

I've had to refer back to the OP to the bit highlighted by the *** (I'm on my iPhone so can't highlight!) - and the bit I highlighted is the irrational 'L' obsession of "it's not L glass. The fact is there are Sigma EX lenses, other third party lenses and EFS lenses that are optically BETTER than some L glass, and there are certainly lenses in that category that suit certain bodies better than L glass.

There are some seriously good EFS lenses, and lenses from Sigma (and better lenses in some instances) that are overlooked on the basis they are "not an L lens."
 
I agree, my Tamron 17-50 produces images as good as the Canon 24-70l I used to own.
It's not as nice a lens to use but optically was as good.
 
I have owned a brand new Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex apo dg os hsm for about 3 months and love it and have no complaints.

If you were to see images taken by both the Sigma and the Canon I don't think you would notice any difference at all.

The only difference between the two makes is the weather sealing on the Canon. This is why most pro toggers choose the Canon, if Sigma were to offer the same sealing I suggest more pro's would opt for this lens.

Andy
 
Keebsuk said:
I have owned a brand new Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex apo dg os hsm for about 3 months and love it and have no complaints.

If you were to see images taken by both the Sigma and the Canon I don't think you would notice any difference at all.

The only difference between the two makes is the weather sealing on the Canon. This is why most pro toggers choose the Canon, if Sigma were to offer the same sealing I suggest more pro's would opt for this lens.

Andy
Click to expand...

I'm currently going through the same choice - All the reviews (I've seen) and MTF charts indicate the Sigma 70-200mm OS lens is soft wide open - any chance you can mail me / PM a link to some full size RAW images at f2.8 70mm & 200mm :D
 
After reading lots and lots and lots about this lens i took the plung and bought one, the non IS version.

I didn't want a huge white lens stuck on the end of my camera and wanted to be discreet, the canon one isn't.

I used the siggy on my 50d for months without any issues at all but had to set my micro adjust to compensate for the back focus issues they're known to have.

However, once i bought my 1Ds MkII it missed like a sucker :( so i sent it off to sigma for correction. Got it back in a couple weeks and did a shoot expecting it to be spot on, how wrong was I!! didn't realise till after the shoot that it was missing again but the other way! so i called sigma and they suggested i send it with my body to have it calibrated together... so i drove to siggy with both lens and body, they sent it back a couple days later.

Now its spot on every time. Awesome quality and is the lens that pretty much sits on the end of my 1Ds for most things. Unless i fancy some 85 1.4 love ;)

Lots of people buy this lens and don't have an issue, if you do have an issue then don't send it back to the shop, send it to siggy and get it calibrated. For the saving its definitely worth the little trouble. Such a shame the Sigma can't get the QC sorted.

M.
 
odd jim said:
I've had to refer back to the OP to the bit highlighted by the *** (I'm on my iPhone so can't highlight!) - and the bit I highlighted is the irrational 'L' obsession of "it's not L glass. The fact is there are Sigma EX lenses, other third party lenses and EFS lenses that are optically BETTER than some L glass, and there are certainly lenses in that category that suit certain bodies better than L glass.

There are some seriously good EFS lenses, and lenses from Sigma (and better lenses in some instances) that are overlooked on the basis they are "not an L lens."
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn't doing the comparison based in that the Sigma is crap due to it not being an "L" glass.

It was just the comparison based on a 70-300 f2.8 that both had IS/OS

I'm not obsessed with L, I only have one L lens and that the kit 24-105
 
Apologies, I didn't mean to imply you yourself were obsessed with L lenses (though I can see my post did read that way) I meant in far more general terms, as Canon shooters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top