To stabilise or not to stabilse

[digitalfailure]

That is the question

I want to change my 75-300 IS for something a little faster.
The current canon lens is good for what I do with it tbh, the IS works well and as long as the ap and speed are thought about the results are good.....but it's f5.6 at the long end and can struggle with poor light.

I'm torn between the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L which is an IS lens and has a massive price tag or do I same a bundle of cash and get the Sigma 70-200 f2.8

Now the sigma isn't an IS or in sigma speak OS lens, but it gets good reviews for the glass.

 

[CT]

I just checked out the price of the Canon.

f2.8, IS and weatherproof though! Fearsome bit of kit. Isn't the Sigma version the one Dod is using and getting good results?

I'd always go for IS if possible, but there's no denying that lens aint cheap.

 

[dod]

f2.8, IS and weatherproof though! Fearsome bit of kit. Isn't the Sigma version the one Dod is using and getting good results?

I'd always go for IS if possible, but there's no denying that lens aint cheap.

Yep. The sigma is a really nice lens but it's got it's faults.

The pros.
- according to the charts it's sharper than the canon variant through the range at all apertures until you hit about 200mm, then the canon takes over.
- comes with tripod collar and hood
- a lot cheaper than the canon version
- it's black, not so conspicuous.
- it's smaller and lighter than the canon

The Cons
- the zoom ring works in the opposite direction to my other lenses. Not a huge issue but can catch you out occasionally.
- the finish is like a matt paint. Mine got splashed at a moto a few weeks ago and there are still some water marks I can't get off the barrel. Doesn't affect performance but annoying.
- no IS, obviously.
- potentially there may be compatability issues with new bodies in the future due to Sigma reverse engineering the lens.
- no weather proofing.

It's a hell of a choice to make. I went for the sigma for three main reasons.
1. Cost
2. Sharpness, latest outing can be seen here Have a look at the A's and 125's in particular.
3. Because I'm mainly shooting motox the IS is only of limited benefit. By the time it kicks in and locks on the shot is often past so there wasnt a real benefit.

However my ideal lens would have been the non IS canon version, but I couldn't find one at a sensible price.

Looking at the shots you've put up here it seems to be mainly cars and wildlife. Mode 2 of the IS is designed for pan shots and MOde 1 would be a benefit for the wildlife.

I love the sigma and pimp it regularly but in reality I think the canon may well be the one for you. It's not the first time you've asked either so I think you may well have set your heart on the canon and are hoping for someone to justify the cost for you I'd probably go for it if you can afford it, I couldn't at the time. I'm not disappointed in it but I know that at some stage I will end up with the canon version if only for the weatherproofing.

And on that note, I'm just away to pack the bag for a day at the races

 

[digitalfailure]

Dod

Thank you so much for your post, it's true that it's not the first time i've asked about it, your also correct in the seeking subvertive justification on the cost too...1.3K for a lens without a tripod collar is a huge wedge of cash

The choice isn't made any easier by knowing i'll need to spend a further further couple of hundred on a tripod collar and uv filter and an extender to give me the protection, functionality and range i have with the current 75-300.

The IS is a handy feature without doubt and helps get a decent picture when hand held at the long end as at 300 i'm left with f5.6 as the widest ap, a constant f2.8 offered by both the canon and the sigma would allow faster shutter speeds and provide similar results....i think

 

[Warspite]

Im sure the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS does come with the tripod collar, but the 70-200 f4 doesnt.

 

[dod]

You could be right warspite. I know the 100-400 does come with the collar but I could have got mixed up between the F2.8 and the F4. The sigma definitely does have the collar.

The IS is a handy feature without doubt and helps get a decent picture when hand held at the long end as at 300 i'm left with f5.6 as the widest ap, a constant f2.8 offered by both the canon and the sigma would allow faster shutter speeds and provide similar results....i think

Today was interesting, I got a tryout of the 70-200 F2.8 IS on a 1DS MKII, give me a chance to look through the shots and I'll post a couple with the sigma and the canon, really interested in seeing how it performs my self.

Initial impressions were it was a beautifuly handling lens. Fast and quiet and really smooth in operation. Cant really comment on the weight as it wasn't on my own camera.

 

[digitalfailure]

Well, today I went into my local shop and had a jolly good play with some lenses.

I didn't take my camera with me, so the shop allowed me to use a 350D as a test bed.

I had a fiddle with

100-400 f4
70-200 f 2.8 apo dg (sigma)
70-200 f2.8 L IS

First off I stepped outside with the 100-400 attached to the little 350d, it was a gloomy day so I decided to concentrate on hand holding and wide open apertures.

I was impressed by the focal length on offer, but as I found the last time I used this model of lens, i don't like the push/pull zoom and that hadn't changed this time either. with the camera sett to Av it was time to take a few shots, the results weren't bad tbh at f4 and even without the IS clicked on the image was sharp, with it engaged things were easier, not so critical to keep a steady stance.
Moving inside the shop things went down hill a little, I know this could have been corrected with a flash unit and a tripod, but i was after a general feel for the lens.

I moved onto the sigma and did the same shots outdoors only this time using the wider aperture, the reduced focal length was a let down at first, but once I told myself that i'd never had 400 before

I found that I was still getting sharp images at 200mm f2.8 which impressed me tbh. Inside things got better with handheld non flash assisted shots being able to benifit from the faster available shutter speeds.

I was expecting the Canon to dance all over the much cheaper Sigma, but it didn't

focus time was very close to that of the sigma but it was a shade faster. The images were not noticeably sharper though, so I was left wondering what the extra grand would get me, the build quality of the Canon was great, the reaction time of the IS was much faster than the 75-300 too but I was left thinking if the IS was the only real advantage i'd get from it.

So, moving into the shop to review the images on screen, the sigma was an equal to the Canon in terms of image quality.

So, I walked out of the shop with a bag containing the sigma to try on my 20D on the understanding that if I don't like how it performs over then next day or so, I can exchange it for the Canon.

I must say though that so far i'm happy with the sigma and it looks much better on the camera than the Canon does......why did they chose to make them white and the case with the sigma is great.

I forgot to confirm the tripod collar bit in the shop, the guy in there did waffle something about it being £90odd extra, it wasn't on the lens as I was using it though but might well have been in the box, the canon website doesn't say anything about it either

 

[Warspite]

I must say though that so far i'm happy with the sigma and it looks much better on the camera than the Canon does......why did they chose to make them white and the case with the sigma is great.

Thats all that matters in the end, that your happy with it

Congratulations - look forward to seeing the result ASAP

 

[dod]

good choice, congrats

 

[dod]

Today was interesting, I got a tryout of the 70-200 F2.8 IS on a 1DS MKII, give me a chance to look through the shots and I'll post a couple with the sigma and the canon, really interested in seeing how it performs my self.

Better late than never, first with 1ds, second with 20D and sigma, different settings so not a great comparison. The most striking thing to me is the different colour rendition. Not sure how much that's down to lens, camera settings or a combination of both.

Linky 1

Linky 2

 

[CT]

I've noticed the 1D produces noticeably nicer jpegs straight out of the camera. How did you get on with the 1Ds then Doddy?

 

[dod]

How did you get on with the 1Ds then Doddy?

The guy's going to send me the bill for cleaning the drool off
Really felt good, nice weight and so much more "right" than the grip on the 20D. Vertical shutter was rediculously sensitive, got a couple of well exposed shots of an empty track. Viewfinder is huuuuge but no brighter than the 20 as far as I could tell, I was searching about to find the shooting info for ages. Only downside is the loss of the crop factor which wouldn't be so much of an issue with the Non-S model.
Just working out which kidney I'd prefer to keep

Sorry for going OT digitalfailure

 

[SDK^]

100-400 F4

First off I stepped outside with the 100-400 ....set to Av it was time to take a few shots, the results weren't bad tbh at f4

I told myself that i'd never had 400 before

The Canon 100-400L IS is F4.5 - F5.6

 

[digitalfailure]

sorry m8, I had a head full of f-stops and I forgot the .5 off it

 

[Arkady]

The Cons
- the finish is like a matt paint. Mine got splashed at a moto a few weeks ago and there are still some water marks I can't get off the barrel. Doesn't affect performance but annoying.

Ahhh hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha

oohh hahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Get out and take some more picture in the rain - it'll wash the crud off...

 

[dod]

straighten that sticker soldier

 

[Arkady]

It is straight, it's everything else that's p*$$ed...

 

[IanC_UK]

It is straight, it's everything else that's p*$$ed...

Operator included ?

 

[Arkady]

Usually...:nuts: