Which 2.8?

Ukkor

Ukkor

Messages
333
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Right here comes another question from me (seem to be asking alot atm). Now i am currently saving for a 70-200 2.8, but i am unsure as to which one. I know that the canon 70-200 2.8's are highly regarded, but is it really worth paying over double the price for, as sigma do an equivalent. So how much better is the canon one?? And i am also unsure that if i bought the canon, wheteher i would want the IS, as i mainly do sports, but am branching out into other areas.

I would also like to know how kerso can sell the 2.8 IS at 1149, as that is amazingly cheap compared to normal shops.

Anyway, any advice is welcome

Thanlk
 
I don't know if they still have them, but Jacobs were selling the Tamron one for about £450 last month. Glass is excellent, but the focus isn't up to canon's standard. There's a pretty good review on dpreview
 
I think part of the difference between the two is quality control - if you buy Canon L glass, you're paying for the high standards to which Canon build their professional lenses. If you buy from Sigma, you've got a good chance of getting a lens that is fairly comparable, BUT, you might not!

As to how kerso sells so cheap, it's simply 'cos us stoopid brits pay more than any other country - he imports his lenses from the US, so he can flog 'em far cheaper than the UK stockists! That said, his lenses are still covered for warranty repair by Canon UK.
 
I shoot with the Nikon version of the Tamron. As The Matt said, great glass, but slow auto-focus. I shoot mainly children though, and this hasn't been an issue so far. You would think it would have been because them little buggers will NOT stay still for long. :D
 
Today I met a guy who shoots weddings. He has a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and he'd hired a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS because (a) he's wondering whether the upgrade is worthwhile, and (b) he had a wedding in a particularly gloomy church at the weekend. (It was the church in "Dibley", aka Turville in the Cotswolds.)

Anyway, he was AMAZED at the difference. He took both lenses to the church the day before the wedding, to test them out, and says the pictres from the Canon were MILES better. Sharper, more contrasty, better colour reproduction, etc etc. So now he needs to find £1500 to buy one.
 
StewartR said:
Today I met a guy who shoots weddings. He has a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and he'd hired a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS because (a) he's wondering whether the upgrade is worthwhile, and (b) he had a wedding in a particularly gloomy church at the weekend. (It was the church in "Dibley", aka Turville in the Cotswolds.)

Anyway, he was AMAZED at the difference. He took both lenses to the church the day before the wedding, to test them out, and says the pictres from the Canon were MILES better. Sharper, more contrasty, better colour reproduction, etc etc. So now he needs to find £1500 to buy one.
Click to expand...

Let him know about kerso, as he is selling it for £1149 at the moment... just wish i had the cash for one now:(
 
I have the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 and am very happy with the results. I dont know if the canon is worth the extra, but I would have thought that you dont need IS if you are using it for sport. Can you hire them to compare or even borrow them to try them out.
 
Ukkor said:
Right here comes another question from me (seem to be asking alot atm). Now i am currently saving for a 70-200 2.8, but i am unsure as to which one. I know that the canon 70-200 2.8's are highly regarded, but is it really worth paying over double the price for, as sigma do an equivalent. So how much better is the canon one?? And i am also unsure that if i bought the canon, wheteher i would want the IS, as i mainly do sports, but am branching out into other areas.

I would also like to know how kerso can sell the 2.8 IS at 1149, as that is amazingly cheap compared to normal shops.

Anyway, any advice is welcome

Thanlk
Click to expand...

I think you know which lens is best, and which one you want. The question is, is it worth the extra? Only you can decide that. Take a look at used values if you need any more convincing ;)

I know which one I'd have. And from Kerso. He's pukka, he just has zero overheads.
 
I can see a lot of the responses in here as in other threads.. where people list there sigma lens and how happy they are.. even with great examples.. Indeed I was happy wiht mine.. had a sigma 70-200 for a few years and then a sigma 120-300

They where great and produced very nice pictures.. everyone who owns one can show you good pictures..

However when you do try a caon L equivelant the difference is amazing... mostly for the reasons stewartR customer states..

The difference isnt the build quality.. theres also the maths that go into making the lens.. only canon have the exact info and dont give it to anyone else.. thats the story I heard :)

I loved my sigma lenses and they where great for me.. but now i discovered the difference I cant go back to sigma..
 
KIPAX said:
I can see a lot of the responses in here as in other threads.. where people list there sigma lens and how happy they are.. even with great examples.. Indeed I was happy wiht mine.. had a sigma 70-200 for a few years and then a sigma 120-300

They where great and produced very nice pictures.. everyone who owns one can show you good pictures..

However when you do try a caon L equivelant the difference is amazing... mostly for the reasons stewartR customer states..

The difference isnt the build quality.. theres also the maths that go into making the lens.. only canon have the exact info and dont give it to anyone else.. thats the story I heard :)

I loved my sigma lenses and they where great for me.. but now i discovered the difference I cant go back to sigma..
Click to expand...

I don't think it's true that Canon has some special knowledge that Sigma doesn't. Canon just design and build lenses to a higher standard and this is reflected in the price. There are very few secrets in optical technology these days, unlike cameras and digital technology.

If Sigma wanted to build a lens to Canon spec, they could. It would cost the same, and nobody would buy it in preferance to the Canon branded product. The only reason to buy a Sigma or any other third party lens is because it's cheaper. It's never going to be better, unless it's a niche lens that Canon doesn't make.

Lenses are ruled by basic physics that is as old as the hills, and the glass is a mixture of chemicals that anybody can alalyse and then get Hoya to make it for you. Aspherical surfaces and high-index low-dispersion glass were the last real innovations, and that was decades ago. Canon L used to stand for Low dispersion IIRC, then Nikon came out with ED - Extra low Dispersion glass. Same stuff which replaced flourite which is mildly radio-active and was a health risk to factory employees (not photographers).

I think we will see more optical development, but it will depend on how digital processing goes, and how far lens aberrations can be corrected in image software which will enable designers to strech the specification further in other directions.

I think that this could be a difficult time for the likes of Sigma, as it is a potential way for camera makers to lock third parties out of compatability. Their lenses might fit, but the camera wouldn't recognise their characterists and correct them. Suddenly the branded lenses are not only better, but also cheaper. Or much, much better. Or smaller and lighter. Or have more range and wider apertures. All sorts of advantageous choices.

But knowing Sigma, who are a canny lot, they'll find a way around it :)
 
Right another 2.8 question, this time for a different purpose. It looks like i am going to get a chance to photograph a small band (well i say small..) called "Good Charlotte" during their next UK tour. Now i am hoping that this wont be until next year, so that i can have a 70 - 200 2.8 before then.

However, i have been looking at shorter options for this kind of event, and one that looks quite promising is the tamron 17-50 2.8. It seems that a few people use this for concert, but i was just wondering if anybody has had any experience with this lens, if you would recommend it, and the alternatives.

Cheers
 
Ukkor said:
Right another 2.8 question, this time for a different purpose. It looks like i am going to get a chance to photograph a small band (well i say small..) called "Good Charlotte" during their next UK tour. Now i am hoping that this wont be until next year, so that i can have a 70 - 200 2.8 before then.

However, i have been looking at shorter options for this kind of event, and one that looks quite promising is the tamron 17-50 2.8. It seems that a few people use this for concert, but i was just wondering if anybody has had any experience with this lens, if you would recommend it, and the alternatives.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Canon EFS 17-55 2.8 IS has got to be favourite on a 40D. I know at least one other person on here uses it as lens of choice for gigs. At a price of course though.
 
Sorry to bring this up again. But I think i have made my decision. I think that i have decided to buy the Sigma, and use that for the time being, mainly because the 2.8 is absoloutly essential for the coming months, and it is all that I can realisticallly afford atm. Also I am only Photographing for my local football club, and sometimes the local paper, so its not like i really need a "L" lens for the time being - maybe when i start making a bit more money. I will go on to sell the sigma in a couple of years, and purchase a canon, by which time i will have hopefully moved on to better things!

Anyway, can people please tell me that i am making sense!
 
Ukkor said:
Also I am only Photographing for my local football club, and sometimes the local paper, so its not like i really need a "L" lens for the time being - maybe when i start making a bit more money. I will go on to sell the sigma in a couple of years, and purchase a canon, by which time i will have hopefully moved on to better things!

Anyway, can people please tell me that i am making sense!
Click to expand...

complete sense.. this is EXACTLY the way I did it.. started with canon 10d and sigma 70-200 and worked my way up over the years...
 
I'm having pretty sizable cravings for a 70-200 f/2.8, and when I do I'll probably get the Sigma too, and put the money saved in the "100-400 fund"! Only after I've got an ultra wide angle though..... It's going to be an expensive year :( :D
 
KIPAX said:
complete sense.. this is EXACTLY the way I did it.. started with canon 10d and sigma 70-200 and worked my way up over the years...
Click to expand...

Thank you for telling me i'm sane! I think i got a bit ahead of myself talking about "L" lenses when i am not making all that much money at the moment!
 
i would recommend going for something a bit shorter than the 70-200 if your doing gig photography or something similar. you'll struggle to get a band shot unless you are quite far away from the stage. i use mine specifically for portraits and candid shots at weddings, as you cant really get a group of any size in the frame. have a play around with the focal length first before you commit. you might find the tamron 28-70 2.8 or sigma 24-70 2.8 more suitable for your needs.
 
hsuffyan said:
i would recommend going for something a bit shorter than the 70-200 if your doing gig photography or something similar. you'll struggle to get a band shot unless you are quite far away from the stage. i use mine specifically for portraits and candid shots at weddings, as you cant really get a group of any size in the frame. have a play around with the focal length first before you commit. you might find the tamron 28-70 2.8 or sigma 24-70 2.8 more suitable for your needs.
Click to expand...

Well the gig that i will be doing, is not until next year, so the money that i will save from buying the 70-200 (for my sports) can be put towards the sigma 24 -70. Trying to keep all bases covered in photography is difficult!
 
I'm in the same sort of boat.

on a budget, plumbed for the 17-50 tamron and the sigma 50-150 which is not bad on a cropped sensor. However, the focusing on the 50-150 has been an issue, I've had it re-calibrated, still need to test it properly though. the shots are nice but I'd love some 70-200 canon L goodness!
 
I've had the sigma F2.8 the canon F4 and I've got the F2.8IS.

If it wasn't for the weather sealing on the Canon IS model I'd have stuck to the Sigma. Just as sharp, just as quick, lighter and far better value.
 
Personally, I have recently bought the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and teh Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I started on the Sigmas purely because of cost, but would really like to compare against the nikon ones eventually.
 
Just an update..... Now a Canon "L" series owner.... not long to find out if it was worth it, football match Tuesday night!
 
wooo

for the short end I really rate the tamron 17-50
one of the best crop sensor lenses going I reckon - comparable to my 50mm f1.4 ;)
 
KIPAX said:
I can see a lot of the responses in here as in other threads.. where people list there sigma lens and how happy they are.. even with great examples.. Indeed I was happy wiht mine.. had a sigma 70-200 for a few years and then a sigma 120-300

They where great and produced very nice pictures.. everyone who owns one can show you good pictures..

However when you do try a caon L equivelant the difference is amazing... mostly for the reasons stewartR customer states..

I loved my sigma lenses and they where great for me.. but now i discovered the difference I cant go back to sigma..
Click to expand...

same here - I went through a number of Sigma lenses (70-200 f2.8, 100-300 f4, 500 f4.5) and loved them at the time... but once I'd seen what an equivelent L series lens could do I started to switch over and have not looked back. I know it's a slower lens but my Canon 70-200 f4 give better results than my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top