Which 70-200 Lens?

G

GerryD

Messages
3,557
Name
Gerald Davies
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

I've taken an interest in sports photography and using a canon 100 - 400, which, lets face it is little slow, especially for the evening/dull days. Now I have a choice between the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM and the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II. I know the canon will give the better quality images, but is it worth twice the price?

I really would struggle to find the money for the Canon lens, but if the image quality and functionality is worth the cost, then I'd find the cash.

Have any of you used both lens and give a comparison? I'd love to hear what you think of the sigma lens.
 
D-pearce92 said:
I would say go for the Canon personally even though ive never used either lens, i dont now how much the Sigma goes for second hand but mpbphotogrpihic have got the Canon at what i persnally think is a very good price, depends though on whether you need is or not. I would act fast though as the chances are it will go quickly.
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...non-fit-lenses/canon-ef-70-200mm-f/2.8-l-usm/
Click to expand...

Thanks Dex. Thats a good price, but I was looking for the IS version, hence the extra cost. At that price it will go quickly. I've just check the prices on Ffords and it is quite a bit cheaper.
 
taxi said:
Thanks Dex. Thats a good price, but I was looking for the IS version, hence the extra cost. At that price it will go quickly. I've just check the prices on Ffords and it is quite a bit cheaper.
Click to expand...

I thought you might be, perhaps maybe buy the Sigma s/h then if you dont get on with it sell it and save up or buy the Sigma s/h and save up the rest for the Canon, i suspect that the amount of money you'll lose on the sigma would be nill or very neglible if you did do the second option.
 
But for sporting events with moving subjects IS will be turned off anyway. As far as I'm aware IS is only good for static objects in low light.
 
Barry, I've always used the IS, even when doing fast moving wildlife. I don't yet have a mono pod so always hand hold. I've only ever taken the IS off when using a tripod.
 
taxi said:
Hi

I've taken an interest in sports photography and using a canon 100 - 400, which, lets face it is little slow, especially for the evening/dull days. Now I have a choice between the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM and the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II. I know the canon will give the better quality images, but is it worth twice the price?

I really would struggle to find the money for the Canon lens, but if the image quality and functionality is worth the cost, then I'd find the cash.

Have any of you used both lens and give a comparison? I'd love to hear what you think of the sigma lens.
Click to expand...

Check out digitalrev Channel on YouTube as he does a side by side review of these 2 lenses and the results are unsurprising.
 
I have no idea whether or not the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II is worth twice the money. All I know is that it is never off my camera. It is superb.
 
First.. Barry is correct.. you wouldnt normally use IS for sports

I ahve owned the sigma 70-200 and its a great lens.. I would never say dont buy it.. used one for a couple of years and loved it..

I now own the canon and yes for me its worth twice the price.. if you do field sports with a 70-200 you will find it too short.. however you can certainly crop in more with the canon and the pics will still be quality.. crop in the same with sigma and not so good (IMHO)

Also with a good 1.4x you can cover a whole football/rugby blah blah pitch from the halfway line.. wont lose any quality..


So.. sigma is good and you woudlnt be dissapointed wiht it.. but IMHO the canon 2.8 mkII is twice as good :)
 
lucky_13 said:
Check out digitalrev Channel on YouTube as he does a side by side review of these 2 lenses and the results are unsurprising.
Click to expand...

You're right he does prefer the Canon, but for twice the price I would expect it to be better. He does comment on the build quality and sigman quality control, which does worry me!!
 
duggiebee said:
I have no idea whether or not the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II is worth twice the money. All I know is that it is never off my camera. It is superb.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:

KIPAX said:
First.. Barry is correct.. you wouldnt normally use IS for sports

I ahve owned the sigma 70-200 and its a great lens.. I would never say dont buy it.. used one for a couple of years and loved it..

I now own the canon and yes for me its worth twice the price.. if you do field sports with a 70-200 you will find it too short.. however you can certainly crop in more with the canon and the pics will still be quality.. crop in the same with sigma and not so good (IMHO)

Also with a good 1.4x you can cover a whole football/rugby blah blah pitch from the halfway line.. wont lose any quality..


So.. sigma is good and you woudlnt be dissapointed wiht it.. but IMHO the canon 2.8 mkII is twice as good :)
Click to expand...

I'll try the next shoot without the IS and see what happens. Thanks for the tips on covering the field with the 1.4x convertor. :thumbs:

The question is can I live the with reduced quality of the sigma. Maybe I need to think about my audiance, etc.. I'm really struggling to justify the cost of the canon. Maybe I should think about a 2nd hand one and save for the canon. Damn I hate making decisions!!! :lol::lol::lol:
 
taxi said:
I'll try the next shoot without the IS and see what happens. Thanks for the tips on covering the field with the 1.4x convertor. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

the 1.4 advice was with the canon not the sigma.. i tried and the sigma 1.4 was a hugh hit/miss situation..


IS?
Sport often requires that you point and shoot as quick as posisble.. say the ball is passed from one player to another.. you stop focussing player A and you ahve to get to player B and focus before or as the ball does.. with IS the focus takes a little longer to kick in.. you can hear it attaining focus even... this can mean the difference between getting and not getting the shot..

if your pointing at a bird in a tree.. you ahve time to focus with IS and then track the bird with IS ...

Its about the speed of the AF kicking in and IS makes it slower in the type of photogrpahy you need it quick.. even a part of a second makes a difference ..
 
One of the most discussed topics.

However, having used both, for most users, the Canon is certainly not worth twice the price. It wasn't for me!

Personally, quality wise, I found it hard to tell the difference on my 50d, with the Canon having slightly better corners wide open on my full frame 5d.

As I planned to use the 70-200 on my 50d I actually bought the Sigma as it's more or less indistinguishable from the Canon on a crop.
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
the 1.4 advice was with the canon not the sigma.. i tried and the sigma 1.4 was a hugh hit/miss situation..


IS?
Sport often requires that you point and shoot as quick as posisble.. say the ball is passed from one player to another.. you stop focussing player A and you ahve to get to player B and focus before or as the ball does.. with IS the focus takes a little longer to kick in.. you can hear it attaining focus even... this can mean the difference between getting and not getting the shot..

if your pointing at a bird in a tree.. you ahve time to focus with IS and then track the bird with IS ...

Its about the speed of the AF kicking in and IS makes it slower in the type of photogrpahy you need it quick.. even a part of a second makes a difference ..
Click to expand...

I had a feeling it would be down to the speed of the IS, but thanks for clarifying. Iy also depends how long the bird stays there. lol

odd jim said:
One of the most discussed topics.

However, having used both, for most users, the Canon is certainly not worth twice the price. It wasn't for me!

Personally, quality wise, I found it hard to tell the difference on my 50d, with the Canon having slightly better corners wide open on my full frame 5d.

As I planned to use the 70-200 on my 50d I actually bought the Sigma as it's more or less indistinguishable from the Canon on a crop.
Click to expand...

I'd be using on my 60D so its good to hear performance wise, there's not much difference. How did you find the build quality of the lens?
 
taxi said:
I had a feeling it would be down to the speed of the IS, but thanks for clarifying. Iy also depends how long the bird stays there. lol

I'd be using on my 60D so its good to hear performance wise, there's not much difference. How did you find the build quality of the lens?
Click to expand...

Build quality is top notch. Had it well over 2 years and it's still as good as when I took it out the box!

It's very solid, and so far not even a spec of dust inside and that's with quite a lot of use.
 
Sigma lenses are great, have an issue, send it to them

All of mine have been great including the 70-200
 
odd jim said:
Build quality is top notch. Had it well over 2 years and it's still as good as when I took it out the box!

It's very solid, and so far not even a spec of dust inside and that's with quite a lot of use.
Click to expand...


Cheers. I've heard a lot about the intermitantness of the quality with sigma lens.

andyscott said:
Sigma lenses are great, have an issue, send it to them

All of mine have been great including the 70-200
Click to expand...

Cheers Andy
 
Your the 1st person I've ever heard saying that!

odd jim said:
One of the most discussed topics.

However, having used both, for most users, the Canon is certainly not worth twice the price. It wasn't for me!

Personally, quality wise, I found it hard to tell the difference on my 50d, with the Canon having slightly better corners wide open on my full frame 5d.

As I planned to use the 70-200 on my 50d I actually bought the Sigma as it's more or less indistinguishable from the Canon on a crop.
Click to expand...
 
I second jim's comments!

The only reason I shoot with the canon 2.8 non-is is that I bought it cheaper than a sigma :-D
 
admirable said:
Your the 1st person I've ever heard saying that!
Click to expand...

Saying what?
 
1/ Sigma users saying the 70-200mm f/2.8II is not worth twice the price of the Sigma.

2/ I found it hard to tell the difference on my 50d, with the Canon having slightly better corners wide open on my full frame 5d.

3/ I actually bought the Sigma as it's more or less indistinguishable from the Canon on a crop

I know I'm selective quoting here but I can tell the difference flicking through my shots between the 70 200 and the 100 400 so I find your statements surprising!

odd jim said:
Saying what?
Click to expand...
 
Have you tried a Canon 70 200 f/2.8 MkII?


adamdavi3s said:
I second jim's comments!

The only reason I shoot with the canon 2.8 non-is is that I bought it cheaper than a sigma :-D
Click to expand...
 
admirable said:
1/ Sigma users saying the 70-200mm f/2.8II is not worth twice the price of the Sigma.

2/ I found it hard to tell the difference on my 50d, with the Canon having slightly better corners wide open on my full frame 5d.

3/ I actually bought the Sigma as it's more or less indistinguishable from the Canon on a crop

I know I'm selective quoting here but I can tell the difference flicking through my shots between the 70 200 and the 100 400 so I find your statements surprising!
Click to expand...

I'm confused.

What's it got to do with the 100-400??
 
admirable said:
Have you tried a Canon 70 200 f/2.8 MkII?
Click to expand...

Have you tried the Siggy? Just curious!
 
The OP has a 100 400 so I thought I'd mention it.

What you are saying is the 70 200mm f/2.8 II is not worth twice as much as the Sigma and it's more or less indistinguishable from the Canon on a crop.

I know 3 sigma owners that have now bought the Canon lens and can't believe the difference! I know it's more expensive bt the price is relevant to the budget allowance surely?
 
Last edited:
Ha, I swaped lenses for a weekend...........I couldn't wait to get the Canon back and the other guy sold the Sigma and bought the Canon from Kerso the following week.

odd jim said:
Have you tried the Siggy? Just curious!
Click to expand...
 
i read alot of reviews comparing the sigma 2.8 os and the canon 2.8IS mk1 and the siqma didn't fair that well and the mk2 is supposed to be far better than the mk1
so opted for a used 2.8 mk1 at the price of a new sigma. couldn't justify the cost of the mk2
 
admirable said:
Ha, I swaped lenses for a weekend...........I couldn't wait to get the Canon back and the other guy sold the Sigma and bought the Canon from Kerso the following week.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I am a Canon man through and through, 95% of my kit is Canon, even the lens hoods. So I have no allegiances to sigma or any other manufacturers. However, when it comes to money I tell it like it is, and paying twice for the Canon is simply crazy given the small increase in iq it offers the user. All IMO of course.

If you're made of money, fair enough, but I'd prefer to own the Siggy and spend the rest on a holiday, which was what I did!
 
That's my whole point, if you're on £10,000 per week then you'll buy the Canon but to say it's not worth twice the cost of the Sigma is down to the budget allowance!

I find it hard to believe if they were both the same price that folks would buy the Sigma over the Canon
 
My canon 70 200 mark2 just arrived. I took out back to try it out and wow!! I was having a hard time holding it steady but that really didn't seem to matter. So far (with little testing time) it seems like there couldn't possibly be a better lens. Imho you get what you pay for....
 
all about cost for me...
I've just bought a sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS 2nd hand
and I like it
but if I won the lottery I would buy a 70-200 Mkii, simple as that.

the only thing that puts me off the L glass is the HUGE GREY Lens which makes you stand out, as a non-pro it's even more conspicuous than my sigma.

I know that recent comparisons have put the canon Mkii above the sigma, it's just better. but I can't afford it, or if I could get the money together I could not justify the purchase.
as it stands 70-200 sigma plus a 2x TC is the way forward for me.
URRRGH!! a teleconverter?
surely you should have a 70-200....MAYBE a 1.4xTC, but then a 100-400 L, plus a full frame body, 1D surely for better focusing, and a 300 and 500mm L prime.
yes, that would be nice! see my first line

last point, I just sold my 50-150 sigma and I loved it.
why? not as good as a 70-200 L....of course, but it did a similar job for a non-pro and was smaller, lighter and easier to use as a walk about lens.
having the large/heavy pro glass could have meant that I missed some cracking shots with the smaller/cheaper/lighter option
 
admirable said:
That's my whole point, if you're on £10,000 per week then you'll buy the Canon but to say it's not worth twice the cost of the Sigma is down to the budget allowance!

I find it hard to believe if they were both the same price that folks would buy the Sigma over the Canon
Click to expand...

But therein lies two issues - 1 is the Canon the better lens? Yes. But, 2 is it worth twice as much? I'd argue the answer is still no!

From my experience, the Canon is no where near twice as good (I'd say between 5-10% better overall) so to say its worth twice as much is a massive exaggeration.

Money no object? I'd be going for a 600mm L prime!
 
The problem with sigma lens (and sigma users) is....its such a good lens.. and you get everyone posting that they ahve the sigma 70-200 and its brilliant and the canon cant be worth twice as much..

I will always agree the sigma is great.. But given the question asked by the OP you shouldnt be posting unless you have used both the sigma and the canon.. because you can't compare.. you can only say how good the sigma is..

But isn't it all relative to what your doing wiht it??

#1
Take the sigma into a badly lit floodlight football stadium and take a shot of a player at the half way line or furthur.. take the canon 2.8 mkII and the same shot..

Now crop in around 60%-70% so you ahve less than half the pic.. just the player...

the canon pic will be twice as good if not more than the sigma pic


[replace the above with any extreme lighting/distance/crop situation]


#2
OK now take the two lens out on a nice day and take a picture of a plant pot... you wont see much difference and the canon wont be worth double the price
 
KIPAX said:
#1
Take the sigma into a badly lit floodlight football stadium and take a shot of a player at the half way line or furthur.. take the canon 2.8 mkII and the same shot..

Now crop in around 60%-70% so you ahve less than half the pic.. just the player...

the canon pic will be twice as good if not more than the sigma pic


[replace the above with any extreme lighting/distance/crop situation]
Click to expand...

really though? ive just my sigma in low light in a standard dressage arena (around half a football pitch) and crops are fine. maybe im being dumb but surely the body would have more baring on that?
 
neil_g said:
really though? ive just my sigma in low light in a standard dressage arena (around half a football pitch) and crops are fine. maybe im being dumb but surely the body would have more baring on that?
Click to expand...

Likewise. The reason I bought an f/2.8 tele of my own (and used a canon and Siggy belonging to friends before I bought) was that I needed a lens that could resolve well wide open in poor light, mainly for poorly lit indoor show jumping.

I found the Siggy as capable as the (mk 1 at least) Canon.

Which reflects what Kipax said, I've used both in real world situations and I still bought the Siggy. I didn't find the benefits of the Canon, as small as they were, we're worth an extra £800 outlay.
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
really though? ive just my sigma in low light in a standard dressage arena (around half a football pitch) and crops are fine.
Click to expand...

of course it does.... I never once said it wouldnt.. in fact in every post I have gone to the trouble of saying what a good lens the sigma is... I never said it wouldnt crop fine did I ? :)

Thats exactly the problem with sigma and sigma users.. what I said and what you just did! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top