Which 70-200mm

P

phate

Messages
69
Name
Kai
Edit My Images
Yes
Afternoon Folks,
Could use some advice, I am looking to get either the Sigma 70-200 2.8 or the Canon 70-200 f4L, both of which i am seeing second-hand for £350-450.

Currently I have a 400D, and will be getting a 60D next month. I want to use ot for motorsports, and have a few friends getting married this year who have asked me to shoot their weddings. Having been a second shooter and assisted at several, I feel confident doing this, as they're small affairs.

From what I can see, the canon is sharper than the sigma, but would I be able to get away with using the Canon f4L indoors?

Ta
 
phate said:
Afternoon Folks,
Could use some advice, I am looking to get either the Sigma 70-200 2.8 or the Canon 70-200 f4L, both of which i am seeing second-hand for £350-450.

Currently I have a 400D, and will be getting a 60D next month. I want to use ot for motorsports, and have a few friends getting married this year who have asked me to shoot their weddings. Having been a second shooter and assisted at several, I feel confident doing this, as they're small affairs.

From what I can see, the canon is sharper than the sigma, but would I be able to get away with using the Canon f4L indoors?

Ta
Click to expand...

No, not without flash. Depending on the how the church is lit, you may get away with the F4 L IS, but the 2.8 should be OK, but you are talking much, much more money.
 
I'm in the same boat as you regarding getting the 70-200 range so I'll keep an eye on this thread I can't afford the canon 2.8 lol
 
Personally, I never found the F4L lacking, and that was on a 50D, you'll have no worries on a 60D IMO.

The AF on the sigma is slower and I hear it hunts more than the F4L in low light.
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Personally, I never found the F4L lacking, and that was on a 50D, you'll have no worries on a 60D IMO.

The AF on the sigma is slower and I hear it hunts more than the F4L in low light.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Sigma AF is slow or hunts at low light. My Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM mkII (non OS) have fast AF (as fast and accurate as my AF-S lens) and the tracks well at low light as well.
 
Different system. Some people have commented that the Sigma brand lenses differ between mounts.

Again, in my experience, Sigma is no where near the af speed and apparently hunts more in low light.

I'm of the opinion that I would rather use the F4L at a higher ISO and get the shot... Than use a lens that risks hunting or doesnt focus in time and dont get a shot at all
 
I hadn't heard that the sigma has to hunt more in low light, but I have heard of cases of front focusing issues, which would be a problem, though could be sorted.
The f4 though would be horrible on my 400D with high iso, and not sure it would be usuable, but as you say Mike, could be okay on a 60D, but I'm struggling to find any such shots to see examples.

Thanks Henry, can't say I had really looked at it. Am a bit dubious about having to send the camera and lens away, but if it's worth it I may if I get it. Is it a lens you've used yourself?
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Different system. Some people have commented that the Sigma brand lenses differ between mounts.

Again, in my experience, Sigma is no where near the af speed and apparently hunts more in low light.

I'm of the opinion that I would rather use the F4L at a higher ISO and get the shot... Than use a lens that risks hunting or doesnt focus in time and dont get a shot at all
Click to expand...

Well, I can confirm the Canon mount Sigma AF is easily as fast as both the Canon f/4 and f/2.8 variants and doesn't hunt in low light (not anymore than the Canon's at least).
 
odd jim said:
Well, I can confirm the Canon mount Sigma AF is easily as fast as both the Canon f/4 and f/2.8 variants and doesn't hunt in low light (not anymore than the Canon's at least).
Click to expand...

I know Jim will comment on the Sigma 70-200 lens lol
 
I was lucky I picked up an f2.8L Non IS in minty condition off the bay of evils for £650.

Must say it's pin sharp and I love it. Quick to focus even in dim conditions and well worth saving a bit extra for. Only downside is it weighs quite a bit more than the f4L
 
ChrisH said:
I was lucky I picked up an f2.8L Non IS in minty condition off the bay of evils for £650.

Must say it's pin sharp and I love it. Quick to focus even in dim conditions and well worth saving a bit extra for. Only downside is it weighs quite a bit more than the f4L
Click to expand...

As good as it is, I personally didn't think the Canon L warranted twice the price of the Sigma...
 
Regards shooting indoors, bear in mind that you may well need more than f/2.8 - it's only a stop faster than f/4 after all and won't work miracles.
 
My Sigma 70-2000 2.8 was an OK lens but then I got the Canon 70-200 2.8L and there was a marked improvement. Is it worth the extra price tag?.............You bet it is.

Ian
 
thats why the 70-200 f2.8 with IS/VR/OS is useful. f2.8 to let in more light then IS/VR/OS to allow you to use slower shutter speed to eliminate the shake. For indoor church wedding etc if i can't hand held the 70-200 (non IS) to get good result i may consider to use a monopod, otherwise i better use a prime lens like 85mm
 
Last edited:
Jim I take it your Sigma was only £325 ?if so I agree there is a huge difference thats hard to see in the cost.

However the build quality of L glass is far superior to Sigma lenses. Personaly I think it's whatever you can afford is best because without either it's hard to get that picture :D
 
ChrisH said:
Jim I take it your Sigma was only £325 ?if so I agree there is a huge difference thats hard to see in the cost.

However the build quality of L glass is far superior to Sigma lenses. Personaly I think it's whatever you can afford is best because without either it's hard to get that picture :D
Click to expand...

No it was £624 new, the Canon I loaned was offered to me for about £1100... (an otherwise unused f/2.8).
 
Im in a similar position, wedding to video, own a 60D, and looking for 70-200, so am also interested. Ive found a good quality 2nd hand Canon f4 L IS, for £650ish, but as ChrisH has mentioned a f2.8 non IS can be picked up for similar? I had a play with the 2.8 IS at the broadcast video expo, amazing lens but surprised how heavy it was!
 
Last edited:
I picked up my Sigma 70-200 2.8 yesterday so not had a good play with it yet but the first thing I did do was try a lowlight shot & the autofocus was easily quick enough, I'm not disappointed at all but it is very heavy, I can see me using the monopod with it
 
odd jim said:
As good as it is, I personally didn't think the Canon L warranted twice the price of the Sigma...
Click to expand...

ChrisH paid £650 for his Canon L and you paid £624 for your sigma so how does that equate to twice the price??

to my thinking he got a far better deal than you did

to the OP F4 is not the solution for indoor shooting
 
Buttkicker said:
ChrisH paid £650 for his Canon L and you paid £624 for your sigma so how does that equate to twice the price??

to my thinking he got a far better deal than you did

to the OP F4 is not the solution for indoor shooting
Click to expand...

I'm assuming chris's lens was used as new they were going for over £1k. Doesn't take the brain of Britain to work the price differences out.

There was nothing in it iq or speed wise between the two lenses so why would I pay the same for a used lens when I can have a brand spanking new lens that performs just as well for the same price??

No brainer IMO. Of course it's not got that special white paint though...
 
Last edited:
I've used the 70-200 F/4 (IS version) in churches for wedding services and I find it does fine; bearing in mind people rarely dart about the place during the nuptials, so slow shutter speeds are less of a problem and the IS helps keep you steady in these conditions, of course. When it comes to the reception, there's not as much of a requirement for discretion, so I find a couple of fast primes are good for getting stuck in and capturing the action as the night wears on.
 
odd jim said:
I'm assuming chris's lens was used as new they were going for over £1k.

There was nothing in it iq or speed wise, so why would I pay the same for a used lens when I can have a brand spanking new lens that performs just as well for the same price??

No brained IMO. Of course it's not got that special white paint though...
Click to expand...

as far as I understand the non IS Canon 70-200mm was only stopped been sold in the last 18 months so he might of got it from old stock it was about £800 when it was withdrawn
that aside I would take a good condition 2nd hand Canon F2.8 over the sigma F2.8 every time
sharper - better autofocus - better build quaility far better resale value yes the Canon is the no brainer IMHO
 
Buttkicker said:
as far as I understand the non IS Canon 70-200mm was only stopped been sold in the last 18 months so he might of got it from old stock it was about £800 when it was withdrawn
that aside I would take a good condition 2nd hand Canon F2.8 over the sigma F2.8 every time
sharper - better autofocus - better build quaility far better resale value yes the Canon is the no brainer IMHO
Click to expand...

I dont buy lenses to sell them on, I buy them to use them!

Look here;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&...nics&hvadid=7584570356&ref=pd_sl_52mpo8ojh1_b

Amazon sell both the mk2 Sigma and the mk1 Canon new, the Canon is still more or less twice the price (in fact there's someone on there looking to sell a used one for £1100). And I loaned / purchased the lenses over 2 years ago when the mk2 Canon wasnt out.

I've used both, and I'm a Canon man through and through. However, the Sigma was as good IQ wise (in fact, better at 200mm) and the AF is no better on the Canon as both are very, very good. I've re-read Chris' post and its an ebay job, though a good and rare deal by the looks of things. I laughed at the guy when he offered to sell me the Canon for £1100!

Paint the Sigma white you wouldnt be able to tell the two apart. :LOL:
 
Last edited:
Buttkicker said:
as far as I understand the non IS Canon 70-200mm was only stopped been sold in the last 18 months so he might of got it from old stock it was about £800 when it was withdrawn
that aside I would take a good condition 2nd hand Canon F2.8 over the sigma F2.8 every time
sharper - better autofocus - better build quaility far better resale value yes the Canon is the no brainer IMHO
Click to expand...
True, and if I could afford it, then I'd gladly get one, but as i've been searching a while, and only seen it once as low as £650 ( a gumtree ad for 300miles from me) it's not really much of an option unfortunately. As per my original post, this was more about the f4L vs the sigma 2.8.

odd jim said:
I dont buy lenses to sell them on, I buy them to use them!

Look here;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&...nics&hvadid=7584570356&ref=pd_sl_52mpo8ojh1_b

Amazon sell both the mk2 Sigma and the mk1 Canon new, the Canon is still more or less twice the price (in fact there's someone on there looking to sell a used one for £1100). And I loaned / purchased the lenses over 2 years ago when the mk2 Canon wasnt out.

I've used both, and I'm a Canon man through and through. However, the Sigma was as good IQ wise (in fact, better at 200mm) and the AF is no better on the Canon as both are very, very good. I've re-read Chris' post and its an ebay job, though a good and rare deal by the looks of things. I laughed at the guy when he offered to sell me the Canon for £1100!

Paint the Sigma white you wouldnt be able to tell the two apart. :LOL:
Click to expand...
Most people who have bought the sigma seem to be happy with it, and I think it's the way i'm swaying towards too at the mo!

Iris said:
I picked up my Sigma 70-200 2.8 yesterday so not had a good play with it yet but the first thing I did do was try a lowlight shot & the autofocus was easily quick enough, I'm not disappointed at all but it is very heavy, I can see me using the monopod with it
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info Jen :) Will have to have a play at Focus next week and check the weight, may have to grab a monopod as well!
 
phate said:
Thanks Henry, can't say I had really looked at it. Am a bit dubious about having to send the camera and lens away, but if it's worth it I may if I get it. Is it a lens you've used yourself?
Click to expand...

Sorry, it's the typical 'friend's lens' that they swear by. i must say it's build quality will likely be less than that of the L lens (i have the 70-200 f/4 myself) but it is sharper and capable of a wider aperture for the same price.
 
The main problem with the tamron 70-200 f/2.8 isn't faulty AF that can be calibrated, it simply uses an inferior focussing system.

All the canon and sigma models use USM/HSM focus motors, whereas the tamron uses a micro motor which is slower, noisier and doesn't allow full time manual focus. If you want it for stuff where AF performance doesn't matter then I'm sure the tamron is a good deal, but this type of lens is mostly used for at least some moving stuff which is why you rarely hear the tamron mentioned despite it's excellent IQ.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top