Zooming towards insanity

futureal33

futureal33

Messages
2,390
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Im looking to buy a zoom lens (in the region of 70-200mm) for my 40D

Ive been searching for hours every day, reading review after review, Im sure we've all been there.

Ive pretty much narrowed it down to this list..

Canon 70-200 F4 USM £450
Canon 70-200 F4 IS USM £950
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 macro £550
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS HSM non-macro £990

Now Im currently using a Canon 55-250 IS f4.5-5.6 lens, so I am somewhat spoiled in that I have experienced Canon's acclaimed 4stop IS system - and must say that it is very good indeed. However I am looking for something a little faster - f5.6 is this lenses weakest spot, and needs to be stopped down to around F10 before it gets reliably sharp - and often this has meant too slow a shutter speed to capture the moment.
So I want something a) better IQ and b) faster

I've never shot any of the above lenses, but have read loads of reviews.
Quality wise I think it goes in this order

Canon 70-200 F4
Canon 70-200 F4 IS
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM Macro
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS non-macro

But the 2.8 aspect of the Sigma attracts me, although having never shot 200mm at 2.8 I dont know just HOW thin the DoF will be? From what Ive read though this lens creates some fanastic bokeh and stand-out shots...although Im sure F4 wouldnt be too dissimilar!!

I will *probably* be using a 1.4tc with any of the afformentioned lenses, for that extra length - and again here the Sigma being 2.8 is more attractive as it would turn into f4 @ 280mm, whereas the Canon would be f5.6 @ 280mm - and obviously a 2xtc I would lose AutoFocus with the Canon F4 lenses :(

The other + side of the Sigma is that you get Macro functionality - which is appealing, however the OS version of the Sigma 70-200 doesnt have the macro.

I guess it all boils down to the question: Do I need f2.8?

Any opinions on whether f2.8 on a telephoto is required/worthwhile?

I only use this lens outdoors aswell, rarely find myself using a zoom lens indoors as I have several low f primes for that.

Any help much appreciated!
Thanks
 
For size, weight, price, quality (image and build)my choice would be the 70-200mm f/4 IS

In fact it was and very pleased with my decision, just have to weigh up what you want and go for it
 
Having had the Canon 70-200 f/4 (None IS) for over 2 years I would highly recommend it. I've never needed the IS capability plus the none IS version is generally sharper than the IS.
 
I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX II Macro HSM (non OS), and its a very , very nice lens indeed and hard to beat for the price. Very fast and very sharp.

I've used the Canon 70-200 f4 and IMO the Sigma is as sharp and has the added benefit of the extra speed (and I needed 2.8 for indoor equestrian). The Canon is supposed to be sharper at 200mm but I didnt notice it. It depends if you want the speed of the Sigma to be me it was a no brainer.

The Canon is weather sealed though, Sigma isnt.

I also have the Canon 55-250 IS which I have kept as its a nice little lens, light and sharp and IS at 250mm is nice!
 
Last edited:
Orange Peel said:
plus the none IS version is generally sharper than the IS.
Click to expand...

That's the first time I've heard that particular claim.

While the non-IS f/4L is pretty good, the f/4L IS was generally reckoned to be one of the sharpest lenses (and across the whole image on full frame) that Canon had ever made when it was launched.

e.g. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

It's better than the Mk1 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, which is itself no slouch (the Mk2 is amazing)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

If the 70-200mm f/4L IS had been available when I bought my f/2.8L IS (it was launched a few months later) I'd have had a much harder time justifying it.
 
futureal33 said:
Im looking to buy a zoom lens (in the region of 70-200mm) for my 40D

Ive been searching for hours every day, reading review after review, Im sure we've all been there.

Ive pretty much narrowed it down to this list..

Canon 70-200 F4 USM £450
Canon 70-200 F4 IS USM £950
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 macro £550
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS HSM non-macro £990

Now Im currently using a Canon 55-250 IS f4.5-5.6 lens, so I am somewhat spoiled in that I have experienced Canon's acclaimed 4stop IS system - and must say that it is very good indeed. However I am looking for something a little faster - f5.6 is this lenses weakest spot, and needs to be stopped down to around F10 before it gets reliably sharp - and often this has meant too slow a shutter speed to capture the moment.
So I want something a) better IQ and b) faster

I've never shot any of the above lenses, but have read loads of reviews.
Quality wise I think it goes in this order

Canon 70-200 F4
Canon 70-200 F4 IS
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM Macro
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS non-macro

But the 2.8 aspect of the Sigma attracts me, although having never shot 200mm at 2.8 I dont know just HOW thin the DoF will be? From what Ive read though this lens creates some fanastic bokeh and stand-out shots...although Im sure F4 wouldnt be too dissimilar!!

I will *probably* be using a 1.4tc with any of the afformentioned lenses, for that extra length - and again here the Sigma being 2.8 is more attractive as it would turn into f4 @ 280mm, whereas the Canon would be f5.6 @ 280mm - and obviously a 2xtc I would lose AutoFocus with the Canon F4 lenses :(

The other + side of the Sigma is that you get Macro functionality - which is appealing, however the OS version of the Sigma 70-200 doesnt have the macro.

I guess it all boils down to the question: Do I need f2.8?

Any opinions on whether f2.8 on a telephoto is required/worthwhile?

I only use this lens outdoors aswell, rarely find myself using a zoom lens indoors as I have several low f primes for that.

Any help much appreciated!
Thanks
Click to expand...

Absolutely ESSENTIAL for indoor sports! But as you only use it outdoors I doubt itll be essential to you. However, when its dark or glum outside as it often is here, you'll find it useful. Not essential, but useful!

(just noticed that paragraph!)
 
Last edited:
[QUOTEThe Canon is weather sealed though, Sigma isnt][/QUOTE]

Only the IS version of the 70-200mm is weather sealed

but I have just seen the 70-200mm F4 IS for £750 on Dixons
Click to expand...

Get one at that price, can't go wrong
 
Musicman said:
That's the first time I've heard that particular claim.

While the non-IS f/4L is pretty good, the f/4L IS was generally reckoned to be one of the sharpest lenses (and across the whole image on full frame) that Canon had ever made when it was launched.
Click to expand...

I tried both models before I bought the none IS model and found the IS was only sharper hand held on stationary subjects nearing the 200mm end. Which didn't justify the extra cost of the IS. It saved me enough money to by a Tamron 17-50 which replaced my kit lens. So personaly speaking the IS isn't worth not having my Tamron, if that make sense.

The statement I made was from an article where the two had been compaired. I'll have a look tonight and try to get a scan of the article.
 
futureal33 said:
The other + side of the Sigma is that you get Macro functionality - which is appealing
Click to expand...

You don't really, not compared to an actual macro lens anyway. The sigmas do give more magnification than the canons but not enough to put macro as a positive in the sigmas favour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top