Reading mode: Light Dark

Blasphemous Question...

Go to last post
T

thepawnshop

Member
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Location
Roanoke, VA, US
Are Canon lenses THAT much better?!?!? I don't mean to start any kind of a "flame war", but when you compare Sigma lenses to Canon lenses (say the 70-200mm 2.8), the Canon cost about $1,700 (B&H Prices) and the Sigma only costs $799. Sigma has a 120-300 2.8 that can be had for just a few hundred more than the Canon 70-200! Being I am a COMPLETE amatuer (which obviously shows by my question) I can only wonder how the Canon version is worth $900 more. Please be gentle, but since I am new at the DSLR game and only own the 17-85, I am wrestling with which lenses to add next.

I am the type of person that typically has to have the best of everything (which is why I bought the 20D which is by far the best in its class) but this is one time when I look at the numbers and think that I can purchase several Sigma lenses for the price of one Canon lens. I know I want at least one lens that will zoom to at least 200mm with a 2.8 aperture for future kids events where a flash is frowned upon...but I only want to buy it once. Then I look at MANY posts that talk about how great Canon lenses are....IF you get a good one! If I drop close to 2k on a lens, I would hate to think that I may need to send it back once or twice to get a "good" copy. So really, for an amatuer family photobug...are the Canon's really worth it?

--
Doug Brandt
The Pawnshop, Inc.
Brandt Custom Homes
Roanoke, VA
 
There are a lot of other things to think about. Like build quality, picture quality, focus speed, Image Stabilization, etc.

And be aware that even some canon lenses can fool you. The numbers look great, but the lens is a duffer. Take the 75-300 IS, for instance. I didn't know any better and got it. Number looked great. USM focus, great range, Image stabilization, all in a light small package that only cost $400. What a dud it turned out to be. Super slow focus, poor image quality, cheap build, etc.

In the case of the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS, my research tells me that is the lens to have in that range. People say it is the best zoom canon or anybody makes. You won't go wrong with that one. And the "bad copy" stuff is overstated by miles, in my opinion.

Generally, the Sigma lenses are a little softer wide open than the canon "L" versions. And the Canon "L" lenses focus faster, in general. Be sure to only look for Sigma lenses that are "EX" and have "HSM". Of course, this is my opinion based on my experiences and my research.
thepawnshop said:
Are Canon lenses THAT much better?!?!? I don't mean to start any
kind of a "flame war", but when you compare Sigma lenses to Canon
lenses (say the 70-200mm 2.8), the Canon cost about $1,700 (B&H
Prices) and the Sigma only costs $799. Sigma has a 120-300 2.8
that can be had for just a few hundred more than the Canon 70-200!
Being I am a COMPLETE amatuer (which obviously shows by my
question) I can only wonder how the Canon version is worth $900
more. Please be gentle, but since I am new at the DSLR game and
only own the 17-85, I am wrestling with which lenses to add next.

I am the type of person that typically has to have the best of
everything (which is why I bought the 20D which is by far the best
in its class) but this is one time when I look at the numbers and
think that I can purchase several Sigma lenses for the price of one
Canon lens. I know I want at least one lens that will zoom to at
least 200mm with a 2.8 aperture for future kids events where a
flash is frowned upon...but I only want to buy it once. Then I
look at MANY posts that talk about how great Canon lenses are....IF
you get a good one! If I drop close to 2k on a lens, I would hate
to think that I may need to send it back once or twice to get a
"good" copy. So really, for an amatuer family photobug...are the
Canon's really worth it?

--
Doug Brandt
The Pawnshop, Inc.
Brandt Custom Homes
Roanoke, VA
Click to expand...
--
Eric Sorensen
Bossier City, Louisiana
http://www.pbase.com/ericsorensen
 
Third party lenses can be excellent. There are some Canon lenses that are absolute dogs (as well as gems), so you have to decide what you want, what your budget is, and research the options.

In the 70-200 range there are a LOT of options. Do you want Image Stabilization? Well, Canon is currently the only game in town as far as EOS mount lenses goes. The non-IS version is hundreds cheaper, but still over a grand (I'm talking f/2.8 here)

The Sigma 80-200 f/2.8 is in the $800 range, and owners (I'm not one of them) RAVE about this lens. Apparently it's one of the best in its class.

For a couple hundred less is the Canon 70-200 f/4L. Reportedly excellent image quality, if you can live with the darker maximum aperture.

And for a bit over $500 is the Tokina 80-200 f/2.8. Definitely the price leader of this class; could be an older design (the Sigma is a recent redesign). That said, Tokina was founded by ex-Nikon employees, and has an excellent reputation.

Personally, I'm leaning toward the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS, but it will take me a long time to come up with that money. It's one lens where IS will show its value, I think.
 
thepawnshop said:
Are Canon lenses THAT much better?!?!? I don't mean to start any
kind of a "flame war", but when you compare Sigma lenses to Canon
lenses (say the 70-200mm 2.8), the Canon cost about $1,700 (B&H
Prices) and the Sigma only costs $799. Sigma has a 120-300 2.8
that can be had for just a few hundred more than the Canon 70-200!
Click to expand...
The $1700 price is for the IS version - the stabilizer accounts for much of the price premium. The lens that is closer to the Sigma is 70-200 2.8L non-IS - $1060 for 'imported version'

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=91680&is=GREY
--
Misha
 
thepawnshop said:
Are Canon lenses THAT much better?!?!? I don't mean to start any
kind of a "flame war", but when you compare Sigma lenses to Canon
lenses (say the 70-200mm 2.8), the Canon cost about $1,700 (B&H
Prices) and the Sigma only costs $799. Sigma has a 120-300 2.8
that can be had for just a few hundred more than the Canon 70-200!
Being I am a COMPLETE amatuer (which obviously shows by my
question) I can only wonder how the Canon version is worth $900
more. Please be gentle, but since I am new at the DSLR game and
only own the 17-85, I am wrestling with which lenses to add next.

I am the type of person that typically has to have the best of
everything (which is why I bought the 20D which is by far the best
in its class) but this is one time when I look at the numbers and
think that I can purchase several Sigma lenses for the price of one
Canon lens. I know I want at least one lens that will zoom to at
least 200mm with a 2.8 aperture for future kids events where a
flash is frowned upon...but I only want to buy it once. Then I
look at MANY posts that talk about how great Canon lenses are....IF
you get a good one! If I drop close to 2k on a lens, I would hate
to think that I may need to send it back once or twice to get a
"good" copy. So really, for an amatuer family photobug...are the
Canon's really worth it?
Click to expand...
Your comparison is not good, it is an apples and oranges situation. You have selected the wrong pair of lenses to compare. The Canon you have quoted, based on B&H price, is the 70-200 f2.8 L IS. The Sigma is the 70-200 f2.8 EX APO IF HSM. Right off the top the IS of the Canon lens may account for $400 to $600 of the price difference. And this option simply is not avalable on the Sigma (except for the single 80-400). There is a closer Canon lens that you should be comparing to this Sigma, and that is the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L non-IS. This lens list for $1060 on the B&H site and is the one most often compared to the SIgma you have selected as a model. So the price difference is only about $280.

Now, is the Canon worth the $280 difference? For many yes. There may be a slight build quality advantage to the Canon, that would be hard to rate. The SIgma is an exceptionally fine lens optically, but most reviews have rated the Canon ever so slightly better. Some reviews claim the Canon is much better, but they may not be unbiased. Particularly, the Canon is rated slightly better (sharper) at f2.8, while from f4.0 on they are essentially rated the same in many reviews.

Now, a hard to quantify difference. You know the Canon lens will be compatible with any future Canon EOS camera body, that is the way Canon markets these things. Sigma lenses use a reverse engineered EOS interface, and several lenses in the past have had to be re-chipped by SIgma to work with new Canon bodies as they come out. Some lenses have not been able to be re-chipped at all. This I would call an advantage to Canon that could eat up the whole price difference all by itself.

Based on my past experiance with the Sigma EX line I would have to opt for the Canon with this small a price difference. Sigma makes a very nice lens in their EX series, very nice indeed. But in many small ways they just are not, to me, as good as the Canon L lenses.

T!

--

 
There is a tendency to idolize the "L" series lenses from Canon. I'm sure they are optically very good and the build is very solid, but their drawbacks extend to more than price. They are not only much (in some cases much!) more expensive than other alternatives, the "robust build" also means they are fairly big and very heavy.

During a daytrip somewhere you may actually use a lens for an accumulated total of five to ten minutes, but you will be carrying it around all day. If the weight and size makes you put away the lens into your bag, you won't be using it for a lot of situations it (or its cheaper alternatives) would have been good. And if the bulk menas it ends up staying at home, you might as well not have bought it at all. It's worth considering.

--
http://lucs.lu.se/people/jan.moren/log/current.html
 
I think one thing that gets forgotten ALOT is the fact that Canon only provides one year warranty, versus Sigma they provide I believe 4 years.

I am actually debating between the lenses as well, and the one thing that sticks out to me is the warranty. If Canon stands behind their product in terms of build, then why the 1 year warranty??

I know you can buy extended warranties through other companies, but to me it's rediculous to shell out over $1000 and get 1 year warranty.
Jan Moren said:
There is a tendency to idolize the "L" series lenses from Canon.
I'm sure they are optically very good and the build is very solid,
but their drawbacks extend to more than price. They are not only
much (in some cases much!) more expensive than other alternatives,
the "robust build" also means they are fairly big and very heavy.

During a daytrip somewhere you may actually use a lens for an
accumulated total of five to ten minutes, but you will be carrying
it around all day. If the weight and size makes you put away the
lens into your bag, you won't be using it for a lot of situations
it (or its cheaper alternatives) would have been good. And if the
bulk menas it ends up staying at home, you might as well not have
bought it at all. It's worth considering.

--
http://lucs.lu.se/people/jan.moren/log/current.html
Click to expand...
 
I was about to jump on this thread but then saw you mentioned the 120-300mm f/2.8. A steal but do know that no 3rd party lens will AF as fast and as accurately as a Canon USM lens (newer version). That and IS seem to be the biggest difference. For you it might not be worth it for others it is...
thepawnshop said:
Are Canon lenses THAT much better?!?!? I don't mean to start any
kind of a "flame war", but when you compare Sigma lenses to Canon
lenses (say the 70-200mm 2.8), the Canon cost about $1,700 (B&H
Prices) and the Sigma only costs $799. Sigma has a 120-300 2.8
that can be had for just a few hundred more than the Canon 70-200!
Being I am a COMPLETE amatuer (which obviously shows by my
question) I can only wonder how the Canon version is worth $900
more. Please be gentle, but since I am new at the DSLR game and
only own the 17-85, I am wrestling with which lenses to add next.

I am the type of person that typically has to have the best of
everything (which is why I bought the 20D which is by far the best
in its class) but this is one time when I look at the numbers and
think that I can purchase several Sigma lenses for the price of one
Canon lens. I know I want at least one lens that will zoom to at
least 200mm with a 2.8 aperture for future kids events where a
flash is frowned upon...but I only want to buy it once. Then I
look at MANY posts that talk about how great Canon lenses are....IF
you get a good one! If I drop close to 2k on a lens, I would hate
to think that I may need to send it back once or twice to get a
"good" copy. So really, for an amatuer family photobug...are the
Canon's really worth it?

--
Doug Brandt
The Pawnshop, Inc.
Brandt Custom Homes
Roanoke, VA
Click to expand...
--
Yiannis

-LORD VADER
-yes master
-RISE

http://www.pbase.com/ystasino
 
Thanks everyone for being gentle on me and VERY informative. Being a rookie photog, I wonder if "IS" would be that helpful to me as well. THat said, the whole "Warranty" concept gives me pause as well.

You are saying that the Canon auto-focuses faster than any of the third party lenses, but how much faster? Looking at the reviews on Fredmiranda.com everyone seems ecstatic with the Sigma lenses. As with everything else, I guess there will always be pros and cons.

Also, after looking closer at the Sigma lens, I do see that it was not matching apples to apples. From $1,700 down to $1,140 with "IS" is a $560 difference...that must really be an AWESOME feature...It's calling my name but that Sigma is SOOOO much less expensive!!!!
ioannis said:
thepawnshop said:
Are Canon lenses THAT much better?!?!? I don't mean to start any
kind of a "flame war", but when you compare Sigma lenses to Canon
lenses (say the 70-200mm 2.8), the Canon cost about $1,700 (B&H
Prices) and the Sigma only costs $799. Sigma has a 120-300 2.8
that can be had for just a few hundred more than the Canon 70-200!
Being I am a COMPLETE amatuer (which obviously shows by my
question) I can only wonder how the Canon version is worth $900
more. Please be gentle, but since I am new at the DSLR game and
only own the 17-85, I am wrestling with which lenses to add next.

I am the type of person that typically has to have the best of
everything (which is why I bought the 20D which is by far the best
in its class) but this is one time when I look at the numbers and
think that I can purchase several Sigma lenses for the price of one
Canon lens. I know I want at least one lens that will zoom to at
least 200mm with a 2.8 aperture for future kids events where a
flash is frowned upon...but I only want to buy it once. Then I
look at MANY posts that talk about how great Canon lenses are....IF
you get a good one! If I drop close to 2k on a lens, I would hate
to think that I may need to send it back once or twice to get a
"good" copy. So really, for an amatuer family photobug...are the
Canon's really worth it?

--
Doug Brandt
The Pawnshop, Inc.
Brandt Custom Homes
Roanoke, VA
Click to expand...
--
Yiannis

-LORD VADER
-yes master
-RISE

http://www.pbase.com/ystasino
Click to expand...
--
Doug Brandt
The Pawnshop, Inc.
Brandt Custom Homes
Roanoke, VA
 
I'm not bashing IS...but depending on the shooting situation if you get a 2-stop benefit with IS then an ISO 100 could be changed to ISO 400 and you would neutralize the IS advantage but moving to a higher shutter at the same f-stop. ISO 200 w/IS would shift to ISO 800. I don't own the 20D, but my understanding is that high ISO noise is much cleaner than the 10D. It's something to consider when you evaluate.

If the non-IS L is only a few hundred more than the Sigma, I'd give the L serious consideration. I might be able to live without IS and use higher ISO. However if your shooting is under difficult lighting, then you might want to have the 2.8, IS and high, clean ISO. If I was a pro, there would be not debate 2.8 IS, as an amateur, unless I'm buying an ego stroke, I'd think differently.

--
Al
a thousand people...a thousand opinions...
 
I agree with this. If you have to have the best, buy Canon L. If you can settle for second best, buy Sigma EX. Simple really.
Eric Sorensen said:
And be aware that even some canon lenses can fool you. The numbers
look great, but the lens is a duffer. Take the 75-300 IS, for
instance. I didn't know any better and got it. Number looked
great. USM focus, great range, Image stabilization, all in a light
small package that only cost $400. What a dud it turned out to be.
Super slow focus, poor image quality, cheap build, etc.

In the case of the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS, my research tells me that
is the lens to have in that range. People say it is the best zoom
canon or anybody makes. You won't go wrong with that one. And the
"bad copy" stuff is overstated by miles, in my opinion.

Generally, the Sigma lenses are a little softer wide open than the
canon "L" versions. And the Canon "L" lenses focus faster, in
general. Be sure to only look for Sigma lenses that are "EX" and
have "HSM". Of course, this is my opinion based on my experiences
and my research.
thepawnshop said:
Are Canon lenses THAT much better?!?!? I don't mean to start any
kind of a "flame war", but when you compare Sigma lenses to Canon
lenses (say the 70-200mm 2.8), the Canon cost about $1,700 (B&H
Prices) and the Sigma only costs $799. Sigma has a 120-300 2.8
that can be had for just a few hundred more than the Canon 70-200!
Being I am a COMPLETE amatuer (which obviously shows by my
question) I can only wonder how the Canon version is worth $900
more. Please be gentle, but since I am new at the DSLR game and
only own the 17-85, I am wrestling with which lenses to add next.

I am the type of person that typically has to have the best of
everything (which is why I bought the 20D which is by far the best
in its class) but this is one time when I look at the numbers and
think that I can purchase several Sigma lenses for the price of one
Canon lens. I know I want at least one lens that will zoom to at
least 200mm with a 2.8 aperture for future kids events where a
flash is frowned upon...but I only want to buy it once. Then I
look at MANY posts that talk about how great Canon lenses are....IF
you get a good one! If I drop close to 2k on a lens, I would hate
to think that I may need to send it back once or twice to get a
"good" copy. So really, for an amatuer family photobug...are the
Canon's really worth it?

--
Doug Brandt
The Pawnshop, Inc.
Brandt Custom Homes
Roanoke, VA
Click to expand...
--
Eric Sorensen
Bossier City, Louisiana
http://www.pbase.com/ericsorensen
Click to expand...
 
thepawnshop said:
Thanks everyone for being gentle on me and VERY informative. Being
a rookie photog, I wonder if "IS" would be that helpful to me as
well. THat said, the whole "Warranty" concept gives me pause as
well.
Click to expand...
In general, image stabilization only helps to reduce the blurring effects of camera shake when you are taking longer exposures. You mentioned photographing kids events... what type of events are we talking about? Depending on how much the kids are moving, you may or may not realize much benefit from IS.
thepawnshop said:
Also, after looking closer at the Sigma lens, I do see that it was
not matching apples to apples. From $1,700 down to $1,140 with
"IS" is a $560 difference...that must really be an AWESOME
feature...It's calling my name but that Sigma is SOOOO much less
expensive!!!!
Click to expand...
Depending on one's application, IS can be a great help or an unused feature. The cost is because of the extra glass elements and associated mechanical and electrical parts inside the lens.

--
BJJB
http://www.pbase.com/bjjb99/
 
...for me. It basically holds the lens steady for you. That helps with using lower shutter speeds AND allows you to frame your shot easier. It really is worth every penny. If the lens range you are looking at has a lens with IS available, I would get that one for sure. You will not be disapointed. And the assumption that the IS degrades picture quality has been discussed here many times, and the results are that if there is any degredation, it isn't noticable to most humans. The fact is, you will get more "keepers" with IS than without it. So, to me, NOT having is degrades the picture quality because you are more likely to have a blurry shot from camera shake.

You really need to try out the IS in a camera store to see what we're talking about. It is the greatest invention since autofocusing!

And, that 1 year warranty bugs me too. But Canon repair costs are not that bad, from what I've read. And you will most likely not have a lens fail for many, many years (due to MFG defects).
thepawnshop said:
You are saying that the Canon auto-focuses faster than any of the
third party lenses, but how much faster? Looking at the reviews on
Fredmiranda.com everyone seems ecstatic with the Sigma lenses. As
with everything else, I guess there will always be pros and cons.

Also, after looking closer at the Sigma lens, I do see that it was
not matching apples to apples. From $1,700 down to $1,140 with
"IS" is a $560 difference...that must really be an AWESOME
feature...It's calling my name but that Sigma is SOOOO much less
expensive!!!!
ioannis said:
thepawnshop said:
Are Canon lenses THAT much better?!?!? I don't mean to start any
kind of a "flame war", but when you compare Sigma lenses to Canon
lenses (say the 70-200mm 2.8), the Canon cost about $1,700 (B&H
Prices) and the Sigma only costs $799. Sigma has a 120-300 2.8
that can be had for just a few hundred more than the Canon 70-200!
Being I am a COMPLETE amatuer (which obviously shows by my
question) I can only wonder how the Canon version is worth $900
more. Please be gentle, but since I am new at the DSLR game and
only own the 17-85, I am wrestling with which lenses to add next.

I am the type of person that typically has to have the best of
everything (which is why I bought the 20D which is by far the best
in its class) but this is one time when I look at the numbers and
think that I can purchase several Sigma lenses for the price of one
Canon lens. I know I want at least one lens that will zoom to at
least 200mm with a 2.8 aperture for future kids events where a
flash is frowned upon...but I only want to buy it once. Then I
look at MANY posts that talk about how great Canon lenses are....IF
you get a good one! If I drop close to 2k on a lens, I would hate
to think that I may need to send it back once or twice to get a
"good" copy. So really, for an amatuer family photobug...are the
Canon's really worth it?

--
Doug Brandt
The Pawnshop, Inc.
Brandt Custom Homes
Roanoke, VA
Click to expand...
--
Yiannis

-LORD VADER
-yes master
-RISE

http://www.pbase.com/ystasino
Click to expand...
--
Doug Brandt
The Pawnshop, Inc.
Brandt Custom Homes
Roanoke, VA
Click to expand...
--
Eric Sorensen
Bossier City, Louisiana
http://www.pbase.com/ericsorensen
 
Doug,

I'm from the old school that still believes that you usually get what you pay for unless it is taxes. From your statement that "I am the type of person that typically has to have the best." you can be sure that the purchase of a 3rd party lens will end up costing you much more in the end because you will eventually buy a Canon lens to replace a 3rd party lens.

I know I'll draw flames but I still do not understand why all the 3rd party lens supporters do not buy 3rd party cameras. Have you ever noticed that Canon only makes lenses labled 'Canon' for Canon cameras?

Sure I'd like to save a few dollars just like anyone else but I only want to buy a lens once.

BTW, the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS also has the cost of weather proofing in the price.

Paul
http://www.iaw.com/~pturton/
thepawnshop said:
Are Canon lenses THAT much better?!?!? I don't mean to start any
kind of a "flame war", but when you compare Sigma lenses to Canon
Click to expand...
 
Well I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. The 75-300mm IS lens may be slow to focus sometimes, but it is hardly poorly built and the image quality is very good. The one I have takes better pictures than some 70-200mm L class lenses I have seen. Maybe the older versions of the 75-300mm IS lens wasn't to hot, but like I said, the one I have, there isn't a single thing wrong with it. Build is great, the color reproduction is beautiful, and the image quality is great in my personal opinion. To many people are so ready to put it down and it's a great lens. I just talked to another photographer last weekend who had the 20D with the 75-300 IS lens and he said he loved his too that it was producing beautiful pictures and prints for him and I can say the same for my copy as well.

Shannon
http://www.shannonhowell.com
--
Never assume anything!
I'm a guy (shannon) , not a girl (shannon) :o)
--
Never assume anything!
I'm a guy (shannon) , not a girl (shannon) :o)
 
Paul Turton said:
I'm from the old school that still believes that you usually get
what you pay for unless it is taxes. From your statement that "I am
the type of person that typically has to have the best." you can be
sure that the purchase of a 3rd party lens will end up costing you
much more in the end because you will eventually buy a Canon lens
to replace a 3rd party lens.

I know I'll draw flames but I still do not understand why all the
3rd party lens supporters do not buy 3rd party cameras. Have you
ever noticed that Canon only makes lenses labled 'Canon' for Canon
cameras?

Sure I'd like to save a few dollars just like anyone else but I
only want to buy a lens once.

BTW, the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS also has the cost of weather proofing
in the price.

Paul
http://www.iaw.com/~pturton/
thepawnshop said:
Are Canon lenses THAT much better?!?!? I don't mean to start any
kind of a "flame war", but when you compare Sigma lenses to Canon
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Tom

DReb 17-40 F4L, 18-55 kit, 50-1.4 USM, 28-105 USM II, 70-200 F4L
EOS Ellan II film And Canon A-1 film cameras, 50-1.4 ED, 70-200 ED
 
Tom C300 said:
Paul Turton said:
I'm from the old school that still believes that you usually get
what you pay for unless it is taxes. From your statement that "I am
the type of person that typically has to have the best." you can be
sure that the purchase of a 3rd party lens will end up costing you
much more in the end because you will eventually buy a Canon lens
to replace a 3rd party lens.

I know I'll draw flames but I still do not understand why all the
3rd party lens supporters do not buy 3rd party cameras. Have you
ever noticed that Canon only makes lenses labled 'Canon' for Canon
cameras?

Sure I'd like to save a few dollars just like anyone else but I
only want to buy a lens once.

BTW, the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS also has the cost of weather proofing
in the price.

Paul
http://www.iaw.com/~pturton/
thepawnshop said:
Are Canon lenses THAT much better?!?!? I don't mean to start any
kind of a "flame war", but when you compare Sigma lenses to Canon
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Tom

DReb 17-40 F4L, 18-55 kit, 50-1.4 USM, 28-105 USM II, 70-200 F4L
EOS Ellan II film And Canon A-1 film cameras, 50-1.4 ED, 70-200 ED
Click to expand...
 
thepawnshop said:
Are Canon lenses THAT much better?!?!? I don't mean to start any
kind of a "flame war", but when you compare Sigma lenses to Canon
lenses (say the 70-200mm 2.8), the Canon cost about $1,700 (B&H
Prices) and the Sigma only costs $799. Sigma has a 120-300 2.8
that can be had for just a few hundred more than the Canon 70-200!
Being I am a COMPLETE amatuer (which obviously shows by my
question) I can only wonder how the Canon version is worth $900
more. Please be gentle, but since I am new at the DSLR game and
only own the 17-85, I am wrestling with which lenses to add next.

I am the type of person that typically has to have the best of
everything (which is why I bought the 20D which is by far the best
in its class) but this is one time when I look at the numbers and
think that I can purchase several Sigma lenses for the price of one
Canon lens. I know I want at least one lens that will zoom to at
least 200mm with a 2.8 aperture for future kids events where a
flash is frowned upon...but I only want to buy it once. Then I
look at MANY posts that talk about how great Canon lenses are....IF
you get a good one! If I drop close to 2k on a lens, I would hate
to think that I may need to send it back once or twice to get a
"good" copy. So really, for an amatuer family photobug...are the
Canon's really worth it?

--
Doug Brandt
The Pawnshop, Inc.
Brandt Custom Homes
Roanoke, VA
Click to expand...
--
Tom

DReb 17-40 F4L, 18-55 kit, 50-1.4 USM, 28-105 USM II, 70-200 F4L
EOS Ellan II film And Canon A-1 film cameras, 50-1.4, 70-200
 
but the non IS 70-200 F2.8 shoudl be the one you compare. it's not 1,700.00 but still a good difference in price yes.

the thing is that sigma can become obsolete anytime Canon change their mount...so there is a risk involved in buying their lenses. That risk come with a lower price tag.

Quality wise, I think the Canon is sharper wide open and has better colours. I never liked the yellow cast of the Sigma lenses, not sure if that one has a cast but my Sigma lenses had it.

the Canon 70-200 F2.8 L is 1000$ more or less. that's only 200$ with the Sigma. now is that worth it for you to have a lens that will be more reliable? that you know for sure will be working with future bodies and will be sharper wide open and with better colours rendition?

200$ is not a whole lot and I would choose the Canon if it was me.
thepawnshop said:
Are Canon lenses THAT much better?!?!? I don't mean to start any
kind of a "flame war", but when you compare Sigma lenses to Canon
lenses (say the 70-200mm 2.8), the Canon cost about $1,700 (B&H
Prices) and the Sigma only costs $799. Sigma has a 120-300 2.8
that can be had for just a few hundred more than the Canon 70-200!
Being I am a COMPLETE amatuer (which obviously shows by my
question) I can only wonder how the Canon version is worth $900
more. Please be gentle, but since I am new at the DSLR game and
only own the 17-85, I am wrestling with which lenses to add next.

I am the type of person that typically has to have the best of
everything (which is why I bought the 20D which is by far the best
in its class) but this is one time when I look at the numbers and
think that I can purchase several Sigma lenses for the price of one
Canon lens. I know I want at least one lens that will zoom to at
least 200mm with a 2.8 aperture for future kids events where a
flash is frowned upon...but I only want to buy it once. Then I
look at MANY posts that talk about how great Canon lenses are....IF
you get a good one! If I drop close to 2k on a lens, I would hate
to think that I may need to send it back once or twice to get a
"good" copy. So really, for an amatuer family photobug...are the
Canon's really worth it?

--
Doug Brandt
The Pawnshop, Inc.
Brandt Custom Homes
Roanoke, VA
Click to expand...
--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top