Reading mode: Light Dark

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 or Canon 70-200 f4L

Go to last post
E

EagleAg06

Well-known member
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I have heard great things about the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and that it compares favorably to that of its canon counterpart. I am in the market for one of these two zooms and think the extra stop will be useful without sacrificing image quality. Any suggestions as to only the 2 lenses mentioned in the title?

Thanks
 
If you think that you will be shooting indoor sports, then get the faster sigma lens. If you will be doing a lot more traveling stuff, or using flash, I would lean more towards the canonl

If you like to do more dramatic portraits and want the narrow Depth of field, the faster sigma would give you more bokeh. I'm not familar with the bokeh quality of the sigma but you can go to pbase.com and search for that lens and see pictures taken with both cameras.

--
if I made sense, I'm sorry
 
i have not used nor owned a sigma, so i can't say much about it (except that it appears to be a 'faster' lens).

but don't underestimate the canon. may not be the fastest at f4 but once you learnt its capabilities, you will be amazed with what it can do indoors!

here is a gallery all shot with the 70-200 f4L INDOORS. obviously all went through noise reduction software.

http://www.pbase.com/antidote3/sleeping_beauty

otherwise, it is absolutely a wonderful lens outdoors and perfect for travelling (lightweight).

cheers.

-------
http://www.pbase.com/antidote3
 
and is a great lens. You need to decide if you need f/2.8. If so, the Sigma will serve you well.

Another alternative is to get the canon at f/4 and then get a prime such as the 85/1.8 or 100/2 for the faster indoor needs.

Tough decision and I do not know what I would do if I were to do it again. I have used the Sigma at 2.8 quite a bit, and it does very well.

Again, do you need 2.8??

Brad
 
...and I have chosen 70-200 f4 L.

Asking the same questions few weeks ago, I realised that there might be a compatibility issue with new bodies (don't know if really relevant), but also other arguments made me choose what I've chosen.

Here the thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=15799802

...and here one shot taken with 70-200 4L:



Unfortunately, I cannot compare with Sigma, because I didn't shoot with Sigma...

Hope this helps. Enjoy your lens, whichever you buy... :o) They're both actually very good lenses (this should make you more comfortable ;o)
--
Fahro
http://www.pbase.com/fahro
 
I was facing a decision between the sigma f/2.8, the canon f/4, and the canon 70-300 IS a bit ago and found the reviews on http://www.fredmiranda.com and http://www.the-digital-picture.com and http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/ to be useful.

Ultimately I decided on going with the f/4 because the price ($550) was right as was the size. I would have appreciated an extra stop, especially since I cant afford an IS lens. Thus I am left with a 50 f/1.8 for my only low light.

Since I have not shot with the Sigma, I can't compare, but I can say that I have been nothing but surprised by the quality of the canon even wide open. The shots really "pop" and it has been a real joy. The size and weight are great for traveling.

The only issue i've had is that the white color makes it conspicuous, but then again, the big sigma isn't exactly discrete either.

Good luck in your search. I'm sure you can't go too wrong either way.
 
This is really a no brainer especially if weight is NOT an issue. The only reason I would recommend the Canon f4 over the sigma f2.8 is if you would want to have a light lens. If not then the sigma f2.8 would the lens to get.

Why? Well for one many many people have rated this sigma to be just as good as the canon 70-200 f2.8 lens at a fraction of the cost. The lens is very sharp and has fast focusing with outstanding bokeh. The colors are a little warmer then a canon L lens but some people actually prefer this. And once you get into low light conditions, you would be very very thankful for the f2.8.

I would strongly recommend the f2.8 over the f4.
--
Rich
http://www.pbase.com/dickie/300d_favorites (Favorites)
http://www.pbase.com/dickie/macros (300D Macros)
http://www.pbase.com/dickie/photo_a_day_gallery (Photo a Day Gallery)
 
I have not "tested" the sigma thoroughly but from what I've shot, it is not as sharp as the canon f/2.8L. I needed to stop it down to f/4 for good sharpness. If I buy an expensive and heavy f/2.8 it had better perform great at f/2.8. Since the sigma I used had to stop down to f/4-5.6 for good sharpenss I decided it wasn't worth it. I opted for the canon f/4, which is much lighter and smaller.
 
I own the canon 70-200f4 L and have demoed the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 at the camera store.The canon is such a superb lens,that it's hard not to recommend it.If you MUST have f2.8,there is no decision(unless you can add a few hundred bucks and get the Canon f2.8).Otherwise get the Canon f4.

If you decide on the Sigma,make darn sure it focuses properly and is sharp at f2.8.To get the lower price of the Sigma(vs Canon's f2,8) you must be willing to return copies(you may get a perfect lens on first try).Sigma's qc is not the best(seems some better on EX lenses).
 
I did buy the Sigma, and my copy was soft all the way to f/4. Plus the focus was hunting quite a bit.

I exchanged it for the Canon 70-200 f/4 L and its sharp sharp sharp and will focus fast.

Having experienced both, I strongly recommend the Canon.
--
Robert Gravel
http://www.pbase.com/rgravel
 
I had the same dilemna and opted as well for the 70-200L f4. A fantastic lens, which reinstilled my faith. I used it for ice skating shots. They turned out good and I was satisfied with the f4. The comparison dollar wise is $850 cdn for the Canon L and 1150 for the sigma. Most camera shops let you decide with a week or so trial, so you should be able to get the L glass and if your not satisfied, bring it back and get the sigma.

Also, for the additional price for the Sigma, i would rather that go towards my 400 prime L.

http://photobucket.com/albums/b99/DAVCON/?action=view ¤t=BALLOONCRW_2362-01.jpg
 
just f/2.8 mean nothing, most of the shot in the sigma f/2.8 is not
sharp enough compare to the L lens....

sorry to say L lens better.

alien
Simon said:
I am more than pleased with my Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX. It is a superb
lens and 2.8 really help in concerts. The 70-200 F4L is superb, but
it is not a 2.8.
Click to expand...
 
Is that from personal experience?

I am also making this same lens decision, and for alllll the reviews i have read the Sigma (a good copy) is equal to, if not sharper than the Canon above f4.

So for me, sharpness of the two lenses isnt a issue.
My problem is trying to decide weather i want f2.8 or fast focusing.

If the Sigma did have quick focusing, i know which lens i would go out and buy tomorrow.

--
Mark Williams (Adelaide, Australia).
Canon 350D + Kit Lens + 55-200 USM-II + TCON17
 
Sigma 70-200 EX:

http://www.pbase.com/billko/image/54059019

I posted a link instead of the picture so that you can easily see the EXIF info on the host site.

The essentials:

f/2.8, 200mm taken with Rebel XT, unprocessed, except with in-camera Parameter 1, and 100% crop.

I don't know why the camera reported the lens to be at 456mm focal length! It never did that before.

Bill
--
Please drop by my bird galleries! (Other stuff, too!)
http://www.pbase.com/billko



Who, me???
 
MWP said:
Is that from personal experience?

I am also making this same lens decision, and for alllll the
reviews i have read the Sigma (a good copy) is equal to, if not
sharper than the Canon above f4.

So for me, sharpness of the two lenses isnt a issue.
My problem is trying to decide weather i want f2.8 or fast focusing.
If the Sigma did have quick focusing, i know which lens i would go
out and buy tomorrow.
Click to expand...
It has HSM, which is smooth and quiet, and very fast.

Brad
 
I do not know why others say it is not sharp at 2.8. This was taken at 200mm and f/2.8.



I find that the DOF is quite narrow, making focusing more difficult, and I also find that 2.8 and 200mm is a good recipe to display camera shake. A good tripod or monopod (or fast shutter) is very helpful.

Brad
 
you are getting not only speed with f2.8 but you can blur bg much more , example:

full frame f4.5:



full frame f2.8:



sigma is sharp wide open as canon nothing to wory about that.

i had a sigma it was great optics from f2.8 but now i am using canon 80-200mmm f2.8 the old and good one :)
(i had focusing problems with sigma - my gess it was my copy..)

all best
kristian
 
I am seriously considering the Canon 70-200 2.8 as i do a lot of indoor photography - theater and the likes, so the 2.8 is very appealing. I checked out your pics with the F4L and must say i am astonished - how good/bad was the lighting and do you have EXIF for any of those shots?

This may actually swing me towards the F4L!
antidote said:
i have not used nor owned a sigma, so i can't say much about it
(except that it appears to be a 'faster' lens).

but don't underestimate the canon. may not be the fastest at f4
but once you learnt its capabilities, you will be amazed with what
it can do indoors!

here is a gallery all shot with the 70-200 f4L INDOORS. obviously
all went through noise reduction software.

http://www.pbase.com/antidote3/sleeping_beauty

otherwise, it is absolutely a wonderful lens outdoors and perfect
for travelling (lightweight).

cheers.

-------
http://www.pbase.com/antidote3
Click to expand...
--
Jono LP

http://users.skynet.be/satch
 
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