Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 vs Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM?

Started Aug 17, 2012 | Discussions thread
victorian squid
victorian squid Veteran Member • Posts: 3,391
Re: Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 vs Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM?

I went with the Sigma. More acronyms means a better lens, everybody knows that!

Yeah, you'll only be able to resell the Sigma for half the price of the Canon. Oh, wait, it is half the price of the Canon!

The AF is about 50% slower than the Canon from end to end. Lucky for me, most of my shooting isn't "flower, airplane, flower, airplane" so again, I lucked out. If you are tracking, it's plenty fast and very accurate. The OS is good, but not amazing.

Of course, if you shoot in the rain the Canon is the way to go to. Or, if your paycheck depends on it. Or, if $1k is no big deal for that matter. The Canon is bullet proof. The Sigma is merely well built - plastic but well built.

When it gets down to brass tacks though, you'll be hard pressed to see the difference between the lenses. I've got a friend with a d700 and the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR II, no slouch (beats the Canon on low and high end, loses in the middle) and the only difference I really see is an obvious advantage in FF and low noise. CA is an issue just in spots on the Sigma, and nothing that can't be fixed with the push of a button in Adobe Camera RAW or Lightroom.

I was trying to decide between the 70-200 f4 and the Sigma, and possibly the 70-300 L. But really wanted a fast lens. At f4 and up it's as sharp and sharper in spots than the Canon (don't believe me, look at the charts). Seriously, it's very sharp at f2.8 anywhere in the range - I even start to wonder about the value of the charts.

In the end, it boils down to are you the sort who sells your equipment a lot? Are you a hardware swapper? Would you enjoy another lens for that $1000? I still have all my camera equipment since the late 70's. I shoot my old Nikkor lenses frequently (they're pretty good!) on my Canon.

I "reinvested" in Canon mostly because I thought I'd be getting a gray lens with a red ring. Now I'm glad I didn't. You'll do well with any of them though - and yes, the f4 is much smaller and lighter - a distinct advantage at times. Then again, there's nothing like shooting in ambient light at a decent ISO and speed.

For a comparison chart in FF:,85&fullscreen=true&av=3,3&fl=70,70&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4
or crop:,84&fullscreen=true&av=3,3&fl=70,70&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4

For comparison shots 200 @ f2.8 Sigma:

Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II 200 @ f2.8:

 victorian squid's gear list:victorian squid's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 70D Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +37 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow