 Ron Evans |
Canon v. Sigma 70-200mm I've been licking my chops for the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS for quite some time now. Now that I'm ready to actually purchase it I'm having second thoughts and difficulty in justifying the extra $$s over the Sigma. I've read all the reviews seen images from both so on and so forth. The primary differences from what I can tell are that the Sigma has no IS and is not as weathersealed. Oh yeah and the $500 price variance. So, I was wondering if anyone has any advice. I'm hoping someone has shot with both and can provide some real-life comparison info. I currently only have a Sigma 18-50 2.8 on my 40D. I am doing more and more portrait work but also have been asked to shoot sports and weddings. Everything says the 70-200 is an ideal lense for all of these purposes but I just can't seem to make up my mind as to which one. Maybe I should just flip a coin at this point. Please..... HELP!!! :) thanks
|
|
|
|
||
- Carlton Ward Contact Carlton Ward Carlton Ward's Gallery |
Hello Ron, I went through the same decision process and had the Canon 70-200mm f/4 (non-IS) and sold it to get the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and have never regretted this decision. The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L is one of my 2 best lenses and is versatile, sharp and creates beautiful images. I also looked at the Sigma but never tried it and I wouldn't trade my Canon for anything else out there after using this lens for the last 1.5 years. Good Luck, Carlton
|
|
|
|
||
- Ken Smith Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
I have the 70-200mm F4 and like it...but if money is no concern, then definitely get the 2.8 version. I have a few friends that use the 2.8 all the time and they love it!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ron Evans |
Carlton and Ken - thanks. You have both provided the feedback which mirrors pretty much all other Canon Lense owners. I realize I "can't go wrong" with the Canon. I almost ordered it this weekend but still hesitate because of the price variance. The Sigma is $799 and the Canon is $1,650. I can't see the differences which would justify 2x the cost. What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Ken Smith Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
Ron, I couldn't tell you...maybe you can do a google search for reviews on the Sigma lens or comparison with the Canon L lens. If price is a big concern, then you should consider the F4 version of the Canon 70-200mm L lens.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Don't have either lens, but the Tamron 70-200 was rated slightly better than Canon. DPreview. There test were done only at f/2.8 though.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ron Evans |
Gregory, Thanks for taking the time to reply. I had actually crossed the Tamron off the list early on because of the comments related to the autofocus concerns with the Canon mount. I seldom am lucky enough to have a cooperative audience and a spotty autofocus would not help my cause. It does seem like a shame though because this lense did score very highly in all other regards.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Karim Abiali |
Ron - I own the sigma 55-200mm and the 70-300mm APO macro and I love them. They are very sharp. For me, I did a lot of research and I couldn't justify the price difference between Canon and Sigma. So I went for Sigma. I guess when you are buying Canon you are paying extra for the name which I can't justify as long as I am getting a similar quality from a third party. Same the money for other accessories. Karim.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ross Throndson |
Well, I've had my Canon 70-200 f/2.8L non IS lens for over 13 yrs now & love it.....i believe the Non IS version goes for about $1,100....
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Ron, you can buy a brand-new Sigma 70-200/2.8 for around $700 or thereabouts, and it is a great lens... as good if not better optically than the Canon L glass but several hundred dollars less expensive. I have one and it is a VERY sharp lens wide open and EXCEPTIONALLY sharp by f/5.6.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christine Gardner |
Hi Ron, I went through the same process as you last year, and eventually purchased a used Sigma 70-200 for a very reasonable price. I've been thrilled with it. It's an awesome lens, lightning fast focus and optically very good. I tried the Canon (non-IS) equivalent, which is significantly more expensive, and didn't find a huge difference between the two.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ron Evans |
Thank you all so much for taking the time to respond. After thinking myself into delirium I went ahead and bought the Canon 70-200 2.8IS. I think I just reached the point where I simply would always question the decision if I went with anything else. Assuming the image quality is excellent as reported I won't have any regrets. I also took advantage of BH Photo's option for Bill Me Later which is now 6 months same as cash. So I will spread out the payments of the next few months which was an ultimate selling point for me personally. Now I've got the studio strobes, backdrop, new lens.... All I need is some skill and knowledge so I can actually use this equipment to it's potential.... Yep, I'll probably say the same thing years down the road. :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Carlton Ward Contact Carlton Ward Carlton Ward's Gallery |
Ron, You will have that lens for many years and you will never regret your decision. I have all L lenses except for a couple of primes and the 70-200 2.8L IS is my favorite. I use it for indoor concerts, Zoos, portraits, festivals (and I attend many) and its a great walk around lens. Carlton
|
|
|
|
||
|
Peter K. Burian |
And the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM is my favorite lens: much smaller, lighter and less expensive. Superb in all respects. See the Reviews for both lenses at www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/11 Peter www.peterkburian.com
|
|
|
|
||
|
Peter K. Burian |
fyi: The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is fabulous too but does not have an image stabilizer. It's also large and heavy. See my Review of the Sigma lens at www.shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/lenses/1106sigma/ Since I tested it, Sigma has updated the lens a bit, but published Reviews indicate that the newer version is *at least* as good as the previous model. Peter www.peterkburian.com
|
|
|
|
||
|
Peter K. Burian |
fyi, I found the published version of my Sigma Review, finally. It's at www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/lenses/0807sigma/index.html Peter www.peterkburian.com
|
|
|
|
||
| Log in to respond or ask your own question. | ||