Sigma or Canon? Which one to go for..

I am planning to buy a camera lens, which one should I go for, Sigma APO

70-200mm F2.8 EX HSM or Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM IS? As the price

difference is huge, If you evaluated these option before - which one did you

picked and why? What are the advantages of Canon over Sigma or Sigma over Canon?

If you have any dealer recommendations in Delhi or NCR (India) then do let me

know.<div></div>

I bought the Sigma some years back, hated it and returned it. Bought the EF 70-200 2.8L USM, but found it too heavy, although a great optic, and sold it. Finally I ended up with the EF 70-200 4L USM. Perfect balance of quality and ease of use (think: I can carry all day).

You attach a picture from The Digital Picture.com. That site has in depth reviews of 4 Canon lenses and the Sigma. What do you expect the readers of PNet to add to these reviews?

Well, Jos...

Sorry for not expressing my self well before...

 

I have read the reviews... all four lenses are great - now, for a beginner like me - who wants to do portraits and glamor photography and has a long way to go - what is the good lens to begin with...

 

if you can guide me on that... also - should I go for a f4 or f2.8 with or without IS?

 

Cheers!

 

Shashwat

Stick with Canon lenses.

I have a friend who uses the Sigma and has nothing bad to say about it. I have not used it myself, so cannot say. However, personally, for anything that I need 2.8 for, I am going to use a fixed-focal-length lens anyhow, so I save money by using the f/4 versions when I shoot with zooms; the 70-200 and the 17-40. (I don't have a wide-to-tele zoom like the 24-70.) I sold my non-IS 70-200 (which I had bought for 35% off with a friend's discount), and got both of these f/4 zooms with the money. I do not miss the 2.8 at all. As I said, any time I am after speed, I just use a fixed-focal-length lens anyhow. In this case, I would consider the Canon f/4 over the Sigma 2.8. I have not enjoyed the Sigmas I have used, and the price of the Canon is so low you could get another lens too.

 

Keith

For portraits and glamour photography I'm not sure that I would be looking at a zoom at all. Fast primes will offer more artistic choices - I'd suggest 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135 mm, assuming you have a full frame camera (probably drop the 135 and add 24mm with a 1.6 crop camera). Now if you are shooting a catwalk at a fashion show, then the f/2.8 IS might make more sense because you aren't in control of the shooting situation in the way that you are working in a studio. An f/4 lens is far too limiting for portrait work.

 

http://www.photo.net/learn/portraits/

I do not have a tripod and use my monopod only rarely. Thus IS is something I can't live without, especially in telephoto. However, if you only shoot sport then you are constantly shooting at 1/500 or faster. In these conditions IS has no significant value.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

I tried both and went with the Sigma - no noticable difference in picture quality, but then I don't pixel-peep either. The big dollar difference was what caused me to go Sigma.

 

Regrets? Well, I shoulda got the 120-300 2.8 right off the bat. That's about the only regret. IS probably wouldn't have made much difference to me, and I find that I get good enough prints from hand-holding my 70-200 at major league ball games where the lighting is good. On my XTi/400D, the thing that makes the lens totally comfortable, balance wise, is the battery grip, which I got Targus off e-bay.

 

There is a subset of Canon users who have a belief that it is sacreligious to put anything non-Canon onto their Canon cameras; there is a (probaby) larger subset of Canon users who do not subscrbe to that mantra. Don't swallow the koolaid.

<p>You're comparing an apple to a candied apple. In the 70-200/2.8 range, you have

three main options, in order of increasing cost:

<ul>

<li>the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM</li>

<li>the Canon 70-200/2.8 L</li>

<li>the Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS</li>

</ul>

<p>The first question is whether or not you need IS. If you regularly see yourself in

situations where the IS will allow you to get a photo that you wouldn't otherwise get

(particularly shooting relatively static scenes at higher focal lengths in low light, or at

smaller apertures), cough up the money for the 70-200/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>The second question is whether or not you need the weather sealing. If you have, or

plan to soon have, a 1-series body with weather sealing (or the EOS-3 film camera), then

it probably makes sense to get one of the Canons so you maintain the weather-sealing

advantage. If you don't, I'd seriously consider the Sigma 70-200/2.8. I've got one, and

I've found it to be just as quick to focus and optically equal to my friend's Canon 70-

200/2.8 L (in real-world testing, not shooting test patterns on a tripod, so there may be

some nearly indiscernible differences in quality).</p>

<p>You may also be able to find an older, 70-200ish f/2.8 zoom around; I had a Tamron

70-210/2.8 before I switched to the Sigma. It worked fine, the optics were reasonable,

but the autofocus was slooooow, which was a major impediment for me (I shoot a lot of

sports). Of course, it's also tough to actually find one of these beasts if you're on a

schedule, so YMMV.</p>

I bought a Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX APO HSM five years ago. I am an amateur, but I take lots of pics. I had the Elan 7 then but I went digital with a new 30D last summer. I like this lens a lot and it made the transition to the 30D without a hitch. This lens has not been babied. I've hauled it on many trips in harsh conditions -- whale-watching in Maine to the galciers of Alaska to the Great Wall of China. It always performed extremely well. I had a problem two years ago. It became a little "loose" near the end that attaches to the camera, which didn't affect its performance, but I was worried. I took a deep breath and shipped it to Sigma. Within a week they returned it to me, repaired. No cost and no questions asked. It's been fine ever since. I also use a Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX. Never a problem.

Hi,

 

I have to agree with Mark U...

 

Neither zoom would the the best choice.

 

Get a set of fast primes instead.

 

With the type of photography you plan to do, you can very likely work at a reasonable pace that allows time to change lenses. Non-professional models/subjects will be much less intimidated by the smaller primes than with any of the "big white" Canon zoom lenses. And you will almost undoubtedly find use for the larger apertures of the primes. f4 max aperture is simply not adequate. f2.8 is marginal.

 

I have and use the 70-200/2.8 I.S., 20/2.8, 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8, among other Canon lenses. These are used on two 1.6X crop sensor cameras. I'd select a different group of primes, more like Mark's list, for a full frame D-SLR.

 

If you still go with a 70-200, I'd strongly encourage the Canon with I.S. I find it a very valuable feature to have on lenses 100mm and longer, especially if working with any crop sensor camera, where the effective longer focal length makes camera shake more of a concern. On any L-series lens, I.S. is the more sophisticated type, too, usually good for 3 to 4 stops according to Canon.

I agree with Mark and Alan. Depending on what camera you're using (full-frame or crop

sensor), you want (the equivalent of) 50mm, 85mm, and maybe 35mm. Primes, f1.2 - f2.

The question is to yourself: if your lens breaks, is that ok with no pictures at that moment? if yes, get the cheaper lens. With that said, does not mean canon lens will not break. It's less likely to break and optically, AF works with the canon bodies better. For jobs, I always carried multiple lenses and bodies. I cannot afford to tell my customers that my gears failed :-)

2 cents.

Did you get permission from The-Digital-Picture.com before posting their copyrighted picture?

Hi

I'd be another to recommend you go with the lightweight primes. I have a Sigma 70-200 EX and a Canon 50, 85 and 100-400L, Both zooms are heavy and both require some mental checks before shooting, waiting for the wobbles to slow etc. With the lighter primes the preparations of ensuring a steady hand are instant so your shoot becomes a seamless flow rather than a shoot, pause, shoot, pause etc.

As for Image quality the primes are better, but there's not a lot in it, I believe most of the IQ problems with these heavy zooms lie in camera shake rather than the quality of the lense. Big lenses are just harder to use.

When I pixel peep there isn't a lot between my Sigma and my 85 1.8, I can't see it anyway.

The Sigma lense is a good robust optic, but if I don't need the convienience of the zoom I'll pick up the smaller prime every time.

Neill Farmer

I am going to recommend the 24-70 f/2.8L instead of the 70-200 for your stated uses. It's a great all around lens and probably the most used pro lens of fashion photographers. Primes are great too but I don't think they are very flexible. Better to use the 24-70 most of the time and then have a 50 1.4 for low light or times you want lightweight.

I got the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 almost four years ago. I got the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS three years ago. The Sigma is still my lens of choice in 70-200.

 

I find no difference in the quality of my photos between the two and the black lens attracts less attention which can be handy.

 

I chose the Sigma initially for cost. I took a gig photographing a minor league sports team as a favor and didn't know how long it would last.

 

Personally, I like the feel and action of the Sigma more when I'm manually focusing. This is clearly a personal choice. My Sigma has served me over these years and taken a lot of abuse. The Sigma may eventually suffer from compatibility issues and I have not seen the Sigma lenses retain their value like my Canon L glass.

 

Like many here, I have a clear preference for the Canon glass in general but my particular Sigma is absolutely incredible. I sold my Canon 70-200 and got a Canon 300mm instead. If the Sigma dies I will replace it with Canon for compatibility and re-sale reasons.

 

As a footnote, if you need or benefit from the IS there is no comparison, the Canon was hands down the winner in low-light thanks to IS. I use the Sigma pretty exclusively for sports photography at high shutter speeds and don't care much about the IS.