Do I get Canon 70-200 4l or Sigma 70-200 2.8 ?

I have a Canon 20d and would like a telephoto lense.

 

I am currently travelling the world and can aford 1 lense.

 

Do I get the Canon or Sigma with the extra f stop ?

 

Help !!!!

 

Jonathan

I would get the sigma, from what I have read it is on par with the canon version.

 

but that is just me.

I've never used the Sigma, but the Canon is one of the best lenses they do. Built like a tank,

nothing rotates or extends, focus and zoom is all internal. Sharp enough wide open and USM

is _fast_.

 

Sigma still has the QC issue, so yours may not be as good as others.

There is no history of a quality control issue with the Sigma 70-200 2.8 Ex HSM and the newer 70-200 2.8 EX HSM DG These lenses have earned a formidable reputation as fast, reliable,well built, optically excellent performers at a very reasonable price for a Medium telephoto constant aperture fast zoom.

Yes and the one I have owned for four years now, perfectly fits the description above.

 

The main difference besides the larger apeture is that the Sigma is quitea bit heavier and bigger overall, this may or may not be important to you on your travels

I've owned both, and I kept the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L.

 

The Canon is faster focusing, lighter, and slightly sharper. The Sigma has a one stop advantage. I would personally choose the Canon for the smaller size (more travel friendly) and slightly better image quality. It's also cheaper than the Sigma (though it does not come with a tripod collar) and will hold its value better. The only reason to get the Sigma is if you really need the extra aperture stop, but can't afford the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Sheldon

I have the Sigma and while it is an excellent lens, I find it a bit too big and heavy for travelling. If 'travelling' means wildlife in dusk then the 2.8 would be worth carrying but otherwise I would suggest the smaller and lighter alternative.

It's a FAQ. If you search you'll see hundreds of threads with the exact same question.

 

I vote for the Canon. I think that the future proof compatibility, the better build, the lower weight, the lower cost (about 100-150$ difference) and the higher re-sale value are more important than the added stop. Naturally, YMMV.

 

Disclaimer: I never had a Sigma lens and probably never will. Their prices are too high to lure me to risk any future incompatibility problems. In the past, when I had to choose between the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM and the Canon 70-200/4 USM L, I bought the Canon. I gave the Sigma about one second thought and dismissed it, mainly due to the fear of having to face the incompatibility problem in the future.

 

HTH.

 

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

My God !!!

 

I wasn't expecting so much helpful information.

 

I think based on the information I have received I will still go for the Canon, based on being smaller and lighter plus the all important resale value (if I ever sell it). Thanks everyone for your help.

 

Jon

> Disclaimer: I never had a Sigma lens and probably never will.

 

Spoken like a true scaremongerer. Try actually using the glass you diss all the time. You might even learn something... like how it's possible to get error 99's with a 70-200IS.

 

This isn't even a proper question. "Do I need f2.8?" and you've got your answer.

 

And your resale value comment... why are you buying the glass, to use it or sell it?

hey, if you get a sigma lens go to http://www.sigma4less.com they are cheap and have good customer ratings.

<p> <i> Spoken like a true scaremongerer. </i> </p>

<p> Really? Haven't you noticed the very personalized attitude I used? These are <b>MY</b> ideas and <b>MY</b> view of the issue. You have another view? Great, but does it make my view not creditable? Here is the post again with emphasizes.</p>

<p> <b>I vote</b> for the Canon. <b>I think</b> that the future proof compatibility, the better build, the lower weight, the lower cost (about 100-150$ difference) and the higher re-sale value are more important than the added stop. <b>Naturally, YMMV</b>. </p>

<p> Disclaimer: I never had a Sigma lens and probably never will. Their prices are too high to lure <b>me</b> to risk any future incompatibility problems. In the past, when <b>I</b> had to choose between the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM and the Canon 70-200/4 USM L, <b>I</b> bought the Canon. <b>I</b> gave the Sigma about one second thought and dismissed it, mainly due to the fear of having to face the incompatibility problem in the future. </p>

<p> Do you understand now?</p>

<p> <i>Try actually using the glass you diss all the time. </i> </p>

<p> I have quite a few friends with Sigma lenses. The image quality from some lenses (e.g. 105/2.8 macro, 70-200/2.8 and 100-300/4) is very impassive. However, I think that when choosing a lens, this is not the only thing that matter. Most important? Yes. The only one? No. As the poster already is indecisive of two excellent lenses, I did not even address this issue. </p>

<p> <i>like how it's possible to get error 99's with a 70-200IS </i> </p>

<p> 1. <a href="http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/kb/detail.jsp?faqId=1022">Canon already addressed that</a>. <br>

2. When you consider the vast number this lens sells, the incidents appeared in relatively few numbers. <br>

3. I really wanted to buy this one so I could give you a first hand impression on it but unfortunately, it is financially out of my reach. <br>

<a href="http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11924">4. The first batch of the 24-105/4 IS was also faulty</a>. What does that say on it's quality? Absolutely nothing. <b></b> </p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

Can anyone comment on the AF speed between the 2 motors? HSM vs USM?

I am in the same boat with the poster, I've seen a factory restored F4 going for 425 which i am still kicking myself for not buying. My only previous sigma lens was a 24-70, great lens, tack sharp and contrast, EXCEPT it's soooo sllloooowww in focusing.

 

Thanks

TT

The Sigma EX HSM 70-200 2.8 is a fast focusing lens, perhaps not as quite as fast focusing as a Canon 70-200 2.8L but not enough difference between them to make much difference in the real world.

In normal conditions there is no practical difference. When the light gets low USM has a small advantage but IMHO it's really small. For fast AF speed, if I couldn't have USM I'd rather have HSM than any non-USM Canon.

 

Checked with Canon 200/2.8 USM L against a friend's Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

The autofocus speed on both these lenses is good, with the edge going to the Canon. Where you notice the difference is if/when the lens misses focus and has to run from near to far focus to regain the subject. This is a fair bit faster with the Canon.

Yakim, "1. Canon already addressed that."

 

Well, Canon addressed what it wanted to address, which is sweet #$%^ all. Maybe you remember my post some weeks ago - my friend was asking for advice on 70-200/2.8 IS. Against my advice (based on VERY thorough research on the Net) he got himself one (and let me tell you, this lens is a bit more expensive here in OZ than it is in the US).

 

Sure enough, the lens locked up his 20D about 30 minutes after being taken out of the box. How is that for "addressing the issue" ?

 

Some people stated that the reason is excessive power demands when AF and IS compete for the power resources. In which case switching to CF4-1 (if I remember well) should be of some help maybe ? I am not quite sure ( I don't have my camera with me right now), but IS should switch on when the shutter button is half-pressed, so focusing with AF-Lock button would separate focusing and IS action. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

And no, Canon did not address the issue... ;)

I wish I had the chance to check this out myself and report back. The 70-200/2.8 IS is one of my dream lenses but financial problems stirred me away from it :-( to the 70-300 IS.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.