EF 70-200 F4 L vs Sigma 70-200 F2.8

I am planing to but a telezoom. Usually I go for Canon lenses but

Sigma F2.8 is about the same price and is lighter and quicker.

Please HELP !!!

It really depends what you are shooting. Do you need the f2.8 of the sigma? One thing I can tell you is that with the canon you will not have to worry about any capadability issues and plus the canon is one of the BEST sharpest lenses I've ever used.

"is lighter and quicker"

 

Canon F4L weighs 1.56 LB

 

Sigma 2.8 weighs 3.06 LB

 

Looks like the Canon is about half the weight.

 

If you need an f2.8 lens, are willing to live the the weight of the lens, and don't want to spring for the Canon F2.8L, the Sigma seems to an attractive solution (could consider a used Canon F2.8L). With respect to the Canon F4L, I agree with KT.

 

Ken

I compared both and went with the Canon. The Sigma is very slow focusing and has a rotating front element. If you need a 2.8, buy a used Canon.

Sigma 2.8 HSM does NOT have a rotating front element.

 

And its also much less expensive.

 

I would love to have the Canon 2.8 myself, but for a lot of people Canon L lenses are just way too costly.

On the contrary, from looking at the prices from B&H the F4L is a little cheaper than the Sigma. Also I would recommend getting the canon 80-200mm F2.8L if you want a faster lens then the F4L, www.keh.com has some in excellent condition selling about 50$ more than the Sigma price.

Sigma and Canon do not live well together (Tokina and Tamron are much better in this issue). There are numerous posts of compatibility problems. It's all over the net. Thus, my general advice is to get a Canon lens.

The Sigma 70-200/2.8 is a bit soft wide open. To get best results you have to stop it down to f/4. On the contrary, the Canon 70-200/4 USM L is tack sharp wide open. You get lower weight, L build quality (EX is good but L is second to none) and a complete freedom from future compatibility problems. You lose the ability to shoot at f/2.8. Your call. I chose the f/4 and on the first few days I found myself talking to the lens (not out loud....). "Baby, where have you been all my life ?" For more than 10 years I've been using primes but L lenses (and this is the cheapest one of all) are a completely different ball game.

 

See http://www.photographyreview.com/reviewscrx.aspx and http://www.camerareview.com.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim

Regarding the incompatibility issues between Sigma lenses and Canon bodies, there are really only a few instances of this which have been repeated so many times on photo.net, that it seems like there are a lot more of them.

 

Still, in this instance, I would definitely buy the Canon f4, unless you really need the speed. If you need to polarize frequently, it gets hard to focus such a small lens. It also gets tricky/impossible to hand hold at the long end in low light if you like slower-speed films.

 

Too many people on this forum just don't seem to realize that everyone can't afford all Canon L glass.

 

I would buy the Sigma before I would buy the old Canon 80-200 f2.8.

I own the Sigma 70-200 ex 2.8 and am very pleased with it. This lens is TOUGH. I dropped it front element down onto a tiled floor and only damaged the filter ring thread!

 

However, my one complaint - the minimum focussing distance is 1.8m .

When using the lens for candid portraits (possibly it's primary use) it can be difficult to fill the frame even at the 200mm end. Of course one then encounters problems with the focal length/shutter speed rule by being forced to use the lens at it's maximum focal length.

 

I would definately advise trying this out BEFORE purchasing.

p.s. I don't know if the Canon has a similar or shorter minimum focussing distance.

<p>AFAIK, Sigma HSM lenses have not (yet) shown any compatibility problems with Canon bodies. A lot of other Sigma lenses have - see <a href="http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/news/Elan7.htm">http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/news/Elan7.htm</a> for an example of what often happens to older Sigma lenses when newer bodies come out.</p>

Also, If you ever plan on upgrading camera bodies, I'd go with the Canon.

The Sigma 2.8 is about $114 more than the Canon 70-200 4.0 with the current rebate. Makes the Canon a no brainer to me; lighter, sharper, cheaper. I'm thinking of getting one to replace my 100-300. Good luck!

In comparing the price of the Canon 70-200/4-L to the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM don't forget that the Canon does not come with a tripod collar, it is a $100+ option!

 

I bought the Sigma (the current HSM version with 77mm filter, not the earlier non-HSM 82mm version)but quickly exchanged it for the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS because the Canon has IS and focuses much faster. Aside from the 70-200/2.8IS my next choice would be the non-IS version, followed by the Sigma HSM, and in last place the Canon 80-200/2.8-L. The brighter finder and possibility of using f/2.8 for faster shutter speed and shallower DOF for subject isolation, plus the inclusion of a tripod collar, make the 2.8 zooms more useful to me. Only if size and weight were the primary criteria would I consider the 70-200/4-L despite its being an optically excellent lens.

I chose the Canon 4L over the Sigma f/2.8 for its lighter weight, smaller size, and slightly faster autofocus. I really didn't need f/2.8 since I primarily shoot nature, landscapes and people outdoors. I can carry the 4L around all day with no problem since it's so light. The f/2.8's tend to get a bit heavy after a while.

The 80-200 Canon L, used is a great approach if you need, want, the 2.8 speed. It has better MTF scores than either the Sigma 70-200 2.8, or the Canon 70-200 2.8. It's built like a tank and should last for years. I have one that must be ten years old now that I bought used and it is still in great shape.

The drawbacks to the Canon 80-200 are: 1) it does not work with Canon teleconverters(without using an extension tube) and 2) it's not white, so people won't know you're shooting with cool, expensive, Canon L glass.