Sigma 70-200 2.8 vs Canon 70-200 4.0L

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by bsd230, Sep 11, 2005.

  1. I am considering these two the lenses. I would prefer the Canon
    because it cheaper my only reservation is the 4.0 not being fast
    enough. I don't shoot any sports in low light. It would mainly be
    daytime like auto racing events and maybe some nature. Any thoughts on
    these two lenses? Any one have the 4.0L, and have you used it for any
    type of sports?
     
  2. I used to own the Sigma, its a belter of a lens and I can highly recommend it. A couple of friends of mine have the Canon, and seeing their results in detail I can understand why they rate it just as highly. I know which I would rather lug around though - the Sigma is one heavy lens (1270g v 700g). As for f2.8 v f4, the main reason I sold my Sigma is that since ditching 35mm and going digital, I found I just wasn't using the extra stop. When shooting planes or motorsports, I just tweak the ISO up instead.
     
  3. >>It would mainly be daytime like auto racing events and maybe some nature.<<

    In that case the f/4 is not a limitation. Also, it's excellent even wide open so, you don't have to worry about having to step down to increase performance. It's truly a superb zoom.
     
  4. thanks, I didn't even think about the weight thats a big difference. And Giampi you answered my only other question if I would have to stop down to increase performance.
     
  5. Any thoughts on these two lenses? Any one have the 4.0L, and have you used it for any type of sports?
    Not sports, but I have used it on fairly fast-moving animals and it works fine in daylight. The f4L is a fabulous lens, fairly light, easy to handle, and optically excellent (it would be even better if it had IS). Keep in mind that it DOES NOT come with a tripod collar -- you have to buy that separately if you want one. Canon tells you to get the Type A white tripod collar, but the Type A black works just as well and -- for some unknown reason -- is a lot less expensive (maybe $70).
     
  6. Another vote for the f4 L.
     
  7. thanks everyone I just placed an order for the L. Its the lens I have wanted for a long time I just wanted to make sure I was making the right choice.
     
  8. ky2

    ky2

    The L is a brilliant lens. It's only a shame it's white. Wish Canon made one in black.
     
  9. i have the 4L. Just want to know if I miss anything on 2.8.... like background blur for portrait.

    anyone has experience in comparing two on DOF?
     
  10. It's a FAQ. If you search you'll see hundreds of threads with the exact same question.

    I'd vote for the Canon. I think that the future proof compatibility, the better build, the lower weight, the lower cost and the higher re-sale value are more important than the added stop. Naturally, YMMV.

    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 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.


    Happy shooting ,
    Yakim.
     
  11. Hi Brian,

    Do let me have some of your comments after you finish with some shootings on your newly acquired F4. I am looking at the same lens as well. Just wondering how does it compare to the other of the Canon 70-200 (or 75-200). The difference on the surface are that they do not come with a L-rating but they are much much cheaper.

    Hear from you yah!
     
  12. this 200mm can accept a TC 2X and "become" a 400mm F/5.6
    This may also be interesting for what you aim. Though, yes, if you only need a 200mm f/4, this Sigma f/2.8 is much heavier.
     
  13. I had the canon F4 and sold it. This is a very sharp lens at f4 and up at affordable price.
    However, I hit the wall when I took some indoor photos like in a graduation commencement where I really need f2.8.
    I plan to get the Sigma for f2.8 and I'm still affaid of the size and weight of the Sigma.
     
  14. If you don't need a zoom (would use it at 200 all the time) the Canon 200 2.8L prime might be a good option for speed without the weight. It weights the same as the 70-200 4.0L lens. I have no experience with this lens...just a thought.
     
  15. I have the F4L - and find it to be truly an amazing lens for the price.

    I often use it on a tripod when shooting long (missing IS) or in low light (longer shutter speeds) and in those situations the TMR-B (Canon Tripod Mount Ring A (B) (B for black)) is a must have for this one.

    - Harman
     
  16. I want to get the canon 70 200 f/4 because i've seen the results and they are stunning I have read else where of people compairing it with prime and macro lenses for sharpness. What other zoom lens can you do that with? And the price is fantastic compared with the rest of the 70 - 200 range.The only thing is of course the f/4 compared to the f/2.8. I have a sigma macro 105 f/2.8 that I thought could get me out of trouble if I find the f/4 to be a problem. Any thoughts on this?
     

Share This Page