Canon 70-200 f4L upgrade to Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO IF HSM?

[jdbcreativity-portfolio]

Hello,

 

I'm currently using the Canon 70-200mm F4L lens and was wondering if

it was worth selling it and getting the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO.

 

I shoot sports, weddings, portraits and landscapes. I know having a

faster lens will definitely help in stopping motion while shooting

sports, and will be very handy in dimly lit churches. I was mainly

wondering if the quality of the Sigma is comparable to the "L" quality

of the Canon. Right now I can't afford getting the more expensive

Canon 2.8L or 2.8L IS lenses.

 

Can folks who've tried both the F4L and the Sigma 2.8 let me know

their experiences?

 

Jamison

[bob_mcbob]

There are objective reviews of both lenses at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html">http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html</a>. I can't comment on the optical quality (check photozone), but the build quality of Sigma's EX lenses is superb, so that should not be a worry for you. In a few months I will have to make the same choice, and the only reason I'd go for the f/4 is the significant weight and size difference.

[pturton]

Jamison,

IMHO, I'd keep the f/4 zoom for outdoor activities and pick up a couple of fast primes for those 'dimly lit church' situations. Any dimly lit church I've been in and flash is not an option is too dim for an f/2.8 lens using ISO 800. My EF 70-200 f/2.8 most often stays at home when I'm shooting available light in a church or volleyball in a gym. Instead I use 35, 50, 85 and 135 primes for that extra stop or more of light.

 

Third party lenses have been a problem for me in years gone by so now I only purchase Canon.

[steve santikarn]

how about getting a third party 28-70 f2.8 zoom for indoors, and keep your already excellent tele zoom for outdoors? That way you'll have a nice range of focal lengths to work with.

[etan_lightstone]

a 28-70 isn't terribly useful for indoor weddings on a 1.6x camera (assuming that's what you have). It's a bizarre range. I use that range for studio portraits only.

 

Everyone I've talked to, and every review I have read claims the 70-200 2.8 Sigma is an excellent lens. It's optical quality easily competes with Canon's L equiv.

 

I certainly would rather have that lens, than miss tons of shots fumbling around with 3 or 4 different prime lenses. Most pro's I know use good quality zooms.

 

The only reason I can think of the F4L having an advantage is portability... that's about it.

 

When you think about it.. all you need is two lenses: a 17-40 (or 17-70 sigma or 17-85 canon) and a 70-200 2.8

 

I enjoy using my 10-20mm also for those wide ambience shots. The slow f-stop 4.5-5.6 range isn't that much of an issue with super wide angle.

[jdbcreativity-portfolio]

I already have the Canon 24-70 2.8L which I pretty much use I'd say about 75% of the time. I also have a 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8, both Canon's when I'm shooting in low light and need the extra speed.

[les]

I have sold my Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM (and got Canon 70-200/2.8 IS). The only reason was that my hands (sadly) are not as shake free as they used to be...

Optically it is a match for Canon's glass, maybe only slightly softer at f2.8 and minimum focusing distance (which is not how most of the pics would be taken anyway). It is a superb lens, I can only highly recommend it. And the build quality is excellent.

[John Crowe]

I like the idea mentioned by someone above, keep the zoom and get a prime. For what the transition would cost you, you could buy a superfast prime lens like the 50/1.8 or even 85/1.8. Lens selection depends on what camera you are using. If 1.6x DSLR then prehaps the 28/2.8 which you can handhold at 1/30 if you are careful. For church interiors I found 50 on film okay but 85 would have been better. Do weddings with two bodies if you can.

[ken munn]

"Do weddings with two bodies if you can."

 

That'll be the bride and the groom, presumably!

[jdbcreativity-portfolio]

I already shoot with 50 mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 primes, in addition to the 24-70 f2.8L and the 70-200 f4L. If I keep the telephoto, what are some good primes to pick up to fill out what I already have?