Canon f/4 70-200 lens or Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens?

[gregory_mclemor]

<p>Hello<br>

My name is Greg and I am saving up for a camera lens.<br>

I'm considering the Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens or the Canon f/4 L 70-200 lens.<br>

I like to shoot landscape and sports but the Canon L 70-200 2.8 lens is out of my budget.<br>

Can anyone recommend which is the better lens.<br>

I like the 2.8 of the Sigma but I am not sure about optical quality.<br>

I read the the Canon is excellent but it is a f/4.<br>

I would appreciate any advice offered as I am a student on a budget.<br>

Thanks</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>Greg, in my opinion it should be based on what you take photos of.</p>

<p>I have the Canon 70-200 F4, and feel that it takes great portraits, as well as a great all around outdoor lens. However, if I were trying to do indoor sports, it would be lacking as it is not as fast. Since most of my photos with this lens is outdoors, I love it and feel that it's IQ as well as build is amazing.</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>What camera are you using? If you're on crop, maybe a Sigma 50-150/2.8 if you need f/2.8 but don't need the extra reach? Or a two lens solution: a Canon 55-250 paired with a 85/1.8 or 100/2?</p>

[c jensen]

<p>I'd encourage you to look at the reviews at photozone.de</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>Kind of a tough call here. Normally I would say go for the 2.8 but I also know how good of a lens Canon 70-200 is. Anders has a great point, what is your camera body? If it's full frame, the 70-200 range becomes an indoor lens too. If it's a crop body, well I think it's a little too long. So if you have a full frame, I would go for the faster aperture because you will need it inside. If it will just an outside lens, Canon 70-200 F4 all the way. Be warned, using this lens make you addictive and eventually you will get a 2.8 IS version. Awesome lens. v/r Buffdr</p>

[mathew_gardella]

<p>greg,<br>

i had the canon 70-200 f/4 and loved it. it is a wonderful lens that is very sharp and very easy to balance on my 40D. I sold it last year for the sigma 70-200 f/2.8. the sigma copy that i have seems equally as sharp at f 4 but still somewhat soft at 2.8. my opinion is a soft 2.8 is better than no 2.8 when you have to push the limits and need 2.8. the only drawback is that the lens is heavy and i would recommend a monopod or tripod if there is no IS. I don't shoot with this focal length that much so I've settled on the sigma however, if i shot it a lot, i would probably break the bank and get the canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS mkII... oh my, decisions, decisions.....</p>

[scrivyscriv]

<p>Generally speaking, third party tele zooms like that don't autofocus as fast as the name brand lenses. I've never been satisfied with third party except for a Tokina 12-24 ultra-wide. If focus speed is important to you, the Canon would be better.<br>

You're getting twice as much lens for quite a lot less with the Sigma f/2.8... there has to be a compromise somewhere.</p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>Hi Gregory. I had to make a similar decision many years ago when using film. I chose the Sigma 70-200 2.8. It has served me well and I am satisfied with its performance. If I had to make the same decision today I think I would go with the Canon 70-200 F4L. Why? Well the Canon lens is much lighter and easier to hold steady, and for general digital photography with easily adjustable ISO the F4 maximum aperture is not such a handicap. As good as the Sigma has been, I also think the Canon might be a touch sharper, and this combined with the easier handling should give you better (sharper) images in every day hand held use. I also have a Canon L tele lens. It is a beautiful piece of equipment, it feels every bit as good as it looks and performs.<br>

So, If you know you will need the 2.8 aperture of the Sigma, them go with that, it is a quality lens, sharp and reasonably robust. If you do not need the 2.8, then get the Canon F4.<br>

Neill</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_sinquefield]

<p>I've never shot with the Canon. I own the Sigma (vers 1). I have no complaints whatsoever with that lens. WHen I am outdoors, that's usually what is on my 40D. The Canon might be a slight touch sharper/better contrast, but I have been MORE than happy with the Sigma, as there have been times I needed the 2.8 indoors (Dance recitals, etc.). As for speed of autofocus, the Canon could be faster, I don't know, but the Sigma is pretty darn fast...</p>

[fotograf]

<p>I've shot with both and prefer the Canon. Besides better color, the Canon lens is sharper. Sigma's is big and impressive looking but that's about all. I considered it soft even stopped down to around f/4 or 5.6 and the Canon lens is still useful indoors with flash. I've used it at stage events with no problem.</p>

[iam_nemo]

<p>I have been struggling with a similar decision myself (I use 7D & 40D bodies):<br /> Canon 70-200 f/4 IS vs Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 vs a used Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS (version I, not version II)<br /> I agree that f/4 is not such a big problem now with high-ISO sensors with good IQ.<br /> IMHO the f/4 is sharper than the Sigma at the 200mm end but not at the 70mm end (both@f/4) and it has more CA there too. The Canon f/2.8 is better than both at both ends but $$$, weight, etc.<br /> You can pixel peep and compare them at www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2<br>

You can also check the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF which is pretty good too and about the same price as the Sigma.<a name="desc" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539396-REG/Tamron_AF001C_700_70_200mm_f_2_8_Di_LD.html"></a><a name="desc" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539396-REG/Tamron_AF001C_700_70_200mm_f_2_8_Di_LD.html"></a><br>

Of course the Canons are stabilized ;-)</p>

 

[iam_nemo]

<p>Added: For even less money you can get the Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 which is not so bad.<br>

Don't forget to consider how fast the lens focuses, does it focus hunt, etc.<br>

More lenses reviews and info http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ and http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/2.</p>

 

[levon_monte]

<p>if both lenses are within your budget, get the canon for sure. image quality trumps a bigger aperture (f/4 vs. f/2.8). my local photo shop calls Sigma "Stigma" and doesn't even sell the brand. They say they see too many issues with them breaking and receive horrible support from the brand. I'd also consider the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, it's slower, but it does have IS for the same price as the 70-200, and it has great reviews. I'd also recommend looking at the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. They have a six year warranty on all their lenses. I just bought their 17-50mm f/2.8 and love it!</p>