josh_wheaton Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 I have seen used Canons at around $550 or so, but the Sigma it seems is only 600ish new (e8ay). I looked on <a href=http://www.photodo.com>photodo</a> and both of the Canons without IS (2.8 and 4) are rated 4.1/5 while the Sigma 2.8 is rated a 3.9. Is there a reason to buy Canon's f/4L offering if the difference in price is so minimal for a faster, seemingly near-equal lens from Sigma? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 It's smaller and lighter to carry than a 2.8, so if you don't need 2.8 your arms and airline baggage allowance benefit, not to mention the size of your camera bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchlight Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Here are four reasons: <p><li>you don't absolutely require the extra stop<li>you want the lightning-quick AF of the Canon<li>you eventually want the high resale value of a Canon L lens<li>and don't want to haul around the barbell-like weight of an f/2.8 zoom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Stick with Canon when you can. User's of the f4 L will likely tell you it is sharper than the Sigma f2.8. You ARE paying for more than just the name! If you really need f2.8 but want to maintain a budget with quality then consider the Canon EF 200mm f2.8 L USM prime lens. Used price around $400. It can take both converters and maintain autofocus. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimvanson Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Josh...I have a friend that shoots...no, make that trys to shoot, with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8...(the lens keeps quiting on her). Her lens, at the 200 end, <b>is not</b> truely sharp untill f5.6. At f4 it's ok, but at f2.8 it's only so-so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh_wheaton Posted August 23, 2003 Author Share Posted August 23, 2003 Ok, I guess that resounding "NO!" means I'll look into the canon (f/4L). I have seen a few on e8ay for $569 plus a $40 rebate... why are people asking for $525 firm for their used offerings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchlight Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 See my point #3 above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s._fisher Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Heck, you can buy 550EX's from B&H & sell them at a profit on EBay if you're good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Josh, I have no vested interest in promoting Sigma (I can afford Canon 70-200/2.8 if I have to). I do shoot with Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM EX. A lot of people will tell you that Sigma is "not as sharp as Canon" wide open. Or that "compatibility is a problem". Or that "the build quality is no good". The reality is (IMO): 1) The Sigma is a bit softer than Canon, but NOT wide open. The difference is mostly at the short end (70 mm), and at apertures f4.0 and f8.0. This is what you can find out yourself, if you put the MTF data on a common diagram. 2) You would be very hard pressed indeed to actually quantify the difference: even wide open the Sigma is very sharp. Why do people say that "wide open the Sigma is not sharp" ? Frequently, the incorrect shooting technique is at fault. When there is less light, one may be tempted to open up the aperture (why not, after spending a lot of monet to get this fast lens...). The resulting shallow depth of field is frequently blamed for photos that are not sharp...or rather sharp only where the focus point was. Second, if you shoot at 200 mm, you need a minimum of 1/200 or 1/300 shutter speed. It is VERY easy to shake the camera. So, a tripod is very recommended in many cases. If one does not want to use tripod, a faster film (ISO400 or ISO800) would often fix the problem. I can say that the autofocus HSM works great, although sometimes hunts a bit. The build quality is very good. And I have no problems whatsoever with compatibility (on Elan 7e). Sigma works very well with the 1.4x TC. Haven't tried 2.0x TC yet. Having said that, there is a couple of things in all the previous posts that you should consider. 1) It is a heavy lens (but so is Canon 70-200). No great surprise here. You want 2.8, you got to carry it. 2) It is possible that in the future the compatibility issues may arise. I do not worry about it. 3) Canon 70-200/f4 is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) zoom lens that can be had under $1000. This is a no-brainer: in fact I plan on buying one myself, as Sigma really gets heavy after couple of hours. But, so is Canon 70-200/2.8... 4) The Sigma may be less resistant to flare than Canon. I had some problems with flare when shooting with Sigma in the sun. Nothing that a hood can not fix, but sometimes even the hood is not enough. I have no experience with the Canon 70-200 in the same circumstances, except that the 100 mm macro had noticeably less flare in the same conditions. I am not repeating any opinions that I have read/heard etc. The lens I am talking about actually lives in my bag, together with Canon 50/1.4 USM and Canon 100/2.8 macro USM. So, I can compare whether the Sigma is sharp or not. The largest enlargments I have made is 10"x15", both with Sigma and with 100 mm macro (using a tripod). I do not know if it helps you any, but here you have it. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 >> "2) It is possible that in the future the compatibility issues may arise. I do not worry about it". I wonder why. Is it because you don't intend to ever buy a newer body ? Happy shooting , Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_rubinstein___mancheste Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Maybe because rechipping is for free, and maybe having to send it away for two weeks 10 years in the future is worth the price difference!<br> As canon have to keep backwards compatibility over their whole EF lens line, their is a limit to waht they can change anymore with their lens-camera protocols.<br> Just an idea of mine, I think that canon in it's new bodies, finally started using the distance information provided by the lens (especially in the digital bodies), and that's where the old sigma lens got stuck as sigma had not bothered to add it.<br> The point is that all current EX lenses work on all of the new platform EOS cameras, and I don't think that compatibility issues are worth worrying about to the extent of spending three times the price on a lens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william_snell3 Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 "I have seen used Canons at around $550 or so" Josh, B&H sells the 70-200 F4.0 for $540 new. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_v. Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 I don't know what your experience with L glass is, but deciding between an F4 and F2.8 in this zoom range seems to be a common one. I purchased the F4 this summer and it is my first L lens, for me, it has been a great introduction into the world of L glass. I have no problem using it with elan II and elan 7 bodies, it's large, but you can walk around with it on no problem, which is great. I did get the tripod mount which costs, but it makes the unit feel more secure to me. I did a music/street festival with this lens and a 50mm, I was stunned with the sharpness of this zoom lens at F4. Did an outdoor rodeo with this lens almost exclusively, again, stunned at the super sharp negatives I got shooting intense action at f4... Get the F4, you'll know soon enough if it fits your needs. At its current price, it's a bargain. If you don't like it, you can sell it no problem without losing much at all.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 The Sigma is bested *only* by the 70-200/2.8-L-*IS* and *only* because of the IS. Go for the Sigma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 >> "2) It is possible that in the future the compatibility issues may arise. I do not worry about it". I wonder why. Is it because you don't intend to ever buy a newer body ? Happy shooting , Yakim.<< Yakim, if people always wanted to drive the best car, we all would be saving pennies for a Rolls-Royce (or BMW, or whatever is one's preference). By the time I need to upgrade/retire the Sigma, I will have made thousands of good, sharp pictures with this lens. I am not arguing that it is better than the comparable Canon glass. But the differences are not significant enough to pay $500 more IMHO. When the time comes, I will get another body and hope that the Sigma still works. If not, I will try to upgrade the chip. If this is not possible, I will most likely sell it for a song to someone who can still use it on his camera, and buy me a Canon IS version (or Sigma's IS version, if available at the time). In the meantime, I am going to take lots of pictures. As I said in one of my previous posts some time ago: this glass is much better at taking pictures than I am, and I suspect the same goes for vast majority of photographers. After all, how many of us can drive a Ferrari and really push it to the limits ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whayne_padden Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Josh, this is a Canon forum and there is a lot of lens snobbery going on here. Sure the sigma may not be as good as the Canon, but for a f/2.8 lens it is wonderful value and I have mainly heard excellent reports on it. If the weight is not an issue and you really need the extra stop I would get it, if you can't afford Canon's f/2.8. However, the Canon 70-200 f/4L is a superb lens and I saw no reason to get it's big brother. It's a nice size and I can hand hold it all day on an EOS 3 + PB-E2. Sigma make some excellent lenses that fit in between Canons consumer and L series lenses and I have two myself, which work wonderfully. I would much rather by some of Sigma's (Tamron's) products over some of Canon's consumer lenses. It seem that their better lenses offer 95% the image quality of the Canon L's for 50% of the price. Josh ask the same question on dpreview.com in the Canon SLR lens forum and see what the response is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh_wheaton Posted August 24, 2003 Author Share Posted August 24, 2003 Wayne, thanks for the insight. I think I may go with the Canon for the weight issue and i just love that white lens look ;) I used to have a 300mm f/4L .. how does the weight of the 70-200 f/4L compare to that? PS - I own an Elan 7e with BP-300. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchlight Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Well said, Leszek and Whayne. On this forum and others, I always discount the views of people who are expressing opinions on equipment they haven't owned or at least tried. The most convincing posters of all are those who attach sample photos or links to photos which back up what they are saying. They'd never admit it, but I think some people find owning the best equipment to be more important than shooting and learning with the best equipment you can afford. Many of the classic photos of the last century were made with unsophisticated lenses mounted on the equivalent of box cameras. It was the photographer's experience, creative eye, technique, and patience that made the shot, not whether the lens was made by Sigma or Canon, or had a particular maximum aperture. Josh, I think handling both the Sigma and Canon zooms in a store would help you decide. Optically and mechanically, you won't go wrong buying either lens, but the "feel" of a lens is an important factor that you can't experience on a forum or in a magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchlight Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Just to practice what I preached above, the shots on <a href="http://ronbridge.com/wedding_page6/index.htm">this page</a> were captured with the Canon 70-200mm f/4L on an EOS3:<p> http://ronbridge.com/wedding_page6/index.htm<p> If you get this lens, I think you'll love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Brent, What scanner do you use ? I have no experience whatsoever in scanning negatives/prints, so I would be grateful for some tips. Currently the scans I make (from the prints) make them no justice whatsoever, but I suspect this is the case with most prints ? So, what should I do/use in order to produce nice pics that look good on a computer screen ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchlight Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Leszek Those negs were scanned by the Konica digital system at my local photo shop. I shoot mostly digital (10D, D30), but still shoot a bit of film at weddings so I can use the Canon 70-200mm, which is a bit long on a DSLR because of the 1.6X crop. I just ask for negs, CD, and index sheet (no prints), then post-process and print the shots the same as the digital captures from then on. I can do the same with slide film, too. In effect, getting high res scans as part of the film developing process makes every camera a digital camera, in part, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whayne_padden Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Lesek shoot only slide film for a start as what you see is what you shot unlike prints. Then get a good negative only scanner like Nikon Coolscan IV. You need one with as high as dynamic range as possible and 4000dpi is the only way to go. Minolta has released a new 5400dpi scanner which looks great, don't know the price yet. Also the 70-200 f/4L weighs about 40% less than 300 f/4L IS, 705g vs 1190g. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Whayne, Brent, Thanks for the clues. I have already checked some scanners: Minolta Scan Elite 5400 claims 4.8 stops range, CanonScan 4000 3.4 or something, Nikon Coolscan IV ED has 3.6, Nikon Super CoolScan 4000 ED 4.2. I would be looking at something under a $1000 mark: any suggestions ? My prints are most likely to be 8"x12". What print density is required to get a good pic ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_medina Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Josh, I just went through this exhausting dilemma. I use the Elan 7E with a BP-300 and I decided to go with the canon 70-200 f/4. I tried the Sigma but it just felt way too heavy for carying around town. I wanted something that I could take to wedding and shoot from the hip that wasn't going to kill my arms by reception time. The optical quality was better (4.1 vs. 3.9. I do own a Sigma 28-70mm EX f/2.8 that I love so I am not pusing the canon for any other reason than it was the best for the money and for my situation. I found my lens on Ebay for about $600 (only 2 months old)including a tripod collar. You have to be willing to shop around. I physically tried out both lenses and made my decision...Sigma is great, but the Canon is unbelieveable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_medina Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Brent, What film and set up were you using? I really like those shots! Great scans! My brother-in-law is getting married in Hawaii and I would like to have a try at shots like those! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now