Canon 70-200 L f4 vs Sigma 70-200 f2.8?

[vassil_mihov]

OK, this is not entirely fair comparison, except their cost is

similar (US $550 vs 650 new at Adorama, and the difference gets

smaller for used ones elsewhere). Which one would you recommend? (I

use a 300D).

 

To put it another way, is the gain in f stop (in Sigma) a fair trade

off in quality/brand name/compatibility?

 

To put it yet another way, if I use Canon 70-200 L f2.8 as the

benchmark, is its higher price justified by the gain of an f stop

(relative to Canon f4), or any gain in quality (relative to Sigma

2.8)?

 

(I'd really appreciate specific comments, as opposed to general

philosophical dismissals such as "Sigma sucks". I've owned a number

of Canon lenses and two Sigmas and know that both Canon and Sigma

can be high or low qulity (e.g., Sigma 28 1.8 is excellent; Canon 80-

210 f4 is not that good, unlike my other Canon lenses). This is

corroborated by the recent examples by blairbunting.com)

[catchlight]

Vassil, they are both excellent lenses. Only you can say whether the kind of shooting you do requires an f2.8 maximum aperture.

 

Perhaps weight is a consideration for you. The Sigma f2.8 is a barbell to carry around compared to the Canon f4.

 

The tripod ring is included with the Sigma, but is an expensive extra with the Canon. Canon's 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, if you want more reach, are better than third party TCs.

[vassil_mihov]

Thanks, Brent. Let me clarify a bit -- I found myself shooting a quite bit in indoor low available light situation, e.g., basketball, hockey, rodeo, classical concerts or performances (maybe it's the winter?). F4 may work, as long as the sharpness is not compromised. F2.8 (or lower, e.g., 50 1.8 or 28 1.8) is even better.

 

So, is the f4 sharp wide open? Similarly, is the Sigma 2.8 sharp wide open, or will I effectively opt to shoot at 4 anyway?

[jay_.]

Before deciding to bite the bullet and get the 70-200-IS (a decision I have not ever regretted)I tried out the 70-200/4-L, the 70-200 non-IS and the Sigma. The Sigma is slower and noisier AF than either of the Canon lenses but optically as good as the Canon/2.8. If you're not considering the 70-200 non-IS used, you might want to, the AF speed, quietness and build-quality are definitely worth a couple extra bucks. If you are weighing the 70-200-IS against the others there's no comparison. IS is worth its weight in gold especially with that type of lens.

[nathan_jedinak]

The 70-200 F4 L is sharp wide open. In fact, I find very little real-world differences between wide open and stopped down. <p>

 

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ndjedinak/.Pictures/Photography/Dogs/CRW_0292.jpg">One of my dogs, F4.0, handheld</a> <p>

 

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ndjedinak/.Pictures/Photography/Columbus/CRW_0838.jpg">Another shot, F4.0, handheld</a> <p>

 

I love this lens; to be honest I find very little that I don't like about it. I thought about the F2.8, but found both were indistinguishable from f4.0 onward, so saved the $$ and ended up with the F4. Down the road I would really like the IS/2.8, which I *do* feel is worth the money for the IS feature alone...

 

FWIW, I didn't try the sigma, and felt no need to after a few test shots with the F4L.

[mark u]

To clarify Jay's comment about the Sigma's AF performance, I think there is no significant difference unless you are using a 1 series body or EOS 3. On an Elan or 10D, focus speed is pretty much the same with either lens.

[g_w2]

Vassil,

 

Interesting question. I,m interested in looking at the

responses.

 

 

gw

 

 

 

 

Nathan,

 

 

I llike your photos; the pooch looks familiar.

 

 

gw

[tom_swanson]

Even if you never shoot a frame wide open the f2.8 is useful for viewfinder brightness and if you add a 2x TC to it you can still autofocus.

 

That said, I own the 70-200/f4L and couldn't be happier.

[primoz]

<i>To clarify Jay's comment about the Sigma's AF performance, I think there is no significant difference unless you are using a 1 series body or EOS 3.</i><p>

Personally I own EOS 3 and I shoot lot with EOS 1v and 1d. When I was buying 70-200/2.8 for myself I tried both Sigma and Canon and I didn't notice any difference. I agree there might be some speed difference between those two lenses, but if there is it's so small you don't notice it. Yeah Sigma doesn't have IS, but 70-200/4L doesn't have it either. And to be honest I never felt I need it so it would be waste of money for me. I shoot sport most of time and IS is really last thing I need. I have it on 400/2.8 and I don't think I ever turned it on. But if you feel you need it, then there's no other chance then Canon anyway :)<br>

And to answer your question Vassil. I would go for Sigma. It's 1 stop faster and in bad light you really see difference. I don't know what you will be shooting, but for any indoor sport (even on matches where they have TV lights) 4.0 is just too slow. Build quality of Sigma is nowhere near those rumors. But there's one thing to be carefull. If you go with Sigma buy it there where you can exchange it without problems. Sigma QC really sucks, but Canon is catching up lately. :)

[neil_browne1]

I use the sigma 70-210 f2.8APO, and for the type of shooting you want to do it

would be great. For indoor events you will like the f2.8. One thing, make sure

your lens works with your 300D, I had to send off my Sigma lens's to be re-

chiped to work with my 10D. (cost me nothing, Sigma took care of shiping,

cleaned both lenses, and repaired the loose mount on one lens at no charge)

[vassil_mihov]

I'd like to thank eveone for the thoughful comments. My choice does not necessarily get easier as I do not have unlimited budget (but choice is good, isn't it), but it is valuable to confirm that 1) Canon 2.8 IS is best in the range 2) the sigma is a serious viable option. I already have heard a ton about the canon 4 L.

 

Those of you who have the 70-200 L 4, did you ever need a faster f-stop? Say you were at a school play (with some movement), or a basketball game, was the the f4 sufficient? I find it quite borderline in such situations on my existing lens, Canon 80-210 f4, but the lens gets too soft at the long end already and especially wide open.

 

Or should I just buy a long prime?

[tom_swanson]

Indoors faster is always better. Last time I was inside I was forced to use my Tamron 28-75 f2.8. That would have been okay except 75 wasn't long enough for what I wanted. The guy next to me with the 70-200 f2.8 IS was having no such issues.

[claude_littleton]

Jay were you using the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX HSM?

[jim_larson1]

I shoot a 4L, and I do not feel limited.

 

I admit that I shoot mostly in good light, but if light does get dim, I generally just push ISO upto 400 (or if desperate) upto 800. 2.8 might be nice, but often I get worried about the shrinking depth of field.

 

The biggest issues for me were size and cost. Don't underestimate the size of the lens if you are considering IS vs non IS. A bigger lens is harder to hold steady.

[vassil_mihov]

OK, how about the old 80-200mm f2.8 L? I read that it is even better than the 70-200 f2.8 L. Any personal experiences and recommendations?

[f1dfoto]

I have never used the EF70-200/4, but I do frequently shoot indoor sports and even f2.8 is sometimes insufficient. If you're shooting action, shutter speed is more important than sharpness, and the Sigma's larger aperture will give you much more stopping power than the 70-200/4. Sure you can bump up the ISO, but that will give you significantly more noise/grain. Besides, it sounds like the Sigma is plenty sharp anyway, so that should not be an issue.

 

The EF80-200 is another lens I've not used, but I would imagine that the Sigma's HSM is faster and quieter. Plus, HSM offers full time manual override (ie, you can grab the focus ring to manually adjust focus at any time), something I'm not sure the 80-200 offers.

[vassil_mihov]

Thanks everyone, I just ordered Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM APO EX. For less than $600 new, I thought it was my best option (I got it from "hotdigital" on ebay, which appears to be focuscamera.com, if anyone else followed this discussion with a similar intent).