Canon or Sigma?

[DanielB]

i finally have enough money to buy the Canon 70-200 f/4L. now. do i go with a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, for just 100 more?! or should i go ahead and get the Canon?:dunno read many reviews on the sigma and people say its sharp as a tack. is the 2.8 really that much better for what i'll be shooting?? (football games, portraits outside, some wildlife)

thanks guys:thumb

Daniel

[JimM]

My thought is the difference between 2.8 and 4 is pretty large, that is an important stop. I would keep checking the reviews.

[DanielB]

My thought is the difference between 2.8 and 4 is pretty large, that is an important stop. I would keep checking the reviews.
i know. what i'm asking is, is the 200 or so dollars really worth it? and should i go for the sigma. because as always i could just sell it and buy a Canon later.

any thoughts?:dunno

[ziggy53]

Daniel,


I have an older Sigma f2.8 that isn't very compatible with Canon digital SLRs, but when it's good, it's very good.

I suggest you get the Sigma if you plan to do any night shooting. The extra f stop helps with shutter speed and stop-action.

Good luck and let us know what you do.

ziggy53

[3rdPlanetPhotography]

Go for the sigma my friend. If you can go from f4.0 to f2.8 for $100 bucks I'd jump on that. I have a Sigma lens and a Sigma flash. Top notch! Love them both.

:):

[DoctorIt]

the newer Sigma's have none of the problems Ziggy was referring to. The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is an awesome lens. Not as good as the Canon 70-200 f/2.8, but at less than half the price, its a virtual bargain. I opted for the longer reach of the 100-300 f/4 Sigma, and its been one of my favorite lenses. I don't shoot much in low light with it, but I do know that faster aperture is always better.
:nod

Sigma's hold their value well enough that you can sell it when you're ready to upgrade to the fast Canon L w/IS.

[graeme_7799]

Personally, I would go for the sigma 2.8 lens instead. Its a stop faster, uses good glass (obviously not quite as good as the fluorite in the L lens from canon) but none the less is a stellar performer. the color fringes between these two lenses is virtually indistinguishable unless you are using the 16 megapixel monster from canon. i've tried these lenses on my 20D and loved the results.

In favor of Sigma: Stop faster, faster shutter speeds possible

In favor of Canon: fluorite element eliminates all fringes and color abberations

[spartan123]

I own the Canon 70-200L f/4 & 2.8L IS and my son has the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM. The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 easily holds its own against the Canon lenses. This is one of Sigmas sleeper lenses.

I have had no problems with the lens on any of my Canon cameras be it film or digital.

[leebase]

Do you understand that "one stop" means "twice the light gathering ability"? When you are shooting sports that extra stop can indeed come in handy.

I have the Sigma -- love it!

BTW, in addition to "low light" -- you have the nice "narrow dof" of f2.8 which helps separate your subject from the background (blurs the background).

In favor of the Canon? Smaller size, $100 cheaper. Not better photos (not that lens anyway). The Sigma is one heavy piece of glass. Worth it, IMO.

Lee

[DanielB]

I really would go with the sigma. but right now. i REALLY need extra reach right now... so i'm going with the Canon for now. and maybe when i work up 200 or so. i'll sell the Canon and buy up a Sigma. but ya never know:dunno


thanks to all you guys:thumb

Daniel

[Red Bull]

I had thought about going for the Sigma, but decided not to....didn't have the money.

I would say wait until you have enough money for either of the lenses and THEN decide. Otherwise you will be stressing about something that you don't have the money for.

My 70-200 f/4 has been ordered.http://dgrin.com/images/smilies/icon10.gif

[leebase]

I really would go with the sigma. but right now. i REALLY need extra reach right now... so i'm going with the Canon for now. and maybe when i work up 200 or so. i'll sell the Canon and buy up a Sigma. but ya never know:dunno Nothing wrong with that. The Canon f/4 is a nice lens, you may find that you never want or need the Sigma. We all have to choose within our means.

Lee

[DanielB]

ahhhh sigma, no canon, no sigma...no canon!:wxwax

i'm just gonna save up until i can buy either, then decide.:rolleyes but from my stand-point at the moment. i'm goin with Sigma. from all the reviews i've read,:deal and my test experience with it. its got B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L Bokeh. and thats what i love:lust . soooo i'll let you guys know if i change my mind.:D *again*


thanks,

Daniel

[graeme_7799]

i wish sigma had a OS version of their 70-200... that would be nice.

[pediwent]

I have the Canon and absolutely love it. Sharp even wide open at f/4. I've heard the Sigma is a little soft at f/2.8 (though at least it has it available). You can do a search on "canon sigma 70-200" and come up with a number of reviews including some sample images shot from both lenses.

The conclusion seems to be that image quality between the two is so close as to be negligible. The Canon is supposed to be a hair better on focus speed, accuracy and noise, though again the difference is pretty negligible. It comes down to whether you need the extra stop at the expense of having a large, heavy, and slightly more expensive lens. The Sigma is considerably heavier and larger than the Canon, which means it'll be less comfortable to carry for extended periods and more difficult to handhold. But if you're shooting lots of low light or high action shots, the extra stop may be the difference between getting the shot or not.

One other note, I know nothing of Sigma's customer service, but I had to send the Canon in to get recalibrated (it was backfocusing slightly). They were prompt, courteous, and repaired the lens quickly at no charge. Not solely a reason to buy Canon, but a consideration nonetheless.

[pediwent]

graeme, I've had my eye on Sigma's 80-400 OS lens and have heard terrific things about it. As soon as I have an extra $1000 laying around (which means not in the near future), I'll pick one up as it seems like a no-brainer against the more expensive Canon 100-400 competitor. It's great to see Sigma integrating OS into it's lenses (and doing it well, from what I've heard) and it'll be nice to see them extending that feature to a broader selection.

[binghott]

when i was making my 70-200 purchase i had to go through a similar process. i knew i wouldn't be happy with the f4.0 and i just wasn't comfortable with going 3rd party at the time. i wanted to feel what every "L" lens owner feels, knowing that in your hand, you have the best lens you can get. i managed to get the cash for the canon 70-200 f2.8L and it was worth every little penny, it has such a great feel and the pictures are stunning. it's the second best equipment purchase i've made - the best is my tamron 28-75 f2.8, that thing is just incredible and a complete steal.

in my opinion, i haven't tried the sigma, you should keep saving up for the canon 70-200 2.8L, it really is that good. you're 14, you should take some time to learn how to use all of your equipment some more before you make that leap.

i hope that helps

[John Mueller]

Does Ben have one you can check out:D:rofl
I owned both the Sigma 2.8 and Canon 2.8.The Canon was a tad better on the color end and bokeh.
Price wise the Sigma wins.

[DanielB]

Does Ben have one you can check out:D:rofl
I owned both the Sigma 2.8 and Canon 2.8.The Canon was a tad better on the color end and bokeh.
Price wise the Sigma wins.

:rofl 'fraid not. i've checked every camera store around. NO ONE carries it. :cry they all have to order it, and then if they do, and i decide i don't like it. well. lets just say they might be a little disgruntled. Not even the Wolf Cameras around locally carry it! jeez. whats a boy to do.:scratch lol.

[miketaylor01]

I own the Sigma 70-200 and it is by far my favorite lens. Absolutely incredible. I do have to point out though that im a little sigma biased as I shoot with an SD9 and can only shoot sigma lenses, but I do have to say it has never ever let me down. I bought mine used off ebay a year and a half ago, there may be one on there you could get for a steal. Dont be afraid of going "third party" as someone earlier said. Sigma lenses and equipment are top notch. Im sure L would be the best overall for you if price was no issue, but for the price you cant beat sigma lenses.

[Poindexter]

My Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with 1.4 TC came in last Friday and I've been playing with it all weekend - great lens :thumb

It is heavy though. I look at it like this, as I was going through the same debate you are:

vs. the Canon 70-200mm f4L it gives you the extra low light and stopping ability and really isn't "that much more". The f4L is much lighter in weight, if that is a consideration to you.

vs. the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L it is a little bit less and not as "screaming" (my term for white lenses) when out in public. For the same price you can pick up a teleconverter for the Sigma.......and dinner.

vs. the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS is IS really worth almost $1000 more?

vs. the Canon non-L's 70-300mm don't even kid yourself.

[SportsShots]

I have always stuck with the "L" series lenses. I know that sometimes money is the deciding point even at the sacrifice of quality. IF you are shooting sports, indoor, and/or at night, you will need the 2.8. A 2.8 lens will usually make the difference between a good picture and an awesome picture. Save and wait.

[davev]

graeme, I've had my eye on Sigma's 80-400 OS lens and have heard terrific things about it. As soon as I have an extra $1000 laying around (which means not in the near future), I'll pick one up as it seems like a no-brainer against the more expensive Canon 100-400 competitor. It's great to see Sigma integrating OS into it's lenses (and doing it well, from what I've heard) and it'll be nice to see them extending that feature to a broader selection.

I'm taking this thread off to a side road for a minute.

I have the Sigma 80-400os. I have read reviews that say it's the best thing
ever. Well, after owning it for a year, I'm not so sure. On still objects, it can
hold its own. On moving things, (BIF) it can be a challenge. The Canon L
has the USM, the Sigma does not. Yes, it makes a difference.
The other thing that I have read about this lens is that it is sharp wide open.
Mine isn't. I shoot at F8, period. I've tried wide open, it isn't good. Maybe
it just my lens, and not all of them.

My shots with this lens are here: http://www.pbase.com/davev/sigma

Now, back to Daniel.
The Canon L lens will hold it's value better than the Sigma.
The 70-200L F4 is a very good lens. I had one and sold it for $20 less
than what I bought it for. If I were to sell my $1000 Sigma lens, I'm sure that
I'm going to lose 150 to 200 dollars.

Get the Canon F4. You will be amazed at how good it is.

P.S. I have a Tokina 400 F5.6 prime. I don't know how this worked on a
film camera, but on my digitals, it is the worst lens ever. It focuses fast,
the pics are fairly sharp wide open, But the CA or Purple Fringe or whatever
you want to call it, is horrible. It dominates the photo.
Stay away from at least this Tokina.

[marsmark]

I went through this decision about 6 months ago. Compared the Canon 70-200 f4L and f2.8L (tested IS too, but that was out immediately on cost), the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, and the Tokina ATX 828 80-200.

The Tokina came well recommended, but exhibited horrible purple fringing - even on areas with only average brightness and contrast.

The Sigma compared very favorably to the Canons. I couldn't tell the difference between the Canon f4L and the Sigma f2.8. The Canon 2.8L wasn't really any sharper, but I think there was a slight improvement in image brightness (barely).

In the end, I really wanted the extra stop of the 2.8, but couldn't justify the extra $$ for the Canon, so I went with the Sigma. I've been quite happy with it. Other than weight, which has already been mentioned, the only drawback I've experienced really has to do with the 2x teleconverter I bought with it (Sigma). Wide open, the shots come out somewhat soft. Still not bad, though.

-Mark

[ziggy53]

I just got the Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8 yesterday and it looks like a keeper. I didn't have time to really run it through its paces, but my immediate perception is that with just the center focus dot, on a Canon XT, the focus is fast and accurate and the sharpness at f2.8 is what I would expect from a lens of this caliber, very very nice.

The lens also seems to work well with E-TTL flash, which is not the case with other of my lenses.

ziggy53

[ziggy53]

The new Sigma 70-200mm lens turned out to be a dud. It couldn't resolve anything close to infinity.

I'll return the lens and ask for another copy as an exchange. I am encouraged by other's experience with this lens, so I hope to get a good one.

I'm out of town right now, but when I get back I'll post examples to show how bad it was (especially compared to a 10 year old Sigma 70-210mm, f2.8.)

ziggy53

[DanielB]

The new Sigma 70-200mm lens turned out to be a dud. It couldn't resolve anything close to infinity.

I'll return the lens and ask for another copy as an exchange. I am encouraged by other's experience with this lens, so I hope to get a good one.

I'm out of town right now, but when I get back I'll post examples to show how bad it was (especially compared to a 10 year old Sigma 70-210mm, f2.8.)

ziggy53

ouch,:uhoh sorry to hear about that ziggy. I have indeed settled on the Sigma 70-200 but i'm still saving my pennies.:D

one question though, how is it that i've seen these for nikon mount sell for the same as the 70-200 f/4L but when i look at them for canon mounts i see them going for 650ish:scratch

[DoctorIt]

ouch,:uhoh sorry to hear about that ziggy. I have indeed settled on the Sigma 70-200 but i'm still saving my pennies.:D

one question though, how is it that i've seen these for nikon mount sell for the same as the 70-200 f/4L but when i look at them for canon mounts i see them going for 650ish:scratchduh, 'cause F-mount is cooler. :rolleyes

next.

[DanielB]

:rofl you can dream all you want erik:wink but it isn't gonna change the bare facts.

Canon > nikon :deal

:bad

:D

[DoctorIt]

you can dream all you want erik:wink but it isn't gonna change the bare facts.Andy said we could use more of this type of stuff, so in the interest of boosting ratings:

Oh Daniel, you're showing your age. What with your abundant smileys and colored fonts. Hang around you enough and I may end up like Rutt, abhorring all smileys. I may start browsing text-only.

PS. Nikon rulz, Canon droolz.

PPS. I have a 70-200/2.8 and you don't.

PPPS. So there.

[graeme_7799]

If I'm not mistaken, Sigma released an HSM version of their f/2.8 lens. If that is the case, then go for the Sigma. One stop faster, maintains super fast focussing and like some people said, is less "noisy" because of its white exterior.

[ginger_55]

You go Daniel!

:rambo :thwak


Another Canon owner!


CANON ROCKS!

g

[Justiceiro]

Andy said we could use more of this type of stuff, so in the interest of boosting ratings:

Oh Daniel, you're showing your age. What with your abundant smileys and colored fonts. Hang around you enough and I may end up like Rutt, abhorring all smileys. I may start browsing text-only.

PS. Nikon rulz, Canon droolz.

PPS. I have a 70-200/2.8 and you don't.

PPPS. So there.

Doctor it, you scurrilious traitorous dog. Come back, my son, to the true faith.

There is no salvation outside the church!

Nikon and the Canonshttp://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/%7Ejrh11/RU4_files/k3.JPG

[DanielB]

Andy said we could use more of this type of stuff, so in the interest of boosting ratings:

Oh Daniel, you're showing your age. What with your abundant smileys and colored fonts. Hang around you enough and I may end up like Rutt, abhorring all smileys. I may start browsing text-only.

PS. Nikon rulz, Canon droolz.

PPS. I have a 70-200/2.8 and you don't.

PPPS. So there.

lmao:lol4

[DoctorIt]

Doctor it, you scurrilious traitorous dog. Come back, my son, to the true faith.

There is no salvation outside the church!

Nikon and the Canonsscrurrilious and traitorous!?! Now we're talking, bring it on!!!

:lol3

[Poindexter]

You guys are too funny :rofl

[Justiceiro]

Come on! No props for "Nikon and the Canons?!" I spent at least 15 minutes thinking that one up.

[DoctorIt]

Common! No props for "Nikon and the Canons?!" I spent at least 15 minutes thinking that one up.Can't say I've done too much biblical reading, so I just got it now. Clever, sir, dare I say, cunning?

[Red Bull]

OMG Liek canon 4 lyfe!! LOL!!!!1!!1

[/12 year-old chat speak] :rofl

[Justiceiro]

OMG Liek canon 4 lyfe!! LOL!!!!1!!1

[/12 year-old chat speak] :rofl

Canon is r0x0rz.

Nikon is sux0rz.

[Red Bull]

No no no... it's

Canon is teh r0x0rz

Nikon is teh sux0rz

Gotta add the "teh":D (misspelling of "the") Or you can just add in a "1337" in there. (leet)

[ziggy53]

I just got off the phone with Steve at Sigma4Less and they are making the exchange process sooo easy. It's nice to work with a decent firm. So far, every transaction with Sigma4Less.com has been pleasant.

The lens goes back today to exchange for another copy of the Sigma 70-200, f2.8. (I am hopefull for a "good" lens.)

ziggy53

[DanielB]

I just got off the phone with Steve at Sigma4Less and they are making the exchange process sooo easy. It's nice to work with a decent firm. So far, every transaction with Sigma4Less.com has been pleasant.

The lens goes back today to exchange for another copy of the Sigma 70-200, f2.8. (I am hopefull for a "good" lens.)

ziggy53

sweet:thumb only thing that would keep me from Sigma4Less is that all their stuff is grey market. with the 1 year international warranty, not the 5 year US waranty:rolleyes

[DoctorIt]

only thing that would keep me from Sigma4Less is that all their stuff is grey market. with the 1 year international warranty, not the 5 year US warantyFor a pretty substantial saving (more than the usual $20 difference on Canon glass), I'd say its not a huge deal. I've dealt with Sigma4less twice, both times good results.
:nod

[ziggy53]

The new Sigma 70-200mm lens turned out to be a dud. It couldn't resolve anything close to infinity.

...

I'm out of town right now, but when I get back I'll post examples to show how bad it was (especially compared to a 10 year old Sigma 70-210mm, f2.8.)

ziggy53

Here is a shot with the new Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8, EX, DG. (Resampled down to 640x426, no other alterations)

[ziggy53]

... And now the same shot with an old Sigma 70-210mm, f2.8.

[ziggy53]

100% crop of the new Sigma:

[ziggy53]

... And a 100% crop with the old Sigma:

[ziggy53]

P.S. Indoor, close-range, the new lens was OK. Since around 30-40% of what I shoot is close to infinity, the new lens was unacceptable.

I repeated the test without filter and at high ISO and got the same results. :cry

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the next copy. :):

ziggy53

[DanielB]

:ooglethat was one screwed up lense...

[Matthew Saville]

Yep, I love Sigma4Less. They toss out the USA warranty and you pay much less! They sell Mack warranties for cheap too if you need that, but I've had such good epxeriences with Sigma4Less that I'm going to be shopping there again for sure...

-Matt-

[DoctorIt]

wow! Ziggy, sure hope you get a good copy next. those are some really really poor results! very un-characteristic of my Sigma EX experience.

[ziggy53]

For those who didn't follow the saga:

I returned the first copy of a Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8, EX-DG, when it couldn't focus at infinity, or at around 1.5 blocks away.

Sigma4Less just delivered the second copy tonight. First test of a street light about the same distance away look pretty good. Weather permitting, I'll be out tomorrow, testing the same sign-at-the-park setup as last round.

ziggy53

[ziggy53]

Rats, another dud lens.

I did some testing yesterday, but the sky was pretty overcast, and I didn't want to believe the results. I repeated the test today since the sky was less overcast, cloudy bright I would call it (shadows, but not distinct.)

The shot, first the new lens:

[ziggy53]

Now the old lens:

[ziggy53]

You can see an obvious contrast difference, the old lens is better.

Now a crop, notice the lack of sharpness. Look at the street sign, see the slight echo of the "D" on the left:

[ziggy53]

A crop of the stop sign really show the problem:

[ziggy53]

... and now the old lens, turn sign:

[ziggy53]

... and the old lens, stop sign.

[ziggy53]

I repeated the test 4 times to make sure it wasn't camera shake or something. The problem is repeatable and seems related to the lens. I am so disappointed, because I had such high hopes. I'm afraid this second lens must go back, and I'm running out of time for a project.

I think I'm going to have to ask for my money back, and go with the Canon 70-200mm, F2.8L. It's quite a bit more money, but I'll bet quality is not as much a problem.

Thanks,

ziggy53

[Mike Lane]

Looks like the new lens has motion blur to me. Were you using a tripod? Remote release? Hand held and if so what was the shutter speed?

I'd try again on a tripod and with a remote release to make sure you aren't causing this issue.

[ziggy53]

Mike,

Thanks, but yes, I always use a tripod for tests and a fairly fast shutter speed. I used ISO 200 for these shots. It would appear that this is an example of mis-aligned internal elements and/or internal reflections. The full settings:

File: - C:\My Documents\My Pictures\Canon\Lens_Tests\_MG_5242_smaller.jpg
Make - Canon
Model - Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
DateTime - 2006:02:02 11:04:25
WhitePoint - 0.31
PrimaryChromaticities - 0.64
YCbCrCoefficients - 0.30
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited
ExifOffset - 320
ExposureTime - 1/800 seconds
FNumber - 2.80
ExposureProgram - Aperture priority
ISOSpeedRatings - 200
ExifVersion - 220
DateTimeOriginal - 2006:02:02 11:04:25
DateTimeDigitized - 2006:02:02 11:04:25
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/800 seconds
ApertureValue - F 2.80
ExposureBiasValue - 0.67
MeteringMode - Partial
Flash - Not fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 200 mm
UserComment -
FlashPixVersion - 100
ColorSpace - Uncalibrated
ExifImageWidth - 640
ExifImageHeight - 427
InteroperabilityOffset - 9366
FocalPlaneXResolution - 3954.23
FocalPlaneYResolution - 3958.76
FocalPlaneResolutionUnit - Inch
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto
WhiteBalance - Auto
SceneCaptureType - Standard
Maker Note (Vendor): -
Macro mode - Normal
Self timer - Off
Quality - Fine
Flash mode - Not fired
Sequence mode - Continous
Focus mode - One-Shot
Image size - Large
Easy shooting mode - Manual
Digital zoom - None
Contrast - Normal
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Normal
ISO Value - 32767 (other)
Metering mode - Partial
Focus type - Auto
AF point selected -
Exposure mode - Av-priority
Focal length - 70 - 200 mm
Flash activity - Not fired
Sequence number - 0
White Balance - Auto
Image Type - Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Firmware Version - Firmware 1.0.1

[ziggy53]

I spoke to Sigma4Less yesterday and today and they will allow me to upgrade to the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L, for a very competitive price. I really like working with these folks.

ziggy53

[DoctorIt]

Ziggy, how did your final exchange go? You put a little fear in me about my own Sigma 70-200/2.8 lens, so I went out and tested it. Tripod, remote release, 100% crop:

200mm
http://doctorit.smugmug.com/photos/56068479-L.jpg

70mm
http://doctorit.smugmug.com/photos/56068465-L.jpg

Photos are noisy as heck, that's the one detail I forgot, to actually expose correctly. Duh! But still, you can see the 200mm is pretty good, like your examples from your original lens. However, a bit soft at 70mm. I think I've read in other places that the short end isn't this lens' strong point, but was curious to hear if you had comments as well based on your old Sigma.

:ear

[ziggy53]

Erik,

Try a test atf2.8 (it looks like you used f16). The problem appears mostly when wide-open and is more pronounced off-axis.

I need a lens that works at f2.8 for night and indoor sports, and for events, where I need to work from a distance, with and without flash.

It may be just a bad "batch", because the old lens, from Sigma, works so well wide open, and other folks don't seem to experience the problem.

Just to explain about the old lens, it does have problems with the dRebel XT, namely:

It occasionally locks up the camera, but no error shows.
It has a problem with autofocus in near-to-far focussing situations.
It does not work at any other f-stop than f2.8, and locks the camera with an error when tried.

I did check with Sigma, and the lens is too old to re-chip. Oh well.

To be clear, this hasn't turned me off to Sigma lenses. My 18-50mm, f2.8 is a splendid lens and super value, and I don't intend to replace it, ever. (... Unless it fails, or starts calling me names, or something. :): )

Best,

ziggy53

[ExposeTheMoment]

I went from a Sigma 70-200 2.8 older version.

to

A Canon 70-200 2.8

then to

Canon 70-200 2.8 IS and Im glad I did.

http://exposethemoment.smugmug.com/photos/56113687-M.jpg

[firedancing4life]

man...all you guys did is confuse me more. I am in the same situation...I am really interested in that sigma lens vs the canon.

[Mongrel]

well.

Until they are able to afford the 70-200 f/2.8L IS :thumb

Honestly, I can't see *any* reason to buy the non-IS Canon, or the 70-200 f/4L Canon. Yes, the Sigma, in my opinion is that good. Of course, I base that on my own experience with an older Sigma that has the unmitigated audacity to trounce every other lens I own that isn't a prime at f/2.8!

So, if the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS is out of reach, have no fear, save some cash and pickup the Sigma.

[DanielB]

I ended up going with the Canon 70-200 f/4L. From what i've seen it just delivers great out of the camera contrast and clearity to pictures...:thumb



also, it would seem i'm a bit of a Brand whore:rolleyes

[nonilady]

Go for the sigma my friend. If you can go from f4.0 to f2.8 for $100 bucks I'd jump on that. I have a Sigma lens and a Sigma flash. Top notch! Love them both.

:):

hi scott

apologies if my question is not relevant to the this topic but i am impressed with this date availability thingy,,how did u do that?? here is the link

http://www.3rdplanetphotography.com/checkavailable.aspx

hope to hear from you

thank you

nonilady

[Steve Cavigliano]

If you are talking about the difference in performance between these 3 lenses, it's pretty much splitting hairs. Despite the issues Ziggy is having with his Sigma, I've got nothing but great results from mine. Yeah, I'd like to have the ISL, if just for the sealing and the occassional benefit of IS. But, for a mid $700 lens, the Sigma really does ROCK :D

http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/57128805-L.jpg

http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/57128805-O.jpg

http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/57128764-L.jpg

http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/57128764-O.jpg

Shot at sunset. A "sweet light" shot
http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/57128811-L.jpg

http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/57128811-O.jpg

Steve

[ziggy53]

Steve,

Your images look great! You got a good copy of that lens.

FWIW, I do like the look of fleshtones better with the Sigma glass than the Canon "L", but the Canon I have, the non-IS version, is just awesome in terms of sharpness and acuity and focus speed.

It did hurt a lot to part with the extra money for the Canon. :cry

Best,

ziggy53

[Seefutlung]

i finally have enough money to buy the Canon 70-200 f/4L. now. do i go with a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, for just 100 more?! or should i go ahead and get the Canon?:dunno read many reviews on the sigma and people say its sharp as a tack. is the 2.8 really that much better for what i'll be shooting?? (football games, portraits outside, some wildlife)
Daniel

If you plan to shoot nighttime sports the F4 is useless. Get the Sigma.