Sigma 70-200 2.8 VS. Canon 70-200 4 Non IS

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by dquinn, Oct 30, 2006.

  1. dquinn

    dquinn TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay so im looking to make my first big lens purchase,
    currently im using the kit lens (18-55) and the 4-5.6 70-300 4-5.6
    both lenses underperform and i would like something better
    when i say better i mean a couple things:
    something that will better suit me for photojournalism (ill be going to college next year but i want to finish out my senior year with some great pictures)
    this winter ill be shooting a lot of swimming and basketball.. (shot all football with the 4-5.6 70-300) ..

    it wont be all for sports... some other things which the kit will do fine with... but the point of this thread is

    which lens seems really better? the L glass seems very very nice but having the 2.8 seems like it could be more worth it.
    ... i couldn't find any threads specifically comapring these two lenses but i'm hoping to learn a thing or two here

    thanks for all imput
    BTW im using a 20D with nothing but the internal flash as of now.. (probably getting one sometime soon if needed)
     
  2. Sw1tchFX

    Sw1tchFX TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    478
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    If it's not going to be sports, than I'd personally go with the Canon f/4L.
     
  3. bitteraspects

    bitteraspects TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    honolulu, hawaii
    the f/4 is more then sufficiant, and will o[FONT=&quot]utperform [/FONT] the sigma
     
  4. nakedyak

    nakedyak TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    this is a very practical discussion. When i was considering getting my lenses, this is the exact decision i had to make. the sigma lens is very popular it seems, and for the f2.8 it should be pretty nice. it was hard to pass up the appeal of the canon L lens, and even though its f4 not f2.8, it was supposed to be a very very good lens.

    i got the 70-200mm f4, and i can honestly say its my favorite lens. the lens is beautiful. the autofocus is so fast you have to use it to believe it. and its absolutely silent as well. the lens is sharp. very sharp. its extremely sharp at f4. i've used lenses that have f2.8, but its unusable because its so soft. not this lens. f4 might as well be f11. i'm sure my fellow forumers who have this lens will echo my sentiments. the lens is fantastic. its not too big or heavy, very solid and easy to use.

    i would highly recommend you get the canon 70-200mm f4 L, especially for use with the 20d. you won't be dissappointed
     
  5. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,822
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    If sports is a fair part of you shooting...the 2.8 would certainly come in handy. Also, the 20D had a centre cross focus sensor that only works when a 2.8 or faster lens is mounted.
     
  6. SaSi

    SaSi TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very tough decision to make. The Sigma 70-200/2.8 is easily a match for the Canon 70-200/2.8. Both are very sharp and the L glamour is what makes the Canon "L" lens prevail in most people's decisions.

    If I had to buy one of the two lenses you describe, I would go for the 2.8 lens. This extra stop is what will help you avoid the 1600 ISO setting on the camera in several ocasions. Also note that the Canon 70-200/4 comes WITHOUT a tripod mount, which makes shooting sports in low light impossible. You can buy an optional one, but spend another $150 on this.

    I already have the Sigma 80-400/4-5.6 and trying to use it in outdoor sports (athletics) I found myself shooting at 1600 ISO and 1/200 or lower several times. Several shots were blurred (despite the excellent performance of the OS) because the athletes had the "bad habbit" of running...

    Take the 2.8 lens you can afford now and take good shots with it. In the future, once you can afford the 70-200/2.8L IS fetish, you can buy that and sell the Sigma.

    For comparison between the two:
    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_70200_28/index.htm
    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4/index.htm
     
  7. gryphonslair99

    gryphonslair99 Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    11,443
    Likes Received:
    2,100
    Location:
    Wichita, Kansas, USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    You didn't mention the Canon 2.8 non IS. Pricer than the two you mentioned but a very good lens. IMHO of the three the Canon f4 has the sharpest glass across the range followed very closely by the 2.8. As the only sports I shoot with my 70-200 are daytime the f4 has been a great lens. For indoor (Volleyball) I am partial to my 100 f2.8 macro. Tack sharp and a fast enough lens indoors. I have never had the Sigma, but I have never heard anyone say that the Sigman optics matched the above mentioned Canon.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

70 200 non

,

canon 70-200 2.8 non is vs sigma 70-200 2.8 os

,

canon 70-200/4 is versus non is

,

sigma 70 200 os vs canon 70 200 non is

,

sigma 70-200 f2.8 os photojournalism?

,

sigma 70-200 os vs canon 70-200 non is

,

sigma basketball shots with 70-200 2.8

,

sigma vs canon