70-200mm Question

[CianOReilly]

Hi guys,

I shoot a lot of events, and also have the opportunity to shoot a lot of sports too (particularly rugby) so I want to get a 70-200mm.
Unfortunately I can't afford the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8, so that lens is completely out of the picture at the moment.

I'm trying to decide whether to get the;
Canon 70-200mm f/4
or the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8

I know that f/2.8 will be a lot better in low light situations, but I'm worried that the picture quality overall won't be anywhere near that of the Canon.

Could somebody give some opinions?

 

[robbins.photo]

Well I don't shoot canon so I can't really compare the 70-200mm F/4 to the Sigma, but I do have the Sigma 70-200 mm F/2.8 OS in the nikon mount and frankly the picture quality I've always found more than acceptable.

Heres a couple of real quick samples just to give you an idea. This first one was shot with the Sigma and a 2x Sigma teleconverter attached:


20140309_ 785 by robbins.photo, on Flickr

This was using the Sigma without a teleconverter, shot at F4:


20140216_605 by robbins.photo, on Flickr

I'm not certain what camera body your using, but if your using any crop sensor Canon the IQ on the Sigma should be more than sufficient. My Nikon D5200 has a 24 mp sensor in it and the lens keeps up with it just fine. I think one of the important things to keep in mind when reading reviews is that a lot of these reviewers shoot with top of the line full frame cameras, so of course things like vignetting are more noticeable, but for a crop sensor camera the Sigma is awfully tough to beat in it's price range. It does still work with full frame of course, but I can't really speak to how the IQ stacks up on full frame because I don't shoot one.

 

[NedM]

Research the Canon 70-250mm IS.
Great focal lengths and the lens is equipped w/ Image Stabilization.

 

[CianOReilly]

Thanks for your reply!

Have you tried shooting sports with the Sigma?
Also, what's the Bokeh like at the 200mm end shooting at 2.8?

 

[Seventen]

Have a look at the Tamron 70 - 200mm 2.8, seems some reviews and it is meant to be slightly quicker focusing than the sigma one and atleast comparing with Nikon its meant to be very slightly better than the Nikon version. It was a Matt Granger review comparing the three lenses. So maybe could hunt it down and check out the sigma and tamron from there.

 

[robbins.photo]

Thanks for your reply!

Have you tried shooting sports with the Sigma?
Also, what's the Bokeh like at the 200mm end shooting at 2.8?

Well I bought it with the idea of shooting sports with it but I got it shortly after the season ended and so I won't really be shooting sports again till later this year. I've shot some moving targets with it though and it does a great job, autofocus is fast and accurate so I have not doubt it will do great with sports.

I'll see about setting up a couple of shots tonight if I get time to demonstrate the bokeh.

 

[baturn]

I've only had mine a couple of months and haven't used it that much yet, but must echo everything robbins said about the Sigma. And now that I've seen some shots with the teleconverter, I want one.

 

[ruifo]

Consider the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD, a beast for this range with amazing price.

Here a thread about it:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...mron-70-200mm-f-2-8-sp-di-vc-usd-opinion.html

And here some samples shots:
Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD - a set on Flickr

 

[table1349]

I shoot sports and own the 70-200 f2.8L II. Nothing surpasses it for IQ quality in my experience and in price. Now with that said, one of the guys I shoot with has the Sigma. I have tried his Sigma out a few times and it is a good lens. He was in the same position that you are, the cost of the 70-200 f2.8L was out of his reach. From my experience with his lens I think that you will be surprisingly pleased with the Sigma in both IQ and focus speed. It does the job well.

 

[vimwiz]

Ive got the similar Canon 70-300 in f/4. Was only about £50 used.

All I will say is to get the IS one, not the regular one.

 

[JerryLove]

Research the Canon 70-250mm IS.
Great focal lengths and the lens is equipped w/ Image Stabilization.

I have both the Canon EF-S 70-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II and the Canon EF 70-200 f/4L, and the latter is a much better lens.

If you need IS, you need IS; but I barely ever touch the 55-250 and the 70-200 is my most-used lens.

 

[robbins.photo]

I've only had mine a couple of months and haven't used it that much yet, but must echo everything robbins said about the Sigma. And now that I've seen some shots with the teleconverter, I want one.

KEH, buy used. Only way to buy a teleconverter IMHO. I got the sigma 2x and the 1.4x both for less than what a new 1.4x alone would have cost, and they both do a great job on the 2.8.

 

[Robin Usagani]

70-200 f/4 is an awesome lens for a good price. If the rugby games are mostly during the day with a lot of light, I would use that lens. 2.8 vs 4 is only one stop difference.

 

[bratkinson]

Although it was last produced about 1995, I bought a very good condition, used, Canon 80-200 f2.8L 'magic drainpipe' about 2 years ago and absolutely love the results! I found mine on ebay from what appears to be a Japanese camera store for about $725, shipped to Massachusetts, USA. I haven't looked, but the price of the drainpipe probably dropped since the introduction of the 70-200 f2.8L ii.

In looking at the my results, I'd be willing to match the IQ with the 70-200 f2.8L i any day, and maybe even the ii. It's only 'limitation' is that it does not have IS. But hand held, shutter speed in the 1/160 and up for people photography, not a problem. It's also black...which is an advantage as I don't like to 'advertise' I have expensive glass...

 

[Steve5D]

Before I bought my 70-200mm f/2.8L, I compared it to the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8.

I remember being impressed with the image quality from the Sigma. The Canon was better, in my opinion, but there was not a single thing about the IQ from that Sigma that was unacceptable...