Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS Vs. Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO EX DG MACRO HSM lens

[rwphotography]

So, it seems like I come up with a new idea everyday and I always get an answer. Now, my curious mind went to work and wanted to know once again what others thought. Just wanted to know if the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO EX DG MACRO HSM lens would be worth purchasing or should I just get the Canon's 2.8 IS version? I was looking on craigslist and I see both for sale. Before I contact the seller's, I was wondering what everyone here thought first. :lmao:

 

[rufus5150]

I have the Sigma 70-200 and it's a great lens. That being said, it has no IS, but it's half the price of canon's flagship in that zoom range. Sigma lenses in general, and that one in particular, are known for sometimes questionable build defects and can come out of the gate either front or backfocusing. Mine works great, though.

 

[Derrel]

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

The lens premiered in 1999. Re-designs were done in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Read the conclusion here. SOme optical weakneses at the long end, and suffers from "relatively high levels of chromatic aberration." Note that they say the Tamron 70-200/2.8 has "superior optics", but that the Sigma has the superior autofocusing system.

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS-USM reviewed here Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

They did head-to-head tests of this Canon lens with the first-generation 70-200 f/2.8 VR Nikkor; see here for the conclusions on the Canon;s image quality and performance Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Review: 6. Conclusion & samples: Digital Photography Review
the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L- IS-USM is the better lens on full-frame, the Nikkor is the better lens on APS-C. I wonder if perhaps the 70-200 f/4 L-IS USM is not optimized for crop-body use, since it is the absolute newest of the several 70-200mm zooms Canon currently has. The 70-200 f/4 L-IS USM is a very,very strong performer,and I wonder if it might actually be optimized for APS-C bodies,which demand a higher-resolving lens than FF bodies require; Canon going to ultra-high MP counts APS-C bodies like 18MP with the 7D make sme wonder if perhaps their 70-200 f/4 wasn't designed with the smaller, high-density, 4-5 micro pixel pitch sensors in mind...

If you own no 70-200/2.8, the step up in performance to any maker's 70-200 2.8 is going to be a really big step up. There's always a price to be payed for the last 15-20 percent of optical and mechanical performance delivered by the $1,800 manufacturer's lens, as opposed to the 3rd party lenses that deliver 80-85-or maybe even 90 percent of the performance, but at a thousand dollars less.

I own the Canon 70-200 2.8 L-IS USM and the Nikkor 70-200 VR: I do not own the Sigma. I have shot with the 70-200 f/4 L, the pre-IS version,and it's 67mm filter size and slender barrel make it very nice and handy.

 

[Lightspeedfoto]

I just bit the bullet and grabbed the 70-200 2.8 IS from Abes of Maine. They are about 150 less than most other retailers. It's a full USA warranty copy, brand new in the box. Just like you, I had really considered the sigma for the price. The main factor for me was when I rented both lenses for about $25 each from my local shop. The sigma was a really good lens, but the canon was a GREAT lens. Pictures just seemed sharper and the bokeh was really nice.
The other factor i used was that since i planned on keeping this lens for many years, the difference in cost over time was really not that much.
Last, I believe the canon has a great resale value, as i haven't found anything on ebay for a substantial amount off of retail.
Good luck, hope it helps.

 

[rwphotography]

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

The lens premiered in 1999. Re-designs were done in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Read the conclusion here. SOme optical weakneses at the long end, and suffers from "relatively high levels of chromatic aberration." Note that they say the Tamron 70-200/2.8 has "superior optics", but that the Sigma has the superior autofocusing system.

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS-USM reviewed here Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

They did head-to-head tests of this Canon lens with the first-generation 70-200 f/2.8 VR Nikkor; see here for the conclusions on the Canon;s image quality and performance Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Review: 6. Conclusion & samples: Digital Photography Review
the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L- IS-USM is the better lens on full-frame, the Nikkor is the better lens on APS-C. I wonder if perhaps the 70-200 f/4 L-IS USM is not optimized for crop-body use, since it is the absolute newest of the several 70-200mm zooms Canon currently has. The 70-200 f/4 L-IS USM is a very,very strong performer,and I wonder if it might actually be optimized for APS-C bodies,which demand a higher-resolving lens than FF bodies require; Canon going to ultra-high MP counts APS-C bodies like 18MP with the 7D make sme wonder if perhaps their 70-200 f/4 wasn't designed with the smaller, high-density, 4-5 micro pixel pitch sensors in mind...

If you own no 70-200/2.8, the step up in performance to any maker's 70-200 2.8 is going to be a really big step up. There's always a price to be payed for the last 15-20 percent of optical and mechanical performance delivered by the $1,800 manufacturer's lens, as opposed to the 3rd party lenses that deliver 80-85-or maybe even 90 percent of the performance, but at a thousand dollars less.

I own the Canon 70-200 2.8 L-IS USM and the Nikkor 70-200 VR: I do not own the Sigma. I have shot with the 70-200 f/4 L, the pre-IS version,and it's 67mm filter size and slender barrel make it very nice and handy.

Thanks for the info. I know it's kinda you get what you pay for and i'm just exhausting all of my resources before I make this jump. This will be my first "L" lens and for the price, I just want to make sure i'm making the right decision. Thanks for the info!

I just bit the bullet and grabbed the 70-200 2.8 IS from Abes of Maine. They are about 150 less than most other retailers. It's a full USA warranty copy, brand new in the box. Just like you, I had really considered the sigma for the price. The main factor for me was when I rented both lenses for about $25 each from my local shop. The sigma was a really good lens, but the canon was a GREAT lens. Pictures just seemed sharper and the bokeh was really nice.
The other factor i used was that since i planned on keeping this lens for many years, the difference in cost over time was really not that much.
Last, I believe the canon has a great resale value, as i haven't found anything on ebay for a substantial amount off of retail.
Good luck, hope it helps.

I went to their website, and even with an extra cost of overnight shipping, it is less than any other website I've been too! :thumbup: Thanks for sharing the info. I'm still going to do my research and see how more people feel and after i've done my research if I choose the Canon's L, i'll be sure to order it here. Thanks! :lmao:

 

[Village Idiot]

Thanks for the info. I know it's kinda you get what you pay for and i'm just exhausting all of my resources before I make this jump. This will be my first "L" lens and for the price, I just want to make sure i'm making the right decision. Thanks for the info!

I just bit the bullet and grabbed the 70-200 2.8 IS from Abes of Maine. They are about 150 less than most other retailers. It's a full USA warranty copy, brand new in the box. Just like you, I had really considered the sigma for the price. The main factor for me was when I rented both lenses for about $25 each from my local shop. The sigma was a really good lens, but the canon was a GREAT lens. Pictures just seemed sharper and the bokeh was really nice.
The other factor i used was that since i planned on keeping this lens for many years, the difference in cost over time was really not that much.
Last, I believe the canon has a great resale value, as i haven't found anything on ebay for a substantial amount off of retail.
Good luck, hope it helps.

I went to their website, and even with an extra cost of overnight shipping, it is less than any other website I've been too! :thumbup: Thanks for sharing the info. I'm still going to do my research and see how more people feel and after i've done my research if I choose the Canon's L, i'll be sure to order it here. Thanks! :lmao:

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is worth it. I've used that, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, and the Canon 70-200 f/4. If you're going to spend the money, go ahead and do it so down the road you're not wanting to sell for a loss and buy the better lens.

I think they've sold for as low as $1475 with the Canon rebates. If you buy used, I've seen them go for around $1250. MSRP usually means jack when you're browsing photo equipment.

 

[Dao]

Check out this comparison here (Tamron vs Canon vs Sigma 70-200mm & 100-400mm L)

Juza Nature Photography

 

[Error]

They are both good lenses but...
I never liked Sigma's rubbery finish... it's impossible to keep clean and it doesn't last very long.

 

[rwphotography]

Thanks for the info. I know it's kinda you get what you pay for and i'm just exhausting all of my resources before I make this jump. This will be my first "L" lens and for the price, I just want to make sure i'm making the right decision. Thanks for the info!

I just bit the bullet and grabbed the 70-200 2.8 IS from Abes of Maine. They are about 150 less than most other retailers. It's a full USA warranty copy, brand new in the box. Just like you, I had really considered the sigma for the price. The main factor for me was when I rented both lenses for about $25 each from my local shop. The sigma was a really good lens, but the canon was a GREAT lens. Pictures just seemed sharper and the bokeh was really nice.
The other factor i used was that since i planned on keeping this lens for many years, the difference in cost over time was really not that much.
Last, I believe the canon has a great resale value, as i haven't found anything on ebay for a substantial amount off of retail.
Good luck, hope it helps.

I went to their website, and even with an extra cost of overnight shipping, it is less than any other website I've been too! :thumbup: Thanks for sharing the info. I'm still going to do my research and see how more people feel and after i've done my research if I choose the Canon's L, i'll be sure to order it here. Thanks! :lmao:

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is worth it. I've used that, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, and the Canon 70-200 f/4. If you're going to spend the money, go ahead and do it so down the road you're not wanting to sell for a loss and buy the better lens.

I think they've sold for as low as $1475 with the Canon rebates. If you buy used, I've seen them go for around $1250. MSRP usually means jack when you're browsing photo equipment.

Yeah I know Canon had rebates on the lens earlier this year, but I havent been able to find ANYTHING as far as rebates now. I think what i'm hesitant about is why are people comparing two lenses and they are almost $1,000 in price difference?

 

[Big Mike]

For me, it came down to knowing that the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS, was the best lens. I could have saved a lot going with one of the lesser Canon models, or a Sigma/Tamron...but I knew there would come a time (probably many times) when I would regret it and wish that I had spent the money on the best lens.

 

[Village Idiot]

Thanks for the info. I know it's kinda you get what you pay for and i'm just exhausting all of my resources before I make this jump. This will be my first "L" lens and for the price, I just want to make sure i'm making the right decision. Thanks for the info!




I went to their website, and even with an extra cost of overnight shipping, it is less than any other website I've been too! :thumbup: Thanks for sharing the info. I'm still going to do my research and see how more people feel and after i've done my research if I choose the Canon's L, i'll be sure to order it here. Thanks! :lmao:

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is worth it. I've used that, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, and the Canon 70-200 f/4. If you're going to spend the money, go ahead and do it so down the road you're not wanting to sell for a loss and buy the better lens.

I think they've sold for as low as $1475 with the Canon rebates. If you buy used, I've seen them go for around $1250. MSRP usually means jack when you're browsing photo equipment.

Yeah I know Canon had rebates on the lens earlier this year, but I havent been able to find ANYTHING as far as rebates now. I think what i'm hesitant about is why are people comparing two lenses and they are almost $1,000 in price difference?

I was just screwing around one day at a shoot and I took a photo at 1/15 and 70mm of one of the models who was posing for another photographey. I got relatively little blur from camera shake because of the IS. This was on a crop body with stabilization.

That's why I own a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS vs. any other 70-200 lens.