Canon "L" glass compared to Sigma...

[Crimsonandwhite]

So I am in the market for the very best lens I can get for the money. I need it to be really fast, as I will be shooting a lot of boxing events, indoors and flash is not allowed. You guys probably saw some pics from last weekend and we want to avoid 1000-1200 ISO situations from happening again.....

With that said I was looking at the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM, but I really don't want to spend $1700. Is there a sigma lens that is equal in that range that would save me a few bucks? Pro and cons and any suggestions for my situation would be apperciated....

TIA

 

[NateWagner]

The only sigma lens in that range is the 70-200 2.8 that they have (which is excellent, I actually own a copy). The only problem is that there is no OS (their version of the IS) for that lens.

On the bright side as you are more worried about stopping the action the OS doesn't really help a lot anyway, on the down side you'll probably still want some sort of monopod/tripod to bring with you. All of the fast lenses around this range get a little heavy and zoomed in to any degree get difficult to handhold at lower shutter speeds.

The other option you have, is you can get the canon 70-200 non is. This will be significantly cheaper than the IS version, but it is still canon L glass. Personally, I went with the sigma because it is highly regarded as an excellent piece of glass, and it is much more affordable than either of those canon options.

 

[Montana]

Sigma makes great glass in my opinion. There build quality is great too. They seem to let more bad lenses slip by than Canon, but if you get a bad one, (you likely won't) its a return issue is all. The only thing I find with Sigma, is that the colors seem not as vibrant, less contrast, and a tad warmer than Canon glass. This all may just be my personal experience with my 2 Sigma lenses, but its my 2 cents worth. I would not hesitate to get the Sigma 70-200 2.8 if you can live without the IS (OS).

Derrick

 

[Big Mike]

Do you need that much zoom & range? Would you be OK with say...an 85mm F1.8 and or a 50mm F1.4? Those might be better options for bad light situations.

The 70-200mm F2.8 Sigma has a great reputation, but most will also say that the Canon 70-200mm L lenses are 'super fantastic'.

Typically, the Canon L lenses are the best...and other brand's top lenses are almost as good...maybe 80% or 90% as good...but they might be half the price. So when you buy an L lens, you are paying that extra 50% for the last 10% of quality. For some it's worth it, for others it's not.

 

[keith204]

I owned the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (the one NateWagner bought from me) and currently own a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS. The only real reason I upgraded was because that's my money-maker so I wanted the best-in-class. IS is nice, but I don't need it much at all. It's more of a cool feature than a necessity.

If you're debating between the two, I figure you're on a budget. IMO you should start out with the Sigma. When Nate bought my Sigma, I think he paid $575 shipped. He can probably use it for 2 years and sell it for $500. Start out with a used Sigma, and then you can upgrade to the Canon later without much loss.

 

[Crimsonandwhite]

So you do a lot of racing stuff and you don't really need the IS? I thought IS was gods gift to photography? Seriously though....

 

[keith204]

So you do a lot of racing stuff and you don't really need the IS? I thought IS was gods gift to photography? Seriously though....

Yeah, the IS has only made me sloppy. Seriously.

About a year ago, when I started shooting races, I also joined this forum. A very wise person (Big Mike I think) said to first focus on panning technique instead of gear. That was some of the best advice I'd been given. I have been able to take a shot of a car going 100mph around a turn at 1/60th @120mm and nail it repeatedly. Of course, there was more to this... monopod hanging for center deadweight (minimizes hand shake and reduces accidental camera tilt while panning). This was a technique I found out myself when I kept tripping over my monopod trying to get around it. I upped it to get it out of my way, and was amazed by the new results .

Sorry to get sidetracked...anyway, the IS (with panning) has been nice because it allows me to nail a panning shot without trying. But, it hasn't been a necessity.

I've taken a few shots with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS w/ 2x Teleconverter. I took a few shots of my dog sitting across the room at 350-385mm 1/20th second with IS mode 1 and the pics came out sharp.

 

[Village Idiot]

So you do a lot of racing stuff and you don't really need the IS? I thought IS was gods gift to photography? Seriously though....

classifieds sections at other forums are a good place to try. You can nail a 70-200 for as low as $1450 on some days.

www.photography-on-the.net/forum