SIGMA 70-200 2.8 vs Canon 70-200 2.8 IS

[sinjans]

What does everyone think of these two lenses? Is Canon worth the price? Pros an cons pawleeze. I have been dying for the canon for a while now and wondering will i stay pleased with the sigma.

 

[Dao]

It is hard to say if it worth the price or not since it varies from person to person. However, you can take a look at this article which compares the Canon with the Sigma and the Tamron version.

Juza Nature Photography

 

[Overread]

This review might interest you:
Juza Nature Photography

The big part I notice is that the Sigma has no OS (optical stabalization - IS in canon talk) which can be well worth having for when your shooting at the 200mm end and in less than ideal lighting whilst handholding.

I also have a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L but I never compared it to a sigma 70-200mm f2.8

Edit - Darn it Dao!!!!!!!

 

[sinjans]

Well i did not realize that there was no OS. Cheers

 

[Dao]

Edit - Darn it Dao!!!!!!!

kee kee kee kee kee :mrgreen:

 

[Dao]

I think it really comes down to the cost of the lens and whether you are going to use it a lot of time.

I look at the photos I took in the past, most of them were taken with focal length shorter than 100mm. Occasionally, I will use my EF 70-300mm IS lens especially when I went to the zoo. But I really do not use the longer range telephoto lens enough to justify the cost of a 70-200mm IS lens.

But of course, your miles may vary.

 

[rufus5150]

For its price point, the sigma 70-200 is an excellent lens in both construction and optical ability. I use it professionally for everything from sports to portraits and it's capable.

It's not an 2.8 L-IS, it's about 85-90% of the L non-IS in terms of IQ.

It's also very heavy, but so is the 2.8L IS.

 

[chip]

I would get the Canon with IS. For a telephone zoom IS is handy to have! If you can't afford the 2.8L get the 4.0L, either way with IS. Canon is having a rebate until Jan 15th. $150 instant rebate for the 70-200 2.8L IS and $75 rebate for the 70-200 4.0L IS.

 

[sinjans]

Yeah i would'nt have bothered starting this thread if i knew the sigma would'nt stabilize images. I guess now its between the canon 2.8 vs 4.0 both with IS. Man i need more money

 

[Big Mike]

It's not an 2.8 L-IS, it's about 85-90% of the L non-IS in terms of IQ.

That's what I usually say about the top Sigma/Tamron lenses. They are 85-90% as good as the similar Canon/Nikon lenses...but at half the price.
So is that extra 10-15% in quality, worth the extra cost? To some people yes, to others it's not.
A lot of it is just the mental aspect of knowing that you have the best one which means you don't have to wonder if you could have gotten a better shot, if only you had bought the better lens.
That was, at least, part of my justification for getting the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS.

 

[sinjans]

It's not an 2.8 L-IS, it's about 85-90% of the L non-IS in terms of IQ.

That's what I usually say about the top Sigma/Tamron lenses. They are 85-90% as good as the similar Canon/Nikon lenses...but at half the price.
So is that extra 10-15% in quality, worth the extra cost? To some people yes, to others it's not.
A lot of it is just the mental aspect of knowing that you have the best one which means you don't have to wonder if you could have gotten a better shot, if only you had bought the better lens.
That was, at least, part of my justification for getting the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS.

I like that Big Mike. Right on the money