Sigma 70-200 2.8 vs Canon 70-200 f/4L

benstewart · Jan 29, 2007

I am about to take the dive. As I stated previously, I started an internship with a local newspaper, but they do not provide gear for me and the pro I follow shoots Nikon while I shoot a Canon Digital Rebel XT.

What I shoot:
Indoor hockey with decent light. I shot with a Tamron 28-300, mostly with a 4-5.6 aperture and after some color adjustment, they look fine - I just needed a faster shutter speed. Nothing pro here. Middle school, high school sports tops.

Indoor events with better light. I plan on purchasing an addition wide angle too.

I shoot with a monopod and have steady hands. No IS necessary.

Which of these two, unless you want to suggest MORE, which I would be happy too look at, would be better for a college student with a part-time job.

http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;...ofocus+Lens+for+Canon+EOS+=28SG70200F28DCA=29
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=183198&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

I'm not sure where to find the Canon.

Sw1tchFX · Jan 29, 2007

I have never used the Sigma, but have had the opportunity to shoot with the 70-200 f/4L. It’s not as big of a lens as you might think, so it feels OK on a Rebel instead of excruciating like a 70-200 f/2.8L would if you’ve got big hands. It would be much better balanced on a D30/60 or 10/20/30D, but oh well. The images off the Rebel were very good (of course). I was a bit disappointed with the clarity at f/4, my Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 is much sharper at f/2.8 than the L is at 4. I think it could have been the sample though. Because it’s a school lens, so it’s seen better days. It handles real nice, the zoom ring on the one I tried felt way to loose for my tastes, but at least it was smooth. The SWM on it is pretty quick and should do continuous shooting pretty well for sports on a Rebel. I’d go to a local pro shop, use both, look at the full size images on one of their computers and make your decision there. Almost all pro supply shops that I’ve been to have the same prices as B&H w/o shipping costs, so don’t be afraid to buy one there.

Azuth · Jan 29, 2007

I have the Sigma 2.8 and am happy with it. Couldn't justify the price and need maximum versatility with lighting conditions. Would have had a the Canon 2.8L IS if I won lotto.

steve817 · Jan 29, 2007

The f/4 is much lighter but the extra stop in speed on the 2.8 comes in handy more often than one may think.

usayit · Jan 29, 2007

College student with a part time job? Go with the cheapest lens ( Canon ) since you also said you normally shoot between f4-5.6. You can't go wrong as both are fine lenses. After you graduate, sell it and go over the edge and get that Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM or whatever is the rage of the time.

When I was a college student with a full time job, I borrowed my father's camera for 5 years and borrowed as much stuff as I can. I was perfectly fine.. afterall I was (and still not) a pro.

benstewart · Jan 29, 2007

usayit: Which college did you attend?

By the way, I would work full-time, but I am also a commuter, thus no time.

Thanks for your advice everyone. My hockey shots at f/4 turned out pretty good.

Big Mike · Jan 29, 2007

From what I've heard...the Canon 70-200 F4 L is on of the best performing (sharpness, contrast etc.) zoom lenses avaliable...many say it's sharper than the F2.8 version.

Of course, it's obvious that F2.8 is better than F4 when shooting sports, especially indoor sports.

One thing to consider, is that you can always turn up the ISO of the camera, to increase the shutter speed. Sure that will give you more noise...but if you work out a good noise reduction workflow (Neat Image or Noise Ninja etc.)...then you can probably get by with using ISO 800 all the time.

benstewart · Jan 29, 2007

Thanks, Mike.

I actually shot some outdoor, partially lit sports two nights last week. I froze my #@$ off, but shot at 1600 with some seriously nice results. Unfortunately, the Tamron is certainly not built like a Canon tank.

Of course, I have the flash for indoor moments when no one cares about being temporarily blinded.

SaSi · Jan 29, 2007

The question basically becomes 2.8 or 4? The Canon is certainly sharper than the Sigma (it's even sharper than most Canon L telephotos).

I would suggest you give a look at the EF-200/2.8 prime. It is cheaper than both lenses you mention, sharper than the Sigma and equal to the 70-200/4, will give you your 200mm reach, will give you your extra f stop and will even give you 320 or 400mm with an extender. The Canon 1.4x won't really hurt it's sharpness and with the 2x extender it will become a 400/5.6 with good performance.

I guess it all depends on how well you are geared bellow 200mm

usayit · Jan 29, 2007

benstewart said:
usayit: Which college did you attend?

By the way, I would work full-time, but I am also a commuter, thus no time.

Thanks for your advice everyone. My hockey shots at f/4 turned out pretty good.

I am a Texas Aggie... Worked full time as an engineer in Dallas every other semester. When at school, I also worked full time in the computer lab and kept a full load of classes. The idea was to graduate with zero debt.

benstewart · Jan 30, 2007

Sigma won.

sothoth · Jan 31, 2007

benstewart said:
Sigma won.

2.8 or 4? I'm pondering this question myself right now. What tipped the scales for you? How heavy is the Sigma?

Thanks!

benstewart · Jan 31, 2007

2.8

I got a slightly older one that also has excellent reviews.

The scale tipped was price. I don't mind carrying around a bit of weight if that weight will get me very nice shots and enable me to shoot in places I couldn't before.

sothoth · Jan 31, 2007

benstewart said:
2.8

I got a slightly older one that also has excellent reviews.

The scale tipped was price. I don't mind carrying around a bit of weight if that weight will get me very nice shots and enable me to shoot in places I couldn't before.

How old was it, and if you don't mind sharing, what did you have to pay for it? I really like Sigma lenses, although they get panned occasionally for bad QC, all of mine have performed wonderfully and the price is much nicer than Canon's branded stuff, of course.

benstewart · Jan 31, 2007

According to http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/reviews/sigma70210a.htm
it weighs about three pounds - will probably arrive Friday.

I paid 365 shipped. The lens looks to be in excellent condition. If for any reason I change my mind, I may contact you.

The only reason I can think of for not loving the lens is that I have a lot of weight to carry. A backpack with a laptop, Rebel XT, and a lens is not light.